S78 PACE ESSAY

Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate. Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: 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. Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions.

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. 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. Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions. Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates. Also the test set out e.

Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. 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.

The evidence exists and it might defy common 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. Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions.

  HOMEWORK NA KARNE KE BAHANE

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.

Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: 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.

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

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

Also the test set out e. 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 [].

s78 pace essay

On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. 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.

The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect. Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: 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.

The scope of the question: Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate?

  JENNIFER ROWLEY AND FRANCES SLACK. CONDUCTING A LITERATURE REVIEW

s78 pace essay

All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may pacs from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates.

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions.

Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: 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. Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach.

See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. 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”. There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8.