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
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