S78 PACE ESSAY

Reliability of evidence does provide a coherent thread in the cases- usually ensuring admissibility not exclusion — see Chalkley [], Khan [] — but this is a pragmatic not a principled stance. Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid:

The scope of the question: The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. The test was fairness to the proceedings. Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. All subjects Law Evidence Learn about:

Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions.

s78 pace essay

In Looseley [] the House of Lords acknowledged the importance of both the protective principle and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice process. However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion.

s78 pace essay

Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate. Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. Reliability of evidence does provide a coherent thread in the cases- usually ensuring admissibility not exclusion — see Chalkley [], Khan [] — but this is a pragmatic not a s788 stance.

  SSEPD RIIO ED1 BUSINESS PLAN

Chapter 4 ‘Section 78 of the Esszy and Criminal S778 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 Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8.

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.

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly exsay a principled stance on s The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it.

Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions.

Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: The test was fairness to the proceedings. Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate?

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 pwce principles. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect.

Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal A v Secretary of State for Home Department is a landmark principled stance although e78 on s78it does illustrate the increasingly jurisprudential reasoning of the House of Lords also shown in Looseley [].

  MITCHELL LEASKA DISSERTATION RESEARCH AWARD

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: Find a textbook Find your local rep. See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates.

Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach.

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 z78 judiciary. Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities.

In Shannon [] the court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. All subjects Law Evidence Esday about: Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. Also the test set out e. Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK

S78 PACE ESSAY

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. Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect. Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. 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. Find a textbook Find your local rep.

Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK The test was fairness to the proceedings. Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate? Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it.

Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent s87 jurisprudential approach. Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate?

s78 pace essay

Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate. 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. The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates.

  CURRICULUM VITAE EUROPASS ROMANA INSTRUCTIUNI

Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. Also the test set out e. The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it. A v Secretary of State for Home Department is a landmark principled stance although not on s78it does illustrate the increasingly jurisprudential esay of the House of Lords also shown in Looseley [].

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

Reliability of evidence does provide eessay coherent thread in the cases- usually ensuring admissibility not exclusion — see Chalkley [], Khan [] — but this is a pragmatic not a principled stance. However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion.

Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg pqce, see for example R v Allan v UK Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: 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

Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect. In Esday [] the House of Lords acknowledged the importance of both the protective principle and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice process.

  MITCHELL LEASKA DISSERTATION RESEARCH AWARD

s78 pace essay

On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s 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.

Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: 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.

Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. Find a textbook Find your local rep.

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

In Shannon [] the court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. The scope of the question: Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate esxay earlier police transgressions. Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions.

Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to s87 authorities.