- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Keenan (1989) CA
I. Case Facts:
Should the interview evidence be excluded under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) due to the serious breach of the Code of Practice?
III. Decision and Reasoning:
I. Case Facts:
- Appellant's Arrest and Search: Police arrested Keenan for unauthorized car use and searched his car without him present, finding a homemade spear.
- Charges: Keenan was charged with driving offenses and possessing an offensive weapon.
- Subsequent Evidence: After committal, police added evidence of an unrecorded interview where Keenan allegedly admitted knowledge of the spear but denied ownership.
- Code Breach: This interview violated the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) Code of Practice concerning recording interviews. Keenan denied the interview ever occurred.
- Conviction and Appeal: Keenan was convicted, appealing on the grounds that the interview evidence should be inadmissible.
Should the interview evidence be excluded under Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) due to the serious breach of the Code of Practice?
III. Decision and Reasoning:
- Appeal Allowed: The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction.
- Serious and Substantial Breach: The court deemed the Code breaches "serious and substantial." Admitting the evidence would unfairly penalize Keenan for exercising his right to silence or force him into a disadvantageous position (lack of contemporaneous record to challenge the police account, potential opening of his past record to cross-examination).
- Section 78 Application: The evidence was excluded under s.78 PACE. The court emphasized that this wasn't about punishing the police; rather, it was about preventing injustice to the defendant.
- Hodgson J's Emphasis on Police Compliance: Effective Codes of Practice depend on habitual police compliance. Ignorance of key provisions is unacceptable.
- Threshold for Exclusion: Not every breach justifies exclusion. Breaches must be "significant and substantial" (differentiating from R v Hallett). The court's role isn't to discipline the police (citing R v Delaney).
- Avoiding Injustice: The principle underpinning s.78 is to prevent injustice to the defendant, not to punish police misconduct.
- PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984): The primary legislation governing the powers and procedures of the police in England and Wales.
- Section 78 PACE: Grants courts the power to exclude evidence if its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
- Code of Practice: Guidelines issued under PACE to regulate police conduct during investigations.
- "Verballing": A term describing the practice of police officers fabricating statements, often without proper recording. Keenan highlights the importance of proper recording to avoid this issue.
- Right to Silence: A defendant's right not to incriminate themselves, which the court recognized as relevant in its decision.
- Explain the facts of R v Keenan and the specific Code of Practice breaches involved.
- What is the significance of the "serious and substantial" test for excluding evidence under s.78 PACE?
- How did the court balance the need to uphold police standards with the principle of a fair trial?
- Compare and contrast R v Keenan with R v Hallett and R v Delaney. What are the key differences in the rulings?
- Discuss the implications of R v Keenan for police practice and the administration of justice. How does this case impact the balance between effective policing and the protection of defendants' rights?
0 Comments