Supreme Court ruling on evidence

Sir, – Fintan O'Toole believes the recent Supreme Court judgment in the DPP v JC to be "bad for democracy", (Opinion and Analysis, April 21st). I beg to differ.

This ruling does not overturn any fundamental aspect of our Constitution; what it does is clarify, in a cautious way, what has become known as the “exclusionary rule” which excludes as evidence anything discovered where a search warrant is deemed faulty, even though the error may be minor and entirely inadvertent.

In the case before the court, the warrant at issue was entirely legal at the time but, because of a subsequent Supreme Court judgment which deemed the relevant section of the act under which it was issued unconstitutional, the evidence obtained, which allegedly included a confession to burglary, was deemed inadmissible. If upheld, this interpretation would have required the Garda Síochána to be clairvoyant – gardaí would have to have regard to, not just past, but future decisions of the courts.

Mr O’Toole’s statement that “a clear set of objective rules – the right of the citizens under the Constitution – is being replaced by an unclear and subjective standard” is disingenuous. All that has happened is that a past judicial interpretation has been modified to allow for some very limited exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The change provides needed balance between the rights of accused persons and the public interest in having crimes detected and tried without overly stringent legal constraint.

READ MORE

Like all constitutions, ours requires legal clarification from time to time. What we don’t need is a form of judicial activism that introduces novel features into the law – ones unintended by the legislature. The key pillar of our democratic system is the Oireachtas. Judges should balance legislative and constitutional rights with a light and enlightened touch. I welcome what appears to me to be a move in this direction. – Yours, etc ,

TOM WALL,

Dublin 12.