File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Conference Paper: Integrity and restoration in exclusion of improperly obtained evidence
Title | Integrity and restoration in exclusion of improperly obtained evidence |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2013 |
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? |
Abstract | What 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. |
Description | Conference Theme: Realising Integrity in the Criminal Process |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/235323 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Chau, SC | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-10-14T13:52:34Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-10-14T13:52:34Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | - |
dc.identifier.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. | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/235323 | - |
dc.description | Conference Theme: Realising Integrity in the Criminal Process | - |
dc.description.abstract | What 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.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | 2nd UNSW Conduct Unbecoming Workshop | - |
dc.title | Integrity and restoration in exclusion of improperly obtained evidence | - |
dc.type | Conference_Paper | - |
dc.identifier.email | Chau, SC: pscchau@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Chau, SC=rp01529 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 269390 | - |