Discretion and Security: Excluding Evidence under Section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

1990 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.J.W. Allen
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Rule Of Thumb ◽  
The Common ◽  
Political Compromise ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
The Way

Among rules of law Karl Llewellyn noted at one extreme the “rule-of-thumb, in which the flat result is articulated, leaving behind and unexpressed all indication of its reason”. At the other extreme was “the way of principle, in which the reason is clearly and effectively articulated, and that articulation is made part of the very rule”. The vice of principle, he observed, “can be a vaporish vagueness, and the techniques of its effective formulation are not easy to isolate for communication and use”. Partly for this reason, partly perhaps because of its origin in a last-minute political compromise, section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at first confounded attempts to predict the manner of its application. One commentary suggested that it was “of no practical use”; there were dicta in the Court of Appeal to the effect that it did “no more than to re-state the power which judges had at common law before the Act of 1984 was passed”. A leading work on the law of evidence expressed the view that the sub-section was “cast in terms of such vagueness and generality as to furnish little guidance to the court”. There has been some development since those early days. It now seems clear that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is to be regarded as a codifying Act which has to be looked at on its own wording. Section 78(1), therefore, does not merely re-state the position at common law. It is also clear that in its operation it overlaps section 76 and, through section 82(3), some of the common law. Section 78(1) may be applied in a variety of situations, with or without the presence of some element of impropriety in the way in which the evidence was obtained. Basic questions about its operation nevertheless remain.

• Lord Bridge says that Kerr LJ (in the Court of Appeal) in finding for the seller had in fact misinterpreted what Lord Fraser had said about The Canada Steamship v R [1952] 1 All ER 303 in the Ailsa Craig case! This is an excellent paragraph for demonstrating the way in which judges argue about other cases, following, distinguishing, overruling or stating the precedent or a case erroneously. • Lord Bridge decides the common law point in favour of the sellers in agreement with Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal. • Lord Bridge turns to discuss the ‘statutory’ issue. We now begin to understand the reference to ‘the Act’ in issue (2) as set out by Lord Bridge at Appendix 1, p 310, para 2. • The modified s 55 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is set out. • The Sale of Goods Act 1979 was a statute that was pure consolidation. (This means that it merely collected together the existing law and put it in one place.) • Modified s 55 preserves the law between 18 May 1973 (the date that the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act came into force) and 1 February 1977 (the date that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 came into force). • Section 55, sub-ss (1), (4), (5) and (9) are set out. Students need to study s 55 carefully to ensure that they understand what it is providing for and that they can follow the discussion of it by Lord Bridge. So, let us stop here for a moment… for a statutory diversion.

2012 ◽  
pp. 105-105
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
The Way

scholarly journals EXTRA-CURIAL STATEMENTS BY A NON- TESTIFYING CO-ACCUSED, THE CANADIAN SUPREME COURT AND CHANGE IN SOUTH AFRICA

Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
BC Naudé
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In S v Ndhlovu (2002 (2) SACR 325 (SCA)), the court opened the door to the admissibility of extra-curial statements made by a non-testifying accused against a co-accused as hearsay in terms of section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988), if the interests of justice so require. However, first the Supreme Court of Appeal and later the Constitutional Court rejected such an approach.It is beyond the scope of this comment to repeat the arguments in favour of a discretionary approach for such statements, but it is submitted that there is scope for disagreement with the findings of both courts.Whitear points out that the provisions dealing with the admissibility of hearsay in the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) were not declared unconstitutional by any court. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) could not be used to admit the extra-curial statement of an accused against his co- accused because the interests of justice would never allow this. The Constitutional Court found that section 3 did not override the common-law rule prohibiting the admission of extra-curial statements against a co- accused since this would amount to unfair discrimination against an accused implicated by such admissions or confessions. Significantly, because it is stated in section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) that section 3 is subject to the “provisions of any other law”, the court decided that the common-law prohibition should prevail.Previously, however, the Supreme Court of Appeal has held that the “other laws” referred to in the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) are alternative ways for admitting hearsay, and do not preclude the admissibility of hearsay in terms of section 3, even where there is another law that prohibits it. The court also referred with approval to S v Ndhlovu (supra) where it was explained that the very purpose of section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act (45 of 1988) was to “supersede the excessive rigidity and inflexibility – and occasional absurdity – of the common law position” by allowing for the admission of hearsay when the interests of justice so require. The admissibility of out-of-court statements by an accused against a co- accused is also dealt with differently in the United Kingdom (our relevant common law) today. Section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 makes it possible to admit the out-of-court statement of an accused against a co-accused as hearsay. However, the court in R v Y (supra par 57−62) did mention that this does not mean such statements should routinely be admitted without a consideration of the relevant factors mentioned in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 and that, in the majority of cases, it will not be in the interests of justice to admit such statements, especially those made during police interviews.Even though, under South African law, it is not currently possible to present evidence of an extra-curial statement made by an accused that also implicates a co-accused, the recent judgment by the Canadian Supreme Court in R v Bradshaw (2017 SCC 35) provides insight into how this could possibly happen in future. It is thus useful to consider the Supreme Court’s decision.

Voices of Spectators and Audience Power

Pólemos ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Biet
Keyword(s):  
Social Relationship ◽  
The Other ◽  
Long Period ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common ◽  
Dramatic Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Voice ◽  
The Way

AbstractTheatre and law are not so different. Generally, researchers work on the art of theatre, the rhetoric of the actors, or the dramaturgy built from law cases or from the questions that the law does not completely resolve. Trials, tragedies, even comedies are close: everybody can see the interpenetration of them on stage and in the courts. We know that, and we know that the dramas are made with/from/of law, we know that the art the actors are developing is not so far from the art of the lawyers, and conversely. In this paper, I would like to have a look at the action of the audience, at the session itself and at the way the spectators are here to evaluate and judge not only the dramatic action, not only the art of the actors, not only the text of the author, but also the other spectators, and themselves too. In particular, I will focus on the “common judgment” of the audience and on its judicial, aesthetic and social relationship. The spectators have been undisciplined, noisy, unruled, during such a long period that theatre still retains some prints of this behaviour, even if nowadays, the social and aesthetic rule is to be silent. But uncertainty, inattention, distraction, contradiction, heterogeneity are the notions which characterise the session, and the judgments of the spectators still depend on them. So, what was and what is the voice of the audience? And with what sort of voice do spectators give their judgments?

Defaming the Dead

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Herzog
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Dead Person ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Dead ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Way

If you defame the dead, even someone who recently died, tort law does not think that’s an injury: not to the grieving survivors and not to the dead person. This book argues that defamation is an injury to the recently dead. It explores history, including the shaping of the common law, and offers an account of posthumous harm and wrong. Along the way, it offers a sustained exploration of how we and the law think about corpse desecration.

Reforming the Law of Evidence in Nigeria

2000 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 128-129
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Evidence

The Nigerian Law Reform Commission has recently published a Report on the Reform of the Evidence Act. This was in response to a government directive to “review and reform our Evidence Act to ensure that its application more effectively facilitates the dispensation of justice in our courts”. The Report notes that the Evidence Ordinance was based on Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence and on the common law of England as it was in 1943. Understandably, the Report recognizes that the law of evidence had become outdated, especially in view of technological advances. As it notes:

The Right to Indemnity between Master and Servant

1956 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Jolowicz
Keyword(s):  
Cold Storage ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Married Women ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The proposition that a master, who has become liable for an injury caused by a servant acting in the course of his employment, can recover an indemnity from the servant is one which has been stated on a number of occasions, but until the recent case of Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Lister no clear authority could be cited in support. It is true that the master's rights against his servant have been canvassed in at least three modern cases, but in all of them the common law position has been obscured by the application of the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935. In Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. v. Lister, however, by what those interested in legal principle can only regard as a happy chance, it was necessary for the Court of Appeal to deal with the matter independently of the Act.

scholarly journals Liability for Manslaughter by Omission: Don't Let the Baby Drown!

2010 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Elliott
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
The Other ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

By removing the common law rules on a duty to act from liability for manslaughter by omission, the law would more accurately reflect the intention of the House of Lords in R v Adomako (1995). The current duplicitous requirement of both a duty to act and a duty of care appears to be confusing both the trial judge and the jury. The causing of a harm by an omission does not automatically mean the conduct was less morally reprehensible than where harm is caused by an act and this reform would therefore potentially bring the law more closely into line with society's moral values. The law would be rendered clearer and simpler and injustices would be avoided due to the other requirements of the Law Commission's proposed offence of killing by gross carelessness, including causation and gross carelessness. Through this reform justice could at last be offered should a stranger choose to walk by a drowning baby.

Figure 4.14: the two issues as set out by Lord Bridge—issue 2 As can be seen, a number of matters needing to be clarified arise from the mere identification of two issues. Note that Bridge gives the two issues a short-hand label: (1) the common law issue; and (2) the statutory issue. However, students often read and re-read without appreciating how to move from lack of understanding towards understanding. They do not notice how words can be clarified by an appreciation of the intertextual links and which words or phrases could be clarified by recourse to textbooks in the area. Again the two issues are found in a paragraph of Lord Bridge’s judgment. Reading carefully paragraphs in the immediate vicinity can assist in understanding. The responsibility of the reader is to read with understanding, therefore stopping to clarify points along the way. It is useful here to ensure that the procedural history of this case is understood. This will enable the student to obtain an appreciation of the differences in opinion by the various judges who have considered the case before its arrival in the House of Lords. Lord Bridge discusses the procedural history and it is set out in the headnote. The case was won by the plaintiffs (the buyers) in the trial court (the High Court) and the defendants (the sellers) appealed to the Court of Appeal, where

2012 ◽  
pp. 99-99
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
Short Hand ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
The Way

Mistake

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hein Kötz
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
European Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

This chapter examines how the law deals with contracts that a party entered into by mistake. After a brief discussion of the historical background of the rules in the civil law and the common law, the question is raised whether there is a relevant mistake if a party’s ‘motive’ for entering into the contract turns out to be incorrect, if the party’s mistake refers to the value of what it promised or was to receive under the contract, or if the party’s mistake is due to its carelessness. Should the relevance of a mistake not depend on whether it was caused or shared by the other party? Finally, the chapter outlines some common threads in the development of a European law on mistake.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document