R V N. A Case Analysis

Good Essays
ANAYLSIS OF THE PRINCIPLE AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS IN THE CASE OF R v N.

A Introduction
In deciding the outcome of a case the courts must have regard to the legal principles, public policies and the correlation with the legal rule. A distinction between legal principle, public policy and rule will be considered and applied in the matter in which Carmody CJ justifies his decision in R v N.

1 Facts of the Case
In the Supreme Court, a pre-trial application under s 590AA was sought to exclude evidence obtained based on public policy. The grounds for this application were the result of an improper search conducted without the required reasonable suspicion on the part of K (the searching officer). Mr Callaghan, council for N, argued the forensic
…show more content…
Contrary to this, legal principles are a broad manifestation of the desirability to maintain individual rights during the legal process; such as the ‘neighbourhood principle’. The legal rules are often the product of a legal principle that is embedded in legislation; such as the Criminal Law Amendment Act s 10.

C Legal Analysis
The decision in R v N surrounds the idea that public policy is not burden with the evidentiary value of the iPhone data but rather that social ideals of police conduct are upheld against the public desire to prevent and prosecute drug dealers. The warrantless search and the lack of reasonable suspicion are balanced against the public interest to determine the admissibility of the evidence.

1 Warrantless
…show more content…
Carmody then discusses the common law public policy discretion; quoting Halliday v Nevill ‘The warrant process acts as a safeguard in the “contest” between public authority and the security of private dwellings and property’. Moreover, comparing Australian authority that ‘police lawfully on premises cannot search them … before arrest merely on the basis of reasonable suspicion’ and Lord Denning’s obiter in Ghani v Jones that allows for ‘a public interest-based judicial discretion’ to receive evidence outside of the legal scope of search and seizure. In considering the impact on presenting evidence to juries, Carmody CJ concludes that usually it would be wrong to reject the evidence contained in the iPhone because it was found before a warrant had been obtained. However, it is then whether the ‘carefully drawn bounds’ of the search power can be circumvented in the pursuing a public standard regarding the illicit drug trade.

2 Reasonable Suspicion
Briefly Carmody CJ considered the policy concerns that surround the requirement of reasonable suspicion. He describes the requirement as ‘a practical safeguard against overly invasive investigative action’ in which he later describes K’s conclusions to be the ‘basis of faulty logic’ of which N’s circumstances could not have logically suggested drug dealing. Thus, K’s improper search and evidence obtained

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Third Party Omissions

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages

    This can be demonstrated through the Osman v United Kingdom case. The claimants argued that the police had an assumed responsibility for their safety. Although, it was contended that public authorities will be held liable for their omission only if they knew of the situation or were required to have known of the existence of a real and immediate threat. However, if this rationale can be justified to be fair, then in the Smiths case, why was it held that the police did not have an assumed responsibility to the claimant, when the claimant had made his situation known to the police about the threats and previous violence? Craig argues that this blanket of immunity developed by the Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police case is not fair; because the position of a public body vested with discretionary powers is not the same as that of a private individual.…

    • 1016 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Petitioner also challenged the logic of the government’s argument that the jury instruction constituted plain error. For Petitioner, if the error was so egregious, the government should have objected at trial. Indeed, in other contexts, appellate courts applied the plain error doctrine to legal questions that were contested at the underlying trial, not in situations where there was no objection, and therefore no dispute, between the parties. In support of this argument, Petitioner analogized to the Court’s precedent in the Double Jeopardy context. Petitioner noted that the “the plainness and even egregiousness of an error in adding an extra-statutory element is of no moment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause where an acquittal was…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Topic One In the Concept of Law, Hart attempts to depict one of the differing viewpoints to his own beliefs of positivism; this one being Austen’s of which he calls the theory of coercive orders. Essentially, the theory of coercive orders is when a political superior commands a political inferior with the backing of a threat. In what Hart details as a valid legal system, the criminal statute may be construed as a threat, however, the important difference between that and coercive orders is that the ‘threat’ of not behaving correctly in accordance with the rules applies to the entirety of the jurisdiction, not merely the underlings. It is that rational that also leads Hart to take issue to the idea of laws being commands that apply only to the…

    • 1077 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Mapp v. Ohio and other important exclusionary rule cases are covered within this article. The author appears to be a strong advocate for an individual’s constitutional rights and makes the argument that the exclusionary rule is necessary for the respect of privacy, as outlined by the fourth amendment. According to this article, the exclusionary rule serves as a deterrence for law enforcement which keeps police from illegally obtaining evidence and serves as a recourse for individuals who were subjected to illegal searches and seizures. Thus, the exclusionary rule does not allow for illegal evidence to be used in court which protects judicial integrity. This article is useful to my research because it highlights the argument in favor of the exclusionary rule by providing evidence for its case.…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A justification for secret trusts based on fraud is considered as a reason why the secret trustee should not take the testator’s property as an absolute gift, but not by itself a reason why secret trusts ought to be enforced for the interest of the genuine beneficiates. A possible way round this problem is to give the term “fraud” a wider meaning. According to Allan’s analysis, case laws have shown that “the view that fraud must involve the secret trustee gaining personally was rejected outright”.…

    • 851 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    PRETLOVE: IMPROPERLY OBTAINED DOCUMENTS In Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (In Liquidation) & Ors v Bond & Ors , the Court was asked to determine whether the tendering of transcript from a previous hearing that went to the credit of the defendants was an abuse of the court’s process and should not be allowed. Lander J, the presiding Judge, undertook a lengthy analysis of the legislative provisions that provide for the admission of documents. Lander J ultimately found that the court has a discretion to exclude documents that have been obtained through improper or illegal means, albeit it is a high test concerning the abuse of court process that must be satisfied to warrant the exclusion of otherwise admissible evidence. Lander J considered…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 constitutes that a suspect has the right to not answer questions before, during and after the interview. Nevertheless, this might not be a procedural challenge to the interrogators, as silence can infer suspicion and this following can be used as evidence against the suspect, too . Andrew Ashworth evokes that ' 'one problem with adverse inferences is that they put pressure on suspect to talk . This might lead to innocent people confessing to something that did not commit and subsequently incriminate…

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Parol Evidence Rule

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Wiencek further argues that the trial court erred by considering “parol evidence to vary the effective date of the [B108 agreement] and to controvert the integration clause.” CHH, for its part, avers that the admission of parol evidence was proper because it was offered to determine whether the contract was effective. We hold that the circuit court did not violate the parole evidence rule because extrinsic evidence was not offered to add or modify any terms to the B108 agreement. Generally, parol or extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of an integrated contract. Foreman v. Melrod, 257 Md. 435, 441 (1970) (“‘All prior and contemporaneous negotiations are merged in the written instrument, which is treated as the exclusive…

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    (1) Was the common law confessions rule requiring the Crown to prove the voluntariness of an accused’s statement before it can be admissible in court, applicable in a Voir dire hearing (R. v. Paterson, (2017). (2) Were there exigent circumstances in this case to make obtaining a warrant impracticable by the police before its search and seizure of the appellant’s residence (R. v. Paterson, (2017). (3) Was the failure by the police to file a report after the warrantless seizure serious enough to constitute an infringement of the appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable search or seizure (R. v. Paterson,…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    R V G 2003 Case Study

    • 969 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Lord Diplock extended recklessness by applying an objective test of what a reasonable person would have contemplated in order to bridge the gap between moral blame and legal guilt. In cases where the accused had the capacity to consider the risks and through his or her own conduct didn’t do the Caldwell ruling should be…

    • 969 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays