New Standard for Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence.

MarkAnthony

Times Article

Opions are divided on this this. I personally believe the Kenny approach was restrictive but with very good reason. I suppose I fully subscribe to the approach that it's better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man is found guilty. I also thought it maintained an effective deterrent to the guards to go about an investigation in a certain way.

I've always believed there should be an extraordinary and excusing circumstances exception but in my view, a good faith test is going to lead to miscarriages of justice.

Thoughts?

Tigger

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Times Article

Opions are divided on this this. I personally believe the Kenny approach was restrictive but with very good reason. I suppose I fully subscribe to the approach that it's better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man is found guilty. I also thought it maintained an effective deterrent to the guards to go about an investigation in a certain way.

I've always believed there should be an extraordinary and excusing circumstances exception but in my view, a good faith test is going to lead to miscarriages of justice.

Thoughts?

Why would innocent men be found guilty in this instance

MarkAnthony

Tigger wrote: »

Why would innocent men be found guilty in this instance

It's not an instance it's a set of principles that may lead to injustice.

One eyed Jack

I think it would have been useful in the case of Judge Brian Curtin -

In May 2002, the Garda Síochána launched Operation Amethyst, a major investigation based on details received from Interpol in August 2001 of Irish credit card transactions made in 1999 to a child-pornography website in Texas.[5] The operation led to numerous arrests and convictions. Detectives executed a search warrant on Curtin's private residence, seized his computer and reported finding 273 child pornographic images on the hard disk. Curtin was charged in January 2003. Following delays due to the judge's ill-health, the trial took place in April 2004. At the trial, Curtin claimed that the search was illegal because it had taken place outside the limit of the 7-day warrant. The Gardaí claimed that the delay was due to Curtin's extended absence from his home and that when it took place at 2:20pm on 27 May 2002, it was still within the 7-day limit.[6][7] The trial judge ruled that the search was illegal.As a result the computer evidence found could not be used.Without that evidence Curtin was found not guilty, the judge declaring that the case was "crystal clear".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Curtin

Tigger

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's not an instance it's a set of principles that may lead to injustice.

It is an instance that has been ruled on
They weren't going through old cases from the late 89's and found that in 1990 it was ruled that accidentally unconstitutionally obtained evidence was inadmissible and that that was stupid
There was a man and the dpp challenged the law

MarkAnthony

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it would have been useful in the case of Judge Brian Curtin -
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Curtin

It's an interesting point, I do wonder if it will be negated by the law in relation to Search Warrants, Confessions etc or whether it will change the law in this area also. Will it change the law in relation to stop and search, I wonder?

MarkAnthony

Tigger wrote: »

It is an instance that has been ruled on
They weren't going through old cases from the late 89's and found that in 1990 it was ruled that accidentally unconstitutionally obtained evidence was inadmissible and that that was stupid
There was a man and the dpp challenged the law

Sorry I didn't get that upon rereading it a few times.

To reiterate the point I was making it's the set of principles, the precedent that this sets, which is under discussion rather than the merits of the particular case - which I believe is ongoing so can't be discussed here.

El Weirdo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsaRYMh6c3w

Tigger

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry I didn't get that upon rereading it a few times.

Is ok
This is the bit you're missing

A decision will be made later on whether a man, in whose case the legal issue arose and who was acquitted on burglary charges after the case against him collapsed after exclusion of evidence under a 25 year old rule, will now face a retrial or whether his acquittal stands.

MarkAnthony

Tigger wrote: »

Is ok
This is the bit you're missing

A decision will be made later on whether a man, in whose case the legal issue arose and who was acquitted on burglary charges after the case against him collapsed after exclusion of evidence under a 25 year old rule, will now face a retrial or whether his acquittal stands.

Sorry I still think you're maybe missing the point. The discussion surrounds the precedent this sets. All cases will now, presumably, be held to the new standard. Assuming that the law as it stands in relation to other areas is not upheld. This may encourage the guards to act in a certain way, it may not, it may be picked up at those trials. A supreme court decision isn't based solely on the case before it, it's a statement of how we proceed from here.

Has that made it any clearer? My apologies if that comes across as patronising, it's not meant to. It's very easy to get bogged down with the one case, this is about looking at it in the abstract.

expectationlost

burglary charges with evidence thats over 25 years old?