Where is Your Data? This is the old site

Section 76 of PACE deals with challenges to the admissibility of confessions in criminal proceedings, Section 76 (2) PACE directs the court to exclude confession evidence obtained by oppression; in circumstances which were likely to make the confession unreliable. Prosecutors should remember that, whilst the confession itself may be excluded, Section 76(4) allows facts discovered as a result of the confession, or of the way in which defendants speak, write or express themselves, to be adduced where relevant. Source CPS

This is not to be confused with Section 78 of PACE

Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act gives the court powers to exlcude evidence from a trial which has been unfairly obtained. This section has resulted in numerous case law. This is not to be confused with Section 76, which deals with confessions obtained through oppression.

This article is an attempt to analyse the principles which the courts use to decide whether or not to exercise the discretion to exclude. It starts by examining the decisions of the appellate courts in order to try to identify the factors which the judges regard as relevant to this discretion. Secondly, it examines the possible policies which might underlie a discretion to exclude. It then attempts to match the practice to the policies, and concludes that ‘fairness as fair play’ is the dominant policy currently being used. The conclusion considers how the changes in the rights of the suspect (in particular the right to remain silent) introduced by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are likely to impact on the operation of s 78. Source

Section 8 of PACE gives power to magistrates to issue warrants, it depends on “reasonable grounds”

Section 8 (MoJ)

Section 22 of PACE allows the police to retain the evidence seized for as long as they need it.

Section 22 PACE