The Decision of DPP v JC
The ultimate decision of the courts in DPP v JC was that exclusionary rule, as set out in Kenny, which had been in operation in the Irish jurisdiction for over 25 years, had been incorrectly decided and was no longer to be applied. The new rule allows for evidence which is obtained in an inadvertent breach of an accused’s constitutional rights is to be admitted at trial, whilst any evidence gathered recklessly or knowingly must be excluded, save in extraordinary excusing circumstances.
The newly constructed test adopted by Clarke J in relation to the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence moves from the rationale of protectionism to the newly-stated principle based on deterrence, such that evidence will …show more content…
The majority of the courts view is well summarised by Clarke J stating that the exclusionary rule in O’Brien doesn’t go far enough, but that “Kenny goes too far.”
Clarke J discusses the appropriate test for the admission of evidence where there has been a breach of a constitutional right. In his judgment, Clarke J. discusses a series of important factors when determining the correct balanced approach in relation to the exclusion of evidence. He argues for the right that society and victims should have offences prosecuted and that the rule laid out in Kenny is not concerned with the probative value of evidence, rather the question of whether or not evidence should be excluded exclusively on the grounds in which it has been obtained.
Clarke J reasons that the extent of allowing unconstitutionally obtained evidence into trial will depend on the “factual circumstances surround the evidence in question rather than the legal circumstances in which it came to be discovered or obtained.” Clarke J fears that the exclusion of such probative evidence may only lead in the acquittal of a guilt person which may have serious consequences for an innocent person, placing them at risk at
The ultimate decision of the courts in DPP v JC was that exclusionary rule, as set out in Kenny, which had been in operation in the Irish jurisdiction for over 25 years, had been incorrectly decided and was no longer to be applied. The new rule allows for evidence which is obtained in an inadvertent breach of an accused’s constitutional rights is to be admitted at trial, whilst any evidence gathered recklessly or knowingly must be excluded, save in extraordinary excusing circumstances.
The newly constructed test adopted by Clarke J in relation to the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence moves from the rationale of protectionism to the newly-stated principle based on deterrence, such that evidence will …show more content…
The majority of the courts view is well summarised by Clarke J stating that the exclusionary rule in O’Brien doesn’t go far enough, but that “Kenny goes too far.”
Clarke J discusses the appropriate test for the admission of evidence where there has been a breach of a constitutional right. In his judgment, Clarke J. discusses a series of important factors when determining the correct balanced approach in relation to the exclusion of evidence. He argues for the right that society and victims should have offences prosecuted and that the rule laid out in Kenny is not concerned with the probative value of evidence, rather the question of whether or not evidence should be excluded exclusively on the grounds in which it has been obtained.
Clarke J reasons that the extent of allowing unconstitutionally obtained evidence into trial will depend on the “factual circumstances surround the evidence in question rather than the legal circumstances in which it came to be discovered or obtained.” Clarke J fears that the exclusion of such probative evidence may only lead in the acquittal of a guilt person which may have serious consequences for an innocent person, placing them at risk at