Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 55, Issue 2–3, pp 199–215 | Cite as

Judicial oversight of policing: investigations, evidence and the exclusionary rule

  • Yvonne Marie Daly


Police procedures and practices in the investigation of crime are shaped by many things. One particularly important constituent part of the development of investigative procedures and practices is the approach of the courts to the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained in a certain manner. While a judge can only address the specifics of whatever cases are brought before him, the judiciary as a whole have a significant role to play in terms of police accountability and governance through their development and application of any exclusionary rules of criminal evidence. This article examines the judicial oversight of policing by way of the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence at trial. Its central focus is on the development and operation of the exclusionary rule in Ireland, though relevant law in other jurisdictions, including England and Wales, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, is also considered. Particular attention is paid to the recent Irish Supreme Court decision of DPP v Cash, and its ramifications for judicial oversight of policing.


Criminal Process Criminal Trial Trial Judge Exclusionary Rule Police Accountability 
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.


  1. 1.
    Balance in the Criminal Law Review Group. (2007). Final Report. Dublin.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Choo, A. L.-T., & Nash, S. (2003). Evidence law in England and Wales: the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 7(1), 31–62.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choo, A. L-T., & Nash, S. (1999). What’s the matter with section 78? Criminal Law Review, December, pp 929–940.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Consedine, S. (2004). R v Shaheed: the first twenty months. Canterbury Law Review, 10(1), 77–105.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conway, V., Daly, Y. M., & Schweppe, J. (2010). Irish criminal justice: Theory practice and procedure. Dublin: Clarus.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Criminal Justice Act, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Criminal Justice Act, 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda Síochána Stations) Regulations, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Criminal Justice Act, 2007.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence and DNA Database System) Bill 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Daly, Y. M. (2009). Unconstitutionally obtained evidence in Ireland: protectionism, deterrence and the winds of change. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 19(2), 40–50.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dripps, D. (2001). The case for the contingent exclusionary rule. American Criminal Law Review, 38(1), 1–46.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fennell, C. (2009). The law of evidence in Ireland (3rd ed.). Dublin: Bloomsbury Professional, Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heffernan, L. (2009). DNA and fingerprint data retention: S. and Marper v United Kingdom. European Law Review, 34(3), 491–504.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kamisar, Y. (2003). In defense of the search and seizure exclusionary rule. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 26(1), 119–143.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keane, A. (2008). The modern law of evidence (7th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Law Reform Commission. (2004). Consultation Paper on the Establishment of a DNA Database. Dublin: LRC CP29-2004.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leahy, E. (1995). Genetic profiling and the reasonable doubt. Medico-Legal Journal of Ireland, 1(2), 66–68.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin, F. (1992). The rationale of the exclusionary rule of evidence revisited. Irish Criminal Law Journal, 2(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGrath, D. (2004). The exclusionary rule in respect of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. Dublin University Law Journal., 26(1), 108–128.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGrath, D. (2005). Evidence. Dublin: Thomson Round Hall, Chapter 7.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Misuse of Drugs Act 1977.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Malley, T. (2009). The criminal process. Dublin: Round Hall, Chapter 19.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Optican, S. (2004). The new exclusionary rule: interpretation and application of R v Shaheed. New Zealand Law Review, 3, 451–535.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Optican, S., & Sankoff, P. (2003). The new exclusionary rule: a preliminary assessment of R v Shaheed. New Zealand Law Review, 1, 1–44.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Officers (Code of Practice C).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sklansky, D. A. (2007–2008). Is the exclusionary rule obsolete? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5(2), 567–584.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walsh, D. (2002). Criminal procedure. Dublin: Thomson Round Hall, Chapter 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Socio-Legal Research Centre, School of Law and Government, Dublin City UniversityDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations