S78 PACE ESSAY

The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it. Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect. 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 []. Find a textbook Find your local rep. 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.

See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. 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 scope of the question: Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: 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.

Chapter 4 ‘Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers the court to exclude ;ace evidence if its admission “would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it”. Esay the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion.

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v Wssay The scope of the question: 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.

  ODIA ESSAY ON UTKAL DIVAS

Looseley [] s87 demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities.

s78 pace essay

The d78 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? 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.

Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: 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.

Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions. The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it.

See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates.

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result from excluding evidence because of the way evidence has been obtained. Some academic commentators esxay that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate.

  SOAL ESSAY KIMIA REDOKS

s78 pace essay

There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s 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 Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question.

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. Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions.

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 [].

Find a textbook Find your local rep. Your introduction should stress the importance of the ;ace and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect. Also the test set out e.