Law Students - Chat Thread

Sure but concerning the human rights aspect, I'd link the provisions of PACE with provisions from HRA.

I used Sanders and Young's Criminal Justice, Robert Reiner's Politics of the Police and the Oxford Handbook of Criminology during my course.

Concerning articles, I used to just ask my tutor for anything interesting he'd come across recently.

You could also mention any ways PACE may inhibit the police from interrogating and gathering evidence, how this would affect the police's attempts to ascertain Mens Rea.

Thank you so much! Kind of have a direction of where to start now lol. So, basically link between PACE 1984 and HRA 1998 and how it led to the protection of suspect's human rights?

So in that aspect, right to legal advice, right to silence etc may effect police's research on gathering evidence for suspect's mens rea.

Perhaps also consider the limits on custody and the adverse inferences PACE allows to be drawn from silence.

Thank you so much! Kind of have a direction of where to start now lol. So, basically link between PACE 1984 and HRA 1998 and how it led to the protection of suspect's human rights?

So in that aspect, right to legal advice, right to silence etc may effect police's research on gathering evidence for suspect's mens rea.

Also, where the police don't follow PACE or some of the provisions, any evidence they gain as a result of that would be striked out in court due to the prejudicial effect on the defendant. That also protects the suspect's right to a fair trial.

Glad to be of help although I do wish I remembered enough to give better advice.

Yes it may affect the duties of the police although a refusal to answer a question could infer guilt in court if the suspect later goes on to answer. They could be asked why they refused to answer a question if they choose to be cross examined in court. From what I'm aware of, they don't have to give a direct statement in court unless the defence chooses to. The prosecution can't force them to give a statement. If the suspect chooses to stand up and talk, they'll be examined by the defence first, then the prosecution if they wish and then the defence could also opt to examine the suspect again or something.

Also, where the police don't follow PACE or some of the provisions, any evidence they gain as a result of that would be striked out in court due to the prejudicial effect on the defendant. That also protects the suspect's right to a fair trial.

In practice this very rarely happens. We don't have fruit of the poison tree in English law. There are a lot of search warrants that end up being quashed yet the evidence gained under them is kept and relied on in court.

Ah ok. But this is essentially what my lecturer told me: if the prejudicial effect is too great then the evidence would not be kept. But we've not gone into this too much yet.

I wish my evidence module was clearer tbh. Sometimes I have no clue what I'm meant to be learning.

In theory yes - but the prejudice would have to be huge. I've seen a number of warrants go bad and the evidence be kept using another act.

If you don't mind me asking, what's the statute or case governing this? I can't find anything in my lecture notes

s 59 CJPA 2001

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/16/section/59

Thank you!

Durham, KCL, UCL and Nottingham students...

When did you get your offer? Getting slightly impatient for a response over here

yw. if you look for cases on that section you will find a fair number (and judicial confirmation that it can be done) of LE bodies applying to keep evidence obtained under a search warrant that was quashed.

Can you please explain how this answers my question (what specific month did current students of the listed universities receive their offer)?

That will give you an idea of timeframes this year. What has happened before is largely irrelevant because the number and quality of applicants fluctuates year to year as does the admissions staff dealing with the applications. You are far better informed as to whether or not your impatience is valid by reference to your peers than those who have gone before.

Hoping somebody could clarify this question on duress to goods in contract law.

Is it correct to say that duress to goods can make a contract voidable?

Skeate v Beale held that it would not but this is no longer regarded as good law. The only other leading authority that seems to be mentioned is Astley v Reynolds but that concerned payment under compulsion, not strictly 'goods' like chattel.

I'm sure the lecturer said that Astley v Reynolds meant that, generally, duress to goods can make a contract voidable but the textbook doesn't explicitly say this, so just wanted to clarify in the broad sense of 'goods'.