During a drug supply trial the defence apply under s.78 PACE 1984 to exclude a confession made without a solicitor present despite Lee having requested one and no s.58 delay being authorised. Which of the following correctly states the test under s.78?
- AThe court must exclude the confession as it was obtained in breach of s.58 PACE - any breach of the right to legal advice automatically requires exclusion under s.78.
- BThe court must exclude any evidence obtained in breach of the PACE codes - s.78 operates as a mandatory exclusion rule for all Code breaches.
- CThe court has a discretion to exclude the evidence if, having regard to all the circumstances including how it was obtained, admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
- DThe court may only exclude the evidence under s.78 if the defendant suffered actual prejudice as a result of the breach - a technical breach without demonstrable prejudice cannot found exclusion.
Show answer and explanation
Under s.78 PACE 1984 the court may refuse to allow evidence if, having regard to all the circumstances including how it was obtained, admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted. The power is discretionary - not mandatory. A breach of PACE or the Codes does not automatically require exclusion. The court weighs all the circumstances including the significance of the breach, whether it was deliberate, and overall fairness.
- A: Exclusion under s.78 is not automatic following a s.58 breach. The court has a discretion and must consider all the circumstances - a serious deliberate breach is more likely to lead to exclusion but the test is fairness, not automatic exclusion.
- B: s.78 is a discretionary power - not a mandatory exclusion rule. Code breaches are relevant to the s.78 assessment but do not automatically require exclusion regardless of their nature.
- D: Actual prejudice is not a prerequisite for s.78 exclusion. A serious breach of a fundamental right such as access to legal advice may justify exclusion even where specific prejudice is difficult to quantify.