No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Excluding evidence (or staying proceedings) to vindicate rights in Irish and English law*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
Abstract
The constitutional duty of the Irish state ‘to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen’ is the basis of a strict rule excluding unconstitutionally obtained evidence. Although English courts recognise a similar duty to ‘vindicate human rights and the rule of law’, their powers to exclude evidence or stay proceedings for abuse of process are extremely flexible and discretionary. In both jurisdictions, there has been particular controversy over the application of these powers to covert recordings that breach legal professional privilege. This paper argues that the duty to vindicate rights and the rule of law underpins both the exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence and the punishment of offenders. It requires a balancing exercise, not between defendants' rights and an incommensurable public interest but, rather, between two aspects of the same constitutional duty of the courts.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2015
Footnotes
*
This article became available the day before the Irish Supreme Court reformulated the exclusionary rule in DPP v. JC [2015] IESC 31. [Footnote added on 1 May 2015, after first online publication.]
References
1. Constitution of Ireland 1937, Art 40.3.1.
2. People (Attorney General) v O'Brien [1965] IR 142; People (DPP) v Kenny [1990] 2 IR 10.
3. Jackson, J ‘Human rights, constitutional law and exclusionary safeguards in Ireland’ in Roberts, P and Hunter, J (eds) Criminal Evidence and Human Rights (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012).Google Scholar
4. MP O'Higgins SC ‘High time to reconsider the exclusionary rule?’ Paper presented to the Roundhall Criminal Law Conference (2013).
5. Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland v Elliott [2013] UKSC 32, [2013] WLR 1611 at [9].
6. Kuruma v R [1955] AC 197.
7. Above n 2.
8. Keane, A and McKeown, P The Modern Law of Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10th edn, 2014) pp 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. R v Chalkley [1998] QB 848, 874–876;R v Looseley [2001] UKHL 53, [2001] 1 WLR 2060 at [12], [16].
10. Warren v AG for Jersey [2011] UKPC 10, [2011] 1 AC 22 at [26].
11. [2010] UKSC 48 [2011] 1 WLR 1837.
12. Above n 10.
13. Ibid, at [80].
14. [2006] QB 60.
15. See http://www.thejournal.ie/the-last-justice-minister-said-he-was-not-aware-garda-recordings-were-taking-place-1382794-Mar2014/ (accessed 15 August 2014).
16. Ibid.
17. Postal and Telecommunications Act 1983 s 98. The Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993 allows covert recording in the investigation of serious crime, but only with ministerial authorisation (s 2).
18. See http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/docs/publications/Report_103_Waterford_Holness.pdf (accessed 15 August 2014).
19. See http://www.thejournal.ie/commission-of-investigation-garda-recordings-1380412-Mar2014/ (accessed 15 August 2014).
20. Irish Independent 26 March 2014.
21. Commission of Inquiry into covert recording of phone calls in some Garda stations, headed by Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, established on 5 April 2014.
22. YM Daly ‘Garda taping of telephone calls: a worst case scenario consideration’, available at http://humanrights.ie/civil-liberties/garda-taping-of-telephone-calls-a-worst-case-scenario-consideration/ (accessed 15 August 2014).
23. Above n 2.
24. Kennedy, Arnold and Arnold v Ireland and the Attorney General [1987] IR 587; Competition Authority v Irish Dental Association [2005] 3 IR 208.
25. People (DPP) v Kenny [1990] 2 IR 110.
26. Ashworth, A ‘Excluding evidence as protecting rights’ [1977] 3 Crim L Rev 723;Google Scholar Ashworth, A and Redmayne, M The Criminal Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) p 345;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bloom, RM and Dewey, E ‘When rights become empty promises: promoting an exclusionary rule that vindicates personal rights’ [2011] 46 Irish Jurist 38.Google Scholar
27. Above n 25, at 130; US v Leon 468 US 897 (1984).
28. Above n 25, at 133–134.
29. People (DPP) v Dillon [2002] 4 IR 501 at 513.
30. Irish Human Rights Commission ‘Observations on the Criminal Justice Bill 2007’ §1.3, available at http://www.ihrc.ie/publications/list/observations-on-the-criminal-justice-bill-2007/ (accessed 17 August 2014); State (Healey) v O'Donoghue [1990] 2 IR 73 at 81.
31. Daly, above n 22.
32. See eg Mirfield, P Silence, Confessions and Illegally Obtained Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp 19–23;Google Scholar Choo, AL-T Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays of Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2008) pp 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Choo, above n 32, pp 109-110.
34. [2005] IESC 29, [2005] 2 IR 206.
35. [2012] IESC 33.
36. DPP v Healy [1990] 2 IR 73; DPP v Finnegan (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, Barrington J, 15 July 1997); DPP v Buck [2002] 2 IR 268;People (DPP) v O'Brien [2005] 2 IR 206.
37. DPP v AD, above n 35, at [5.10].
38. Ibid, at [5.09].
39. ‘Sligo Garda Station drawn into BUG-U controversy’ Sligo Today 28 March 2014.
40. See http://www.thejournal.ie/gardgate-inquiry-terms-of-reference-1404722-Apr2014/ (accessed 17 December 2014).
41. Above n 14.
42. An informative account of this sorry saga is Face the Facts: Covert Surveillance, BBC Radio 4, 19 August 2005, transcript available at www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/facethefacts/transcript_20050819.0shtml (accessed 14 September 2014).
43. [1994] 1 AC 42, 74. See also R v Maxwell, above n 11, at [13] per Lord Dyson.
44. [2006] QB 60 at [54].
45. [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 AC 68.
46. Choo, above n 32, p 128.
47. Emmerson, B, Ashworth, A and Macdonald, A Human Rights and Criminal Justice (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd edn, 2007), para 15–30. See also 3rd edn (2012) para 13–73.Google Scholar
48. Above n 12, at [96–97].
49. Ibid, at [61].
50. Ibid, at [28].
51. Above n 10, at [31–36].
52. Ibid, at [37].
53. [2013] EWCA Crim 642.
54. Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Extension of Authorisation Provisions: Legal Consultations) Order 2010; Covert Surveillance and Property Interference Revised Code of Practice (2010) ch 4.
55. McE v Prison Service of Northern Ireland [2009] UKHL 15, [2009] 1 AC 908.
56. Turner, above n 53, at [24].
57. Ibid, at [30].
58. [2012] EWCA Crim 805 [23].
59. Ibid, at [26].
60. [2013] EWCA Crim 261 [2013] 2 Cr App R 2 at [58].
61. [2013] EWCA Crim 2230.
62. [1997] AC 558, 582.
63. Khan v UK [2001] 31 EHRR 45; PG v UK (2008) 46 EHRR 51; Heglas v Czech Republic (2009) 48 EHRR 44; Bykov v Russia, Grand Chamber [2009] ECHR 4378/02.
64. R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p. Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 at 62.
65. Panday v Virgil [2008] AC 1386 (PC) at [28];R v Maxwell, above n 11, at [61]; R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18 at [276].
66. Bloom and Dewey, above n 26; Mapp v Ohio 367 US 643 (1961) at 660.
67. Gray, D ‘A spectacular non-sequitur: the Supreme Court's contemporary Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule jurisprudence’ (2013) 50 Am Crim L Rev 1 at 25.Google Scholar
68. Eg Feinberg, J ‘The expressive function of punishment’ (1965) 49 Monist 397 at 407;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kramer, M The Ethics of Capital Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) pp 77–78, 98–110.Google ScholarGray, above n 67, discusses several other relevant works from Hegel onwards.
69. Varuhas, JNE ‘The concept of “vindication” in the law of tort: rights, interests, damages’ (2014) 28(2) Oxford J Legal Stud 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70. Summa Theologiae, 2a2ae at 108, ‘De vindicatione’ in O'Brien, TC (ed) Summa Theologiae, vol 41 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
71. Above n 2, at 134.
72. DPP (Walsh) v Cash [2007] IEHC 108 at [42–44], [66–67].
73. Ashworth, A ‘Exploring the integrity principle in evidence and procedure’ in Mirfield, P and Smith, R (eds) Essays for Colin Tapper (London: Butterworths, 2003).Google Scholar
74. Ibid, p 121.
75. Choo, above n 32, p 13.
76. See eg Directive 2012/29/EU, on the Rights, Support and Protection of Victims of Crime.
77. Doak, J Victims' Rights (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008) ch 4.Google Scholar
78. The symmetry between crime and coercive policing as threats to freedom also underlies the approach of Sanders, A, Young, R and Burton, M Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 2010) pp 47–57, 705–709. Our approach is more rights-centred than theirs and places more emphasis on the symbolic or communicative aspect of criminal justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79. Hoyano, L ‘What is balanced in the scales of justice? In search of the essence of the right to a fair trial’ [2014] 1 Crim L Rev 4 at 15.Google Scholar
80. Although the rights of the victim may be a factor in determining whether the defendant's rights were violated at all, as in People (DPP) v Shaw [1982] IR 1 (delay in taking suspect to police station necessary to defend victim's constitutional right to life).
81. Above n 2.
82. Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group Final Report (Dublin: Department of Justice & Equality 2007) p 156.Google Scholar See also Jackson, above n 3, p 134.
83. Ashworth, A and Redmayne, M The Criminal Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) p 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84. [1985] IR 550 at 557.
85. Schroeder, WA ‘Restoring the status quo ante: the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule as a compensatory device’ (1983) 51 Geo Wash L Rev 633;Google Scholar Norton, JE ‘The exclusionary rule reconsidered: restoring the status quo ante’ (1998) 33 Wake Forest L Rev 26.Google Scholar
86. McGrath, D ‘The exclusionary rule in respect of unconstitutionally obtained evidence’ (2004) 26 DULJ 108;Google ScholarBloom and Dewey, above n 26.
87. As noted by the Tánaiste in setting up the Balance in Criminal Justice Review Group: see http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Speech_rebalancing_criminal_justice (accessed 14 October 2014).
88. Weinrib, E Corrective Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) p 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
89. Interview in Face the Facts, above n 42.
90. R v Grant, above n 14, at [1].
91. For a review and defence of such theories, see Dagger, R ‘Playing fair with punishment’ (1993) 103 Ethics 473. Our discussion of fair play is indebted to Patrick Tomlin's paper ‘Fair play without retribution’, presented at the Normativity of Law workshop, Birmingham, 29 September 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92. R v Maxwell, above n 11, at [61].
93. Ruggiero, V Penal Abolitionism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010);Google Scholar Johnstone, G and Ward, T Law and Crime (London: SAGE Publications, 2010).Google Scholar
94. Quoted in Oliver, M ‘Execution killing trial dismissed over police bugging’ The Guardian 30 January 2002.Google Scholar
95. Above n 79.
96. Tomlin, above n 91.
97. Kenny, above n 2, at 130–134.
98. Griffiths, A and Milne, B ‘Will it all end in tears? Police interviews with suspects in Britain’ in Williamson, T (ed) Investigative Interviewing (Cullompton: Willan, 2006) p 102.Google Scholar
99. HMIC A Review of National Intelligence Units Which Provide Intelligence on Criminality Associated with Protest (London: HMIC, 2012) p 7;Google Scholar HMIC An Inspection of Undercover Policing in England and Wales (London: HMIC, 2014) p 106, n 131.Google Scholar
100. O'Connor, P, ‘“Abuse of process” after Warren and Maxwell ’ [2012] 9 Crim L Rev 672 at 679.Google Scholar
101. Pizzi, WT ‘The need to overrule Mapp v Ohio ’ (2011) 82 U Colo L Rev 679 at 686. This is also a problem with Sanders et al's (above n 78) brand of rule-consequentialism.Google Scholar
102. Dagger, above n 91, at 481.
103. Maxwell, above n 11, at [97].
104. See Warren, above n 10, at [76], where Lord Brown distinguishes the two cases on the basis that in Maxwell the defendant was ‘induced to act to his detriment’ by confessing. Why this should make a difference is not explained.
105. Ashworth, A ‘The exclusion of evidence obtained by violating a fundamental right: pragmatism before principle in the Strasbourg jurisprudence’ in Roberts, P and Hunter, J (eds) Criminal Evidence and Human Rights (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012) pp 158–159, takes this to be the ECtHR's view inGoogle Scholar Jalloh v Germany (2007) 44 EHRR 32 and Heglas v Czech Republic (2009) 48 EHRR 44.
106. Ashworth, above n 73, p 120.
107. [1999] 2 AC 111 at 124.
108. Jackson, J and Summers, S The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012) pp 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
109. Dworkin, R ‘Principle, policy, procedure’ in A Matter of Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
110. Khan v UK [2001] 31 EHRR 45; PG v UK (2008) 46 EHRR 51.
111. Allan v UK (2002) 13 BHRC 652.
112. Judge Loucaides in Khan, Judge Tulkens in PG, Judge Spielmann, joined by Tulkens and three other judges, in Bykov (above n 63).
113. An argument rejected by the Court of Appeal in R v Button [2005] EWCA Crim 516.
114. Brennan v UK [2002] 34 EHRR 18 at [58].
115. Emmerson et al, above n 47, 3rd edn, para 13–73, nevertheless consider that Grant was correctly decided on this ground and that its disapproval in Warren was ‘unfortunate’.
116. Above n 114.
117. This was one of the reasons given for distinguishing Sutherland (see text to n 40 above) in R v Mason [2002] 2 Cr App R 38 at [60].
118. Warren, above n 10, at [37].
119. [1994] 1 AC 42 at 62.
120. Ibid, at 74–75.
121. Ibid, at 77.
122. We assume that this is why Sanders et al (above n 78, p 708) find it ‘bizarre’ that ‘victims, or some notion of their rights, should influence trial outcomes’.
123. R v Crawley [2014] EWCA Crim 1028 at [52].
124. See text to n 94 above.
125. Starmer, K ‘Human rights, victims and the prosecution of crime in the 21st century’ [2014] Crim L Rev 777.Google Scholar