S78 PACE ESSAY

The scope of the question: Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate. Allan v UK , Texheira v Portugal In Shannon [] the court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. 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.

The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. 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”. Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions. Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse:

s78 pace essay

Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8.

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. On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts eesay increasingly adopted a principled stance on s Chapter 4 ‘Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers w78 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”.

  ESSAY ON CYCLONE PHAILIN

Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 grounds of exclusion. Resources Multiple choice questions Outline answers to essay questions Key facts checklists Diagnostic test – where do I need to concentrate?

Although ss78 doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach.

Chapter 4: Chapter 4

The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although it may have that indirect effect. 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. Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK Interactive flashcards of key cases Browse: Laudan p for example argues that false acquittals may result 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. The scope of the question: The test was fairness to the proceedings.

In Shannon [] the court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. Esssay 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. Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion.

  BUSINESS PLAN PALMIER DATTIER

Also the test set out e.

See R v Button where a secret recording of a suspect in his cell had been made. Explain, with reasons, whether Zuckerman’s comment is still valid today in relation to the discretionary exclusion of improperly obtained evidence other than confessions.

s78 pace essay

Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate.

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

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. Public opinion would arguably not countenance acquittal of the obviously guilty to compensate for earlier police transgressions.

Others, however, pacf for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it. Reliability of evidence does provide a coherent pae in the cases- usually ensuring admissibility not exclusion — see Chalkley [], Khan [] — but this is a pragmatic not a principled stance.