<p>
	The Supreme Court has relaxed a 25-year-old rule which effectively excluded from a criminal trial evidence which was obtained through a breach of an accused&#39;s rights.</p>
<p>
	In a case that could have major implications for the investigation and prosecution of crimes, the court granted an appeal by the DPP to relax a 1990 rule concerning exclusion of evidence.</p>
<p>
	The application of the rule led to a man, known as JC, being lawfully acquitted of burglary charges. The issue of whether the man will be retried will be decided later. By a four to three majority, the Supreme Court granted an appeal by the DPP to alter a rule which had applied since 1990 in a Supreme Court case entitled &quot;DPP v Kenny&quot;.</p>
<p>
	That rule has, since 1990, effectively excluded all evidence obtained where there was a breach of a constitutional right, whether or not that breach was deliberate or due to a mistake.</p>
<p>
	The majority court said the Kenny decision was a determination, in relation to admissibility of evidence, of the &quot;proper balance&quot; to be struck in vindicating the constitutional rights and principles at stake. The majority court said it was replacing the Kenny test with a new &quot;clear&quot; test designed to effect an &quot;appropriate&quot; balance between competing factors.</p>
<p>
	Mr Justice Donal O&#39;Donnell, who formed the majority view with the Chief Justice Susan Denham, Mr Justice Frank Clarke and Mr Justice John MacMenamin, said the Kenny decision was &quot;plainly wrong&quot; and it was &quot;long past time it was addressed&quot;.</p>
<p>
	Mr Justice MacMenamin, agreeing, said the reputation and integrity of the system of justice should not be adversely affected by a &quot;good faith exception&quot; that was &quot;properly and faithfully applied to the exclusionary rule properly and constitutionally applied&quot;.</p>
<p>
	In a dissenting judgment, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said the Kenny decision was essential to the maintenance of the liberties of a citizen.</p>
<p>
	Consequences</p>
<p>
	The new rule would permit &quot;inadvertence&quot; by public officials with coercive powers to sufficiently excuse a breach of a citizen&#39;s constitutional rights to allow material obtained by such breach to be proved in evidence against them, he said.</p>
<p>
	Also dissenting, Mr Justice John Murray said the consequences of the majority court ruling was &quot;to change the goalposts, not during the game but after the game is over, except is it not about a game or sport, it is about a criminal trial and justice which the Constitution requires shall be considered in due course of law&quot;.</p>
<p>
	Mr Justice Liam McKechnie also dissented and said it could not be said that the Kenny decision was &quot;plainly wrong&quot;.</p>
<p>
	In the appeal, the DPP asked the Supreme Court to review the exclusionary rule of evidence under which the courts refuse to allow evidence be admitted if obtained in circumstances involving a breach of a defendant&#39;s constitutional right, irrespective of whether that right was breached by mistake.</p>
<p>
	The DPP asked the Supreme Court to find the rule was misapplied in the man&#39;s case and to make a &quot;conclusive&quot; decision on the applicability of the rule to future cases.</p>
<p>
	What was the ruling about?</p>
<p>
	&nbsp;</p>
<p>
	The case involved a man who was acquitted on burglary charges. The case against the man, known as JC, collapsed after evidence was excluded under a 25-year-old exclusionary rule laid down by the Supreme Court decision in the 1990 Kenny case.</p>
<p>
	The man was acquitted by direction of the trial judge on the grounds that garda&iacute; had effected an unlawful entry into his home under a warrant issued pursuant to S29 of the Offences against the State Act 1939.</p>
<p>
	Because the section of the 1939 law was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2012, the evidence was excluded in the JC case, leading to his acquittal.</p>
<p>
	The DPP appealed the trial judge&rsquo;s decision, arguing that the judge erroneously excluded the evidence even though the judge had relied on the Supreme Court&rsquo;s own rule in the Kenny case.</p>
<p>
	Yesterday, the Supreme Court overruled its own decision on the so-called exclusionary rule and rewrote the test for admitting unconstitutionally obtained evidence.</p>
<p>
	A decision on whether JC will be subject to a retrial or his acquittal will stand will be taken at a later date</p>
<p>
	The old rule</p>
<p>
	&nbsp;</p>
<p>
	Evidence obtained in breach of an accused&rsquo;s constitutional rights excluded at trial, unless there are special or exceptional circumstances, even if the actions of the garda&iacute; are accidental or intentional.</p>
<p>
	The new rule</p>
<p>
	&nbsp;</p>
<p>
	Evidence obtained in breach of an accused&rsquo;s constitutional rights excluded at trial unless prosecution establishes that the breach was not conscious and deliberate.</p>
<p>
	Unconstitutionally obtained evidence will also be admitted where the prosecution establishes that the breach of rights was due to inadvertence or derives from subsequent legal rights.</p>
<p>
	<a href="http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/supreme-court-alters-evidence-rule-which-had-applied-since-1990-31147073.html">http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/supreme-court-alters-evidence-rule-which-had-applied-since-1990-31147073.html</a></p>
