Ireland: A Move to Categorical Exclusion?

Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 20)

Abstract

Irish courts, like those of England and Wales and the United States, originally did not ask how evidence was gathered, only whether it was relevant and material to the issues in criminal cases. However, in 1964, the Irish Supreme Court in the O’Brien case firmly held, in following the U.S. cases of Weeks and Mapp, that evidence gathered as a result of a deliberate and conscious violation of constitutional rights should not be admissible in criminal trials. In 1990 the Irish Supreme Court in the case of Kenny strengthened this rule and rejected the U.S. exception for “good faith” which had been formulated in a 1984 case. These were cases dealing with the right to privacy. The chapter traces this case law up to the present and also discusses the admissibility of evidence gathered during unlawful interrogations. In this area, Irish law, like the modern law of England and Wales, will exclude cases rendered involuntary by police use of force, threats, deception, etc., but, unlike in the U.S. with its Miranda case law, allows comment on and use of the silence of a suspect who does not speak with the police after being arrested. An exception to this, however, is when the suspect was not given access to a lawyer before being interrogated.

Keywords

Legal Advice Fair Trial Constitutional Status Trial Judge Reasonable Suspicion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group. 2007. Final Report, Dublin: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/BalanceRpt.pdf/Files/BalanceRpt.pdf.
  2. Butler, A.S., and D.K. Ong. 1995. Breach of the constitutional right of access to a lawyer and the exclusion of evidence – The causative link. Irish Criminal Law Journal 5(2): 156–172.Google Scholar
  3. Charleton, P. 1980. Improperly obtained evidence and the constitution. Incorporated Law Society of Ireland Gazette 74(8): 169–177.Google Scholar
  4. Committee to Review the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939–1998. 1999. Report, (Hederman Report), Dublin: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/hederman%20report.pdf/Files/hederman%20report.pdf.
  5. Daly, Y.M. 2006. Does the buck stop here?: An examination of the pre-trial right to legal advice in light of O’Brien v. D.P.P. Dublin University Law Journal 28: 345–362.Google Scholar
  6. Daly, Y.M. 2011a. Exclusion of evidence: DPP (Walsh) v. Cash. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 15: 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daly, Y.M. 2011b. Judicial oversight of policing: Investigations, evidence and the exclusionary rule. Crime, Law, and Societal Change 55: 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heffernan, L. 2011. The right to legal advice, reasonable access and the remedy of excluding evidence. Criminal Law and Procedure Review 1: 111–129.Google Scholar
  9. McGrath, D. 2000. Evidence. In Annual review of Irish Law 1999, ed. R. Byrne and W. Binchy, 233–235. Dublin: Thomson Round Hall.Google Scholar
  10. McGrath, D. 2005. Evidence. Dublin: Thomson Round Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Zander, M. 1999. Cases and materials on the English legal system, 8th ed. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business and Law, School of LawUniversity College DublinDublin 6Ireland
  2. 2.School of Law and GovernmentDublin City UniversityDublin 9Ireland

Personalised recommendations