Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

dpp v jc [2015] iesc 31- admissability of evidence - breach of constitutional rights

  • 02-06-2019 7:19pm
    #1
    Cooper89
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33 ✭


    can someone please explain this to me without the legal jargon?

    what is it saying about unconstitutionally obtained evidence?

    simplest of terms please and thanks


Comments

  • #2
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,774 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Unconstitutionally obtained evidence is no longer completely inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial.

    It may now be admitted as evidence if it is good proof of the alleged crime.

    Couldn't put it more simply that that. The problem with putting these things simply obviously is that the nuance is lost.


  • #3
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Previously we had what was known as the exclusionary rule established in the People vs Kenny [1990] 2 IR 110 Supreme Court case which basically prevented the state from relying on evidence obtained in breach of a constitutional right even for example if it was accidental.

    Prior to the Kenny case we had the The People vs O’Brien [1965] 1 IR 142 Supreme Court case which allowed the state to rely on such evidence where there was no deliberate breach.

    In a nutshell the JC case has found somewhat of a middle ground between the 1965 and 1990 cases, such evidence is now admissible if the state "can show the breach was due to inadvertence".


Advertisement