Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

PACE 78

Case requests, comments, corrections, questions, answers. Just anything an everything about swarb.co.uk

PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Mon Feb 22, 2016 8:24 pm

I assume a DJ sitting in a magistrates court can exclude evidence

I see that that evidence can be excluded on a deterrence and "against the integrity of the justice system" basis , yet I can't find any case law that supports either , anybody offer any help ?
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby dls » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:30 pm

He can,but
I see that that evidence can be excluded on a deterrence and "against the integrity of the justice system" basis , yet I can't find any case law that supports either , anybody offer any help ?


Is not quite right.

You have cases on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 78
Go to the sister site - swarb.co.uk
Search for
Criminal Evidence 1984 78


In the absence of particular applicable provisions, evidence is admissible if cogent and relevant.

Evidence is not excluded as a deterrence. It is excluded at the discretion of the court if if its admission would so undermine the case as to make it unfair.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12007
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:12 pm

Say there a case involving somebody the police hated because he made comments on a twitter and they arrested him for a sec2 harassement offence unlawfully at his house , unlawfully searched his house , unlawfully seized his computer , ipad and iphone. Was treated very poorly in custody ignoring his medical warnings , he then in frustration damaged the code of practice book , £5 damage. A hour later he ended up in hospital , loads of other things

Probably at least 6 breaches of ECHR v a very small amount of damage. Surely the judge would be entitled to exclude the evidence as a deterrent. While I can't many such cases I see the concept is possible and if there was ever a case for saying
"This is a ruling that will rein in police behaviour" it is this , so evidence of damaging the book should be excluded
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:15 pm

That post appears to contain more grandstanding than discussion of the law.

Police behaviour will be "reined in" by prosecutions or civil claims and not by excluding a small piece of evidence.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19183
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: PACE 78

Postby dls » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:37 pm

. . and evidence is not excluded as a deterrence or to rein in police misbehaviour.

If you think there may be a claim, there are solicitors who specialise in such claims. One may be ready to take it n a no win no fee basis. We simply do not have the full detail, but the detail offered would be unlikely to get anywhere.

Where is the connection between the police misbehaviour alleged and the offence?
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12007
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:42 pm

With respect that is rubbish

Discussions of laws : Taking PACE 78 and using it to make a case for deterring police misconduct. The primacy of human rights in case of very small criminality. Also duty of care of a custody sergeant to a ill detainee , police neglience in giving him the book

While prosecutions of police( I assume you meant) would help , prosecutions of people who have suffered a massively at their hands woulld be very damaging , meaning that their criminality would be rewarded. Off course if their actions lead to the unmasking of the next Jimmy Saville , then fair enough

Hardly small evidence , tape of actual act
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:49 pm

dls wrote:. ..

Where is the connection between the police misbehaviour alleged and the offence?


If Defendant still at home NO OFFENCE
if Defendant not traumatised by the unlawlness , he wouldn't of committed the offence
If Defendant given correct medical treatment , he wouldn't of committed the offence
If Defendant not placed in cell , he wouldn't of committed the offence
If CS not negligent in giving book , NO OFFENCE

and if defendant not hated by police , a FPN would of be given
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:53 pm

(Responding to the post two above) Then (with respect) take your evidence to someone who can advise whether there is a viable basis for claim. None of what you say appears to be a reason to exclude evidence.

Is this a continuation of your earlier "poisoned tree" posts?

In the meantime, as you appear to be saying that this is based on fact, you must defend the prosecution that has been brought against you.

ETA in light of next post that has since appeared -

If offence not committed - NO OFFENCE. At best, IMO, you cite mitigation.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19183
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: PACE 78

Postby veritas2409 » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:04 pm

what claim ? This is a criminal case.

So you are saying that it is allowed in law for somebody to have is human rights maliciously abused and when you compare the level of crime v the breaches , the judge should ignore it. Show me an example of any case in UK law in the last 15 years with such a misbalance between HA Rights and scale of crime

In fact can anybody tell me of a case involving a smaller amount in the last 20 years
veritas2409
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:57 pm

Re: PACE 78

Postby atticus » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:07 pm

1. A claim against the police. Yes, that would be a civil claim for damages. It would be a different case than the prosecution against you. You may use your evidence of police wrongdoing in defending that prosecution, but that is most unlikely to get the evidence against you excluded.

2. No, I am not saying what you have taken it on yourself to decide that I am saying. Please read what I have said. You do not help yourself if you lash out in unfocussed frustration.


viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5644
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19183
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Next

Return to swarb.co.uk - case law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest