Skip to content

REVINPRIN 1

'A Revolution in Principle': Assessing the impact of the new evidentiary exclusionary rule

Thank you for agreeing to participate in my Irish Research Council funded research into the operation of the exclusionary rule since the decision in JC v. DPP [2015] IESC 31. This survey should take 8-10 minutes to complete.
1.How many years have you been practising criminal law?
2.Please select the courts where you practise most frequently?
3.JC  v. DPP [2015] IESC 31 changed the law relating to the admissibility of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in this jurisdiction by introducing an exception based on 'inadvertence'. In your experience, how has the JC v. DPP case has been applied in practice?
4.If your answer to the question above was 'in a varied manner', please outline briefly below the circumstances in which evidence may be included.
5.Has the change in the exclusionary rule affected your advice to clients in terms of their decision to plead?
6.If yes, please note briefly how this has changed.
7.Is the new rule being applied only to search warrants or in the context of all breaches of constitutional rights?
8.When JC is invoked, how do the prosecution generally establish ‘inadvertence’?
9.In your view, is there scope to challenge an assertion of 'inadvertence' once asserted?
10.The JC test includes a rebuttable presumption against the admission of evidence obtained in reckless or grossly negligent breach of constitutional rights. In your view does this act to mitigate the effects of JC in practice?
11.The decision in JC indicates that in determining 'inadvertence' the court should consider not only the state of mind of the person collecting the evidence but that of his/her superiors. In your experience is this done in practice?
12.In your view has JC and the new exclusionary rule impacted other procedural protections such as the right to legal advice?
13.Hardiman J. in JC described the majority decision as a ‘revolution in principle’ and ‘a major step in the disengagement of this Court from the rights-oriented jurisprudence of our predecessors’. Do you agree?
14.Do you have any further observations which you would like to add?
Current Progress,
0 of 14 answered