File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

Supplementary

Conference Paper: Integrity and restoration in exclusion of improperly obtained evidence

TitleIntegrity and restoration in exclusion of improperly obtained evidence
Authors
Chau, SC
Issue Date2013
Citation
The 2nd Conduct Unbecoming Conference on Realising Integrity in the Criminal Process, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 5-6 April 2013. How to Cite?
AbstractWhat is the rationale for excluding improperly obtained evidence in criminal trials, assuming that the evidence is reliable? Many writers recently claim that the answer does not lie in consequentialist concerns like deterrence. In particular, two non-consequentialist answers are prominent in the literature: the integrity theory (which is defended by Ian Dennis and Adrian Zuckerman) and the restoration theory (which is defended by Andrew Ashworth). This paper aims to examine the pros and cons of the two theories. Moreover, this paper will also examine whether there are other non-consequentialist justifications for exclusion.
DescriptionConference Theme: Realising Integrity in the Criminal Process
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/235323

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChau, SC-
dc.date.accessioned2016-10-14T13:52:34Z-
dc.date.available2016-10-14T13:52:34Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationThe 2nd Conduct Unbecoming Conference on Realising Integrity in the Criminal Process, Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 5-6 April 2013.-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/235323-
dc.descriptionConference Theme: Realising Integrity in the Criminal Process-
dc.description.abstractWhat is the rationale for excluding improperly obtained evidence in criminal trials, assuming that the evidence is reliable? Many writers recently claim that the answer does not lie in consequentialist concerns like deterrence. In particular, two non-consequentialist answers are prominent in the literature: the integrity theory (which is defended by Ian Dennis and Adrian Zuckerman) and the restoration theory (which is defended by Andrew Ashworth). This paper aims to examine the pros and cons of the two theories. Moreover, this paper will also examine whether there are other non-consequentialist justifications for exclusion.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartof2nd UNSW Conduct Unbecoming Workshop-
dc.titleIntegrity and restoration in exclusion of improperly obtained evidence-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailChau, SC: pscchau@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityChau, SC=rp01529-
dc.identifier.hkuros269390-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats

OR

Export to Other Non-XML Formats