S78 PACE ESSAY

All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: Allan v UK , Texheira v Portugal Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it. Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate?

All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates. A v Secretary of State for Home Department is a landmark principled stance although not on s78 , it does illustrate the increasingly jurisprudential reasoning of the House of Lords also shown in Looseley []. Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities.

Find a textbook Find your local rep.

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

Reliability of evidence does provide a coherent thread in the cases- usually s7 admissibility not exclusion — see Chalkley [], Khan [] — but this is a pragmatic not a principled stance. Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach.

s78 pace essay

See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. A v Secretary of State for Home Department is a landmark principled stance although not on s78it does illustrate the increasingly jurisprudential reasoning of the House of Lords also shown in Looseley [].

Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. You will need to be familiar with the leading cases and also with academic comment, most of which has been critical of an overly cautious stance of the judiciary.

  LANCIA THESIS U YWANE TEST

There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s The comment invites you to review the case law on exclusion of evidence under s78 PACE and analyse the judgments to see if you derive a coherent set of principles.

s78 pace essay

Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect. Apart from confessions, there are few cases where s78 has been applied to exclude evidence and thus, although the courts accept the principle that s78 may exclude entrapment evidence, for example, it is rarely applied.

Also the test set out e.

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The test was fairness to the proceedings.

s78 pace essay

Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions.

Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for esday police transgressions. Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities.

  KIZ UNI ULM DISSERTATION DRUCKEN

On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled esssy on s The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates. Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to esasy Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: In Looseley pce the House of Lords acknowledged the importance of both the protective principle and the eseay to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice process.

All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: The scope of the question: Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: Chapter 4 ‘Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers the court to exclude prosecution evidence if its admission “would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it”.

The evidence exists and it might defy pacee sense to exclude it. In Shannon [] the court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8.

However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion. Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate.