Illegally and Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases Flashcards
what irish case brought in the exclusionary rule
People (AG) v O’Brien
describe the finding in People (AG) v O’Brien
search warrant used contained an error in relation to the name of the street. The search was therefore deemed illegal. The SC held that evidence obtained in “deliberate and conscious’ breach of constitutional rights is in admissible, save in ‘extraordinary excusing circumstances’.
describe the finding of the case of DPP v Lawless
If the breach was of the constitutional rights of another then the evidence will not be excluded
Was the case of People (AG) v O’Brien a deliberate and conscious breach?
In O’brien, a mistake was made on the face of the warrant - Breached inviolability of the dwelling. This was not a deliberate and conscious breach, so it was a mere illegality
what was established in the case of DPP v Cullen?
There must be a casual nexus between the breach and evidence gathered before exclusion can be considered
what did Finlay CJ hold in regards to the exclusion rule
Finlay CJ held that the court has an obligation to choose the principle which is likely to provide a stronger and effective defence and vindication of the right concerned
Describe the two tier approach adopted in ireland
- where evidence is deemed to have been illegally obtained, i.e. in breach of the legal rights of a suspect, the exclusion or inclusion of such evidence is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge; and
- where evidence is deemed to have been obtained in breach of the constitutional rights of a suspect it must be automatically excluded from evidence, unless there are extraordinary excusing circumstances in existence which would justify its admission; in which case, admission or exclusion is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge.
what was the central reasoning behind the exclusionary rule?
the need to deter improper behaviour on the part of the Garda was the central reasoning behind the adoption of the strict exclusionary rule: where Garda did not intentionally breach the constitutional rights of a suspect the evidence obtained could be admitted at trial
Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Act 2009
Confers discretion on a trial judge to admit evidence obtained on foot of authorised surveillance in criminal trials despite any “error or omission on the face of the authorisation”, where the error was “inadvertent” and where the judge believes that the information should be received in evidence “in the interests of justice
DPP v. Cash
Gardaí lost a written consent apparently given by the accused on an earlier date to the taking of fingerprint samples. They had matched the prints with prints left at the scene of a burglary. Charleton J reviewed the O’Brien rule and selected illustrations of its potential excesses. 1. Every error on the part of agents of the State which takes their action outside the strict letter of the law, causes the exclusion at trial of any evidence which directly results therefrom. Gave the example of the warrant being mistakenly out of date in Curtin. 2. Practically impossible to say when a constitutional right ends and another begins. Gives the example of Dillon. Also said the courts of New Zealand allow evidence where a mistake has been made. Also endorsed Peltier from US and Collins from Canada
what was held in the case of DPP v Kenny
it was held that the term ‘deliberate and conscious’ refers to the conduct of the Gardaí as opposed to their state of mind
for evidence to be excluded there must be what exactly?
A breach of an accused’s constitutional rights
a. A causative link between that breach and the evidence obtained; and
b. No extraordinary excusing circumstances.
c. This was the position in Irish law for 25 years.
