6. Challenging Unlawfully and Unfairly Obtained Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 100-115
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter examines the court’s powers to exclude unlawfully or unfairly obtained prosecution evidence by examining the position in relation to confession evidence excluded under ss. 76 and 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984; and other prosecution evidence excluded at common law, under s. 78 PACE 1984, and as an abuse of process.

2021 ◽  
pp. 136571272110022
Author(s):  
Jennifer Porter

The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter examines the court’s powers to exclude unlawfully or unfairly obtained prosecution evidence by examining the position in relation to confession evidence excluded under ss. 76 and 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984; and other prosecution evidence excluded at common law, under s. 78 PACE 1984, and as an abuse of process.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter examines the court’s powers to exclude unlawfully or unfairly obtained prosecution evidence by examining the position in relation to confession evidence excluded under ss. 76 and 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984; and other prosecution evidence excluded at common law, under s. 78 PACE 1984, and as an abuse of process.


2019 ◽  
pp. 61-78
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

This chapter focuses on evidence that is relevant but improperly obtained and thus may be excluded by judicial discretion. It looks at the exclusionary discretion contained within section 78 of the UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and explains how common law and statutory exclusionary discretion may be exercised in relation to other areas of evidence, such as character evidence and hearsay evidence, other than confessions. The chapter also looks at the most common areas of exclusion, other than confession evidence, including breach or evasion of legislation such as PACE and the Codes of Practice. It also reviews when a stay of prosecution might be the appropriate procedure. Finally, it discusses the relevant principles of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that are enshrined in section 78 of PACE.


Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

This chapter focuses on confessions and on the defendant’s pre-trial silence. It explains how a defendant may be convicted on the evidence of a confession alone. It analyses the definition of a confession as specified in section 82(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and how a confession proffered by the prosecution or by a co-defendant may be excluded by rule under PACE. The chapter also considers the preservation of the common law discretion to exclude confession evidence as well as the procedure for police interrogation of suspects under PACE. It concludes with an examination of how the jury at trial may draw an inference of guilt under sections 34, 36, and 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter examines the court’s powers to exclude unlawfully or unfairly obtained prosecution evidence by examining the position in relation to confession evidence excluded under ss. 76 and 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984; and other prosecution evidence excluded at common law, under s. 78 PACE 1984, and as an abuse of process.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter examines the court’s powers to exclude unlawfully or unfairly obtained prosecution evidence by examining the position in relation to confession evidence excluded under ss. 76 and 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984; and other prosecution evidence excluded at common law, under s. 78 PACE 1984, and as an abuse of process.


Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford

This chapter examines the court’s powers to exclude unlawfully or unfairly obtained prosecution evidence by examining the position in relation to confession evidence excluded under ss. 76 and 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984; and other prosecution evidence excluded at common law, under s. 78 PACE 1984, and as an abuse of process.


2019 ◽  
pp. 37-60
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

This chapter focuses on confessions and on the defendant’s pre-trial silence. It explains how a defendant may be convicted on the evidence of a confession alone. It analyses the definition of a confession as specified in section 82(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and how a confession proffered by the prosecution or by a co-defendant may be excluded by rule under PACE. The chapter also considers the preservation of the common law discretion to exclude confession evidence as well as the procedure for police interrogation of suspects under PACE. It concludes with an examination of how the jury at trial may draw an inference of guilt under sections 34, 36, and 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.


Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

This chapter focuses on evidence that is relevant but improperly obtained and thus may be excluded by judicial discretion. It looks at the exclusionary discretion contained within section 78 of the UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and explains how common law and statutory exclusionary discretion may be exercised in relation to other areas of evidence, such as character evidence and hearsay evidence, other than confessions. The chapter also looks at the most common areas of exclusion, other than confession evidence, including breach or evasion of legislation such as PACE and the Codes of Practice. It also reviews when a stay of prosecution might be the appropriate procedure. Finally, it discusses the relevant principles of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that are enshrined in section 78 of PACE.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document