S78 PACE ESSAY

Find a textbook Find your local rep. The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it. Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly important factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates. However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion. 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.

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. There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion. Find a textbook Find your local rep. 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. All subjects Law Evidence Learn about:

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

s78 pace essay

The legitimacy of the proceedings appears to be an increasingly pac factor in deciding on admissibility as Looseley demonstrates. 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.

Chapter 4: 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”. Ashworth for examples stresses the importance of protecting constitutional rights — citing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

  KUMULATIVE DISSERTATION FU BERLIN VETERINÄRMEDIZIN

Although the doctrine of abuse of process see Looseley [] has operated more robustly than s78 to safeguard a principled approach. However so far there has been little inclination to elucidate the principles which should govern the exercise of this discretion. All subjects Law Evidence Learn about: 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 scope of the question: 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.

Arguments to suggest the statement is no longer valid: Resources Multiple essay 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 of principles.

The evidence exists and it might defy common sense to exclude it. The test was fairness to the proceedings. Others, however, call for the application of the principled approach which is suggested in the question. essag

s78 pace essay

Your introduction should stress the importance of the HRA and the subsequent more jurisprudential approach. Not also the more robust approach to exclusion of evidence in the Strasbourg jurisprudence, see for example R v Allan v UK Note finally that judicial discretion cannot override parliamentary provisions which give increased powers to investigative authorities.

On the other hand there is evidence to suggest that the courts have increasingly adopted a principled stance on s Looseley [] has demonstrated the close link between abuse of process and s78 essqy of exclusion.

  OSTEOPOROSIS CASE STUDY MARISSA JEREMY AND ELEANOR

Oxford University Press | Online Resource Centre | Chapter 4

The Court rejected the argument that it would be unlawful not to exclude evidence obtained in breach of Art 8. The case law suggests deterrence is not a recognised principle — see Mason — although eszay may have that indirect effect. 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.

Evidence Concentrate 4e Chapter 4: There had been a breach of Art 8 but the judge had not erred in refusing to exclude evidence under s 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 pacs 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 Eessay []. Some academic commentators acknowledge that a blanket exclusionary practice would not be appropriate.

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 esay, for example, it is rarely applied.

s78 pace essay

Arguments to suggest the statement is still valid: Allan v UKTexheira v Portugal In Shannon [] fssay court applied the test of the violation of a Convention right as one of the criteria for exclusion. Also the test set out e.