Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
48 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
ACCUSED DPP v Maples |
If prosecution make reference to your silence, direction to jury not enough |
|
|
SPOUSES R v Lady Ivy DPP v Blady Wigmore Bentham DPP V JT Burman v BuRMAN |
TREASON own health, liberty, person outdated undesireable for society art 41 not as a shield, 1992 CJA conjugal |
|
|
Child G v DPP |
No special skills, intelligible. |
|
|
Mentally Ill R v Hill DPP v Gillane Osullivan v Hamill |
Competence test on taking oath Not covered by 1992 act Voire dire necessary |
|
|
Diplomat DPP v McKevitt |
Sending government decides not you |
|
|
Rule against narrative what does it do? R v Roberts Hearsay? |
stops you from using something you said after the fact as a formal testimony, he is original source of evidence, only link in the chain. |
|
|
Sexual exception 4 factors |
must be a sexual offence has to be voluntary has to be made at first opportunity is decided in a Voire dire. |
|
|
Voluntary DPP v R |
she initiated, husbands questions natural |
|
|
First opportunity DPP v Brophy, DPP v Kiernan R v Gow CB v DPP |
didnt tell mom and friends when met them didnt tell bf till second meeting on train systematic |
|
|
Voire Dire DPP v McDonagh DPP v Roufhan |
whittle numbers modern understanding approach |
|
|
ID evidence Judge made Why? |
lots of cases, recent, Devlin report, 76' 1-10, now 1-4 |
|
|
Safeguards |
garda not in investigation, controlled room, foils, jury given warnings on its failures. judges can exclude it |
|
|
Pre-trial DPP v Martin DPP v Fagan DPP v Duff |
brought into a room, is this the guy? Sometimes better ways All other ways secondary, formal v informal |
|
|
why good? |
All of similar appearance, could be volunteer, can test voice, height, quickly dispose of suspects, could get guilty confession |
|
|
how? DPP v Ohanlon DPP v Brazil DPP v Marley DPP v Maples R v Thorne AG v Fagan DPP V oREILLY |
8-12 foils + you, you choose where to stand, tend to be soldiers accent, height difference, courts said no Investigative team can be there, forced into parade against will issue with foils you will see the man in here Should have id parade, affects liberty, xexamine |
|
|
Informal ID DPP v Carroll DPP v OReilly DPP V George Christo AG v Fagan |
scruffy, didnt cut it beneficial to accused? if id on street sin assistance no formal felt duty to pick someone if on street id con assist, formal |
|
|
PHOTOS R v Dwyer DPP v Mill DPP v Rapple DPP v Brazil |
if used for photos no use for formal id for identification of suspect not for evidence photos before id Prejudicial such evidence would be tainted |
|
|
casey effect DPP v O reilly DPP v McNamara |
have to give direction to the effect that id evidence is unreliable many credible witnesses have just gotten it wrong. things which affect identification, race etc, adopted in 1963 In Oreilly - generic caution details of id should be given McNamara no id |
|
|
Fingerprint Evidence |
Dactylography |
|
|
R v Bacon R v Castleton |
First case to be decided using it, 1915, 8 crimes Tried to argue it can only corroborate, not enough on its own |
|
|
Number time. Uk Ireland Progress |
in the uk 16-12 ireland 12 Buckley, uk would accept less White, Gardai said as little as five, not a good idea though |
|
|
Power to take them AG v McGrath AG v O'Brien DPP v Walsh |
No consent sought, said it didnt matter, they are a static fact, illegal evidence ok. General exclusion principle, const. except. discr. Discussed O'Brien app. gardai can only take with consent or by statute |
|
|
Consent DPP v Cash DPP v Cleary |
it has to be written consent nothing in CJA to limit voluntary Consent form lost, but not in doubt |
|
|
Under Statute CJA s(6) CJA s(28) CJA (misc 97') CJA 2007 |
array of different statutes. palm + finger, suspects of serious crimes when convicted but not custodial. provisions for taking them indefinite retention presumption. (if not convicted can request they be destroyed, or limited, lengthy process) if consent no method to withdraw, Marples. |
|
|
Constitutional Rights. AG v Ryan Self incrimination Lepage, Right to privacy |
non invasive doesnt apply static fact, differs from a confession, product of mind inferences drawn from refusal (acid) Marples, art.8 privacy right fingerprints |
|
|
Exclusionary Rule DPP v Cash |
burglary, prints, illegal, evidence that led to suspicion, cant use it in court though. |
|
|
Possible reform Use of force. CJA 2007 ^ Caution? |
can use force under 2007 act, has to be done by senior gardai, under s(6) should be recorded, in station, establish they tried to get consent and warned. No need for warning, DPP v Walsh DPP v Cleary, know what your giving them for volunteer queery, |
|
|
Reform where consent given? DPP v Carroll |
LRC thinks yes, have to take the prints in line with 1984, s6 aligned this case with casey, consent had been given not contested, just proof misssing, also s(6) only applies where no written consent given. |
|
|
Right to silence McCracken J Singh AGAINST? Have to be told? Practice? |
You can remain silent in questioing you dont have a right not to be questioned no right not to be spoken to it cant be used against you no requirement to be told judges recommend it |
|
|
watering down Constitution Legal Advice Article 2(a) Token Bad advice |
in constitution since 1922 some say its art 38.1 fair trial legal advice, stay silent, can be used offences against state, 6 months. a drop of dialogue in an ocean of silence. state unlikely to make concesion |
|
|
Healey v Ireland |
upheld the draconian measures of s(2a) |
|
|
Substance |
in order for you to not have silence used against you after lawyer, the things you say have to have substance cant just say "i didnt do it" |
|
|
Gormley |
upheld the idea that the police can keep questioning you |
|
|
Improperly obtained evidence R v Leatham |
Doesnt matter how you get it. |
|
|
Then a change O'Brien |
O'Brien, 4 criteria, const, intentional,causal, extraordinary, also rules for illegal, general exclusionary principle |
|
|
DPP v Kenny Curtin v Dail |
differs from O'Brien, Peace comissioner, procedure, excluded. all that matters is that the act is deliberate 1 day late, excluded. |
|
|
Damache v DPP DPP v McCarthy Mallon |
Write own warrants, no checks and balances wrong form used for warrant Marrowbonelaneclose, form vs. substance, postman |
|
|
Causal Link Walsh v O Buachalla DPP v Cullen DPP v McCrea |
Drunk driving Drugs on clothes Drunk driving but got off because could have been told consequences of refusal. |
|
|
Extraodinary circumstances Lawless Delaney Freeman |
flushing drugs saving lives in the course of an arrest |
|
|
Illegally obtained evidence O'Brien DPP v McMahon |
admissable but judge discretion to exclude enter without warrant, not a dwelling |
|
|
Breach of ECHR Jalloh v Germany |
made him get sick packet of drugs, said unfair, right to self incrimination |
|
|
DPP v Cash |
fingerprints, get your suspect doenst matter how but not evidence for trial |
|
|
YOURRIGHTS DPP v Lawless Kennedy v Ireland |
not his gaff right to privacy |
|
|
Right to liberty DPP v Cleary Inviolability |
got to question in garda station desctruciton of evidence, where there are lives in danger, see them enter the dwelling when trying to arrest like road traffic |
|
|
Right to legal advice DPP v Healey DPP v Finnegan DPP v Darcy O'Brien |
related right that you be told they are there consult in private no absolute right, tried there best garda trickery, tallaght, partial exclusion |
|
|
can you have solicitor present? |
no right to have them present, although DPP did adivse gardai that this would be a wise practice |
|
|
S3 CRIMINAL law rape act. |
sexual history not admissable, barnes what is sexual? cant embark on a fishing exercise, you are not the person on trial. |
|
|
That is that. |
whoooop |
