What's the matter with section 78?

Criminal Law Review

Volumn , Issue DEC., 1999, Pages 929-940

  Choo, Andrew L T ^a   Nash, Susan ^b  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25644433628     PISSN: 0011135X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Hudson v. DPP [1992] R.T.R. 27 at 34, per Hodgson J.
2. K. Grevling, "Fairness and the Exclusion of Evidence under Section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act" (1997) 113 L.Q.R. 667 at p.667.
3. Italics added.
4. See also, for a recent sustained discussion of improperly obtained evidence, P. Mirfield, Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence (1997).
5. [1980] A.C. 402.
6. Mason [1988] 1 W.L.R. 139;
7. Delaney (1989) 88 Cr.App.R. 338.
8. See, e.g. Keenan [1990] 2 Q.B. 54.
9. See, e.g. Walsh (1990) 91 Cr.App.R. 161.
10. [1988] 1 W.L.R. 139 at 144.
11. [1988] Q.B. 615 at 630.
12. (1990) 91 Cr.App.R. 237 at 243.
13. [1990] 2 All E.R. 187 at 192.
14. All E.R. ibid. at 190.
15. DPP v. McGladrigan [1991] R.T.R. 297; DPP v. Godwin [1991] R.T.R. 303. See also DPP v. Kay [1999] R.T.R. 109.
16. DPP v. Godwin [1991] R.T.R. 303 at 308.
17. The argument that evidence obtained by entrapment could not be excluded in the exercise of discretion proceeded on the following (rather tenuous) basis. If entrapment evidence were excluded and the evidence were the only prosecution evidence, or perhaps a crucial part of the prosecution evidence, the case against the accused would collapse. This would be tantamount to a recognition of a defence of entrapment, which does not exist in England, through the back door.
18. [1994] 1 All E.R. 898 at 903.
19. See generally A. L.-T. Choo, "Halting Criminal Prosecutions: The Abuse of Process Doctrine Revisited" [1995] Crim.L.R. 864.
20. [1994] 1 A.C. 42.
21. For further discussion see C. Gane and S. Nash, "Illegal Extradition: The Irregular Return of Fugitive Offenders" (1996) 1 Scottish Law & Practice Quarterly 277.
22. See also Mullen [1999] 2 Cr.App.R. 143, discussed below.
23. cf. R. v. Staines Magistrates' Court, ex p. Westfallen [1998] 4 All E.R. 210;
24. see generally S. O'Doherty, "Home Thoughts from Abroad" (1998) 148 N.L.J. 1802.
25. [1996] 1 W.L.R. 104.
26. See generally A. J. Ashworth, "Should the Police be Allowed to Use Deceptive Practices?" (1998) 114 L.Q.R. 108 at pp. 119-120;
27. K. Grevling, "Undercover Operations: Balancing the Public Interest?" (1996) 112 L.Q.R. 401;
28. S. Sharpe, "Judicial Discretion and Investigative Impropriety" (1997) 1(2) E. & P. 149.
29. [1996] 1 W.L.R. 104 at 111-113.
30. It would seem, therefore, that where undercover police operations are concerned, either the exclusion of evidence (Smurthwaite) or a stay of the proceedings as a whole (Latif) may be ordered by the trial judge in the exercise of his or her discretion. Unfortunately, the precise relationship between these alternative judicial measures has yet to be properly clarified.
31. [1996] 1 W.L.R. 104 at 112.
32. See generally I. H. Dennis, The Law of Evidence (1999) at pp. 36-43.
33. Of course, if the evidence were the only prosecution evidence, or perhaps a crucial part of the prosecution evidence, then its exclusion would be tantamount to a complete stay of the proceedings.
34. [1998] 2 All E.R. 155.
35. [1995] 1 Cr.App.R. 318.
36. Hair plucked from the scalp constituted a non-intimate sample under section 65 of PACE, and could therefore be taken without consent under section 63(3).
37. [1995] 1 Cr.App.R. 318 at 328.
38. [1998] 2 All E.R. 155.
39. There were, at the time, no statutory provisions governing the use of such devices. See now Police Act 1997, Pt III, on which see generally M. Colvin, "Part III Police Act 1997" (1999) 149 N.L.J. 311;
40. S. Uglow and V. Telford, The Police Act 1997 (1997) Chap. 3.
41. ". . . a collateral motive for an arrest on otherwise good and stated grounds does not necessarily make it unlawful. It depends on the motive": [1998] 2 All E.R. 155 at 176.
42. All E.R. ibid. at 180.
43. All E.R. ibid. at 178.
44. cf., however, Stewart [1995] Crim.L.R. 499
45. McCarthy [1996] Crim.L.R. 818, in which the Court of Appeal appeared to suggest that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search is subject to discretionary exclusion, although the discretion is unlikely to be exercised because of the inherent reliability of such evidence.
46. Bray, unreported, July 31, 1998, CA (italics added).
47. [1996] 3 All E.R. 289.
48. See generally P. B. Carter, "Evidence Obtained by Use of a Covert Listening Device" (1997) 113 L.Q.R. 468;
49. S. Sharpe, "Electronic Eavesdropping: A Chance for Accountability?" (1996) 146 N.L.J. 1088;
50. J. R. Spencer, "Bugging and Burglary by the Police" [1997] C.L.J. 6;
51. P. Tain, "Covert Surveillance, R. v. Khan and the European Convention" (1996) 140 S.J. 785;
52. C. F. H. Tapper, "Overhearing and Oversight" (1997) 1(2) E. & P. 162.
53. E. & P. ibid., 301.
54. See also R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex p. Chinoy [1992] 1 All E.R. 317;
55. M. Mackarel and C. Gane, "Admitting Irregularly or Illegally Obtained Evidence from Abroad into Criminal Proceedings - A Common Law Approach" [1997] Crim.L.R. 720.
56. [1996] 3 All E.R. 289 at 302.
57. See also Aujla [1998] 2 Cr.App.R. 16;
58. see generally J. R. Spencer, "Electronic Eavesdropping and Anomalies in the Law of Evidence" [1999] C.L.J. 43.
59. [1999] 2 Cr.App.R. 143 at 156.
60. Cr.App.R. ibid., at 158.
61. Cr.App.R. ibid., at 155.
62. Cr.App.R. ibid., at 156-157.
63. Cr.App.R. ibid., at 157.
64. See G. H. Gudjonsson, The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony (1992) pp.226-228.
65. See, e.g. Nagah (1991) 155 J.P. 229;
66. Tiplady (1995) 159 J.P. 548;
67. Willoughby [1999] 2 Cr.App.R. 82.
68. See generally, B. L. Cutler and S. D. Penrod, Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology and the Law (1995) Chaps 6 and 7.
69. [1990] Crim.L.R. 581,
70. quoted in R. v. King's Lynn Justices, ex p. Holland [1993] 2 All E.R. 377 at 379. Italics in original; underlining added.
71. [1999] 1 Cr.App.R. 187.
72. See generally S. Nash, "The Admissibility of Witness Statements Obtained Abroad: R. v. Radak" (1999) 3 E. & P. 195.
73. E. & P. ibid., at 199.
74. Schenk v. Switzerland (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 242, para. 45.
75. (1996) 23 E.H.R.R. 313.
76. (1998) 28 E.H.R.R. 101, para. 36.
77. April 20, 1999, Application No. 35394/97. See [1999] Crim.L.R. 666.
78. "The suggestion that the words are intended only to refer to the proceedings of a trial cannot be sustained when contrasted with the words of ss.77 and 79": R. v. King's Lynn Justices, ex p. Holland [1993] 2 All E.R. 377 at 379.
79. I. H. Dennis, The Law of Evidence (1999) pp.81-82.