R v Murphy
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1965 |
| Date | 01 January 1965 |
| Court | Courts-Martial Appeal Court (Northern Ireland) |
Agent provocateur -Discretion of court to reject evidence unfairly obtained.
The appellant, a soldier serving in the Army, was charged before a district court-martial with the offence of disclosing information useful to an enemy, contrary to section 60 (1) of the Army Act, 1955. The substance of the case against him was contained in the evidence of police officers who had posed as members of a subversive organisation with which the authorities suspected the appellant to have sympathies, and had elicited the information the subject of the charge by asking the appellant questions concerning the security of his barracks. The appellant was convicted, but appealed to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court against his conviction, on the ground that the court-martial which heard the case ought in its discretion to have rejected the evidence of the police officers because of the manner in which it was obtained. At the opening of the hearing of the appeal the Crown, on security grounds, sought an order that the proceedings be heard in camera, the application being based on the submission that the court had inherent jurisdiction to make such order rather than on any of the provisions of the Army Act. The court held that it had such jurisdiction, and ordered accordingly. Held, (i) that in criminal proceedings evidence which has been improperly obtained is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd
... ... 980H–981A , C–D , E ) ... Rost v. Edwards [ 1990 ] 2 Q.B. 460 doubted ... News Media Ownership v. Finlay [ 1970 ] N.Z.L.R. 1089 disapproved ... Reg. v. Murphy ( 1986 ) 64 A.L.R. 498 and Wright and Advertiser Newspapers Ltd. v. Lewis ( 1990 ) 53 S.A.S.R. 416 not followed ... Adam v. Ward [ 1917 ] A.C. 309 , H.L.(E.) distinguished ... But (2), allowing the appeal in relation to the stay, that although the interests of justice ... ...
-
R v Sang
...pointed out) the illegality of the police action in Kuruma. Yet in neither case was the offending evidence ruled out. 36 We turn next to R. v. Murphy (1965) N.I.L.R. 138, a decision of the Northern Ireland Courts-Martial Appeal Court presided over by Lord MacDermott C.J. The substance of th......
-
R v Watson (Campbell)
...upon the point, but we accept the reasoning expressed in a passage in a judgment of the Northern Ireland Court Martial Appeals Court in R. v. Murphy (1965) N.I.L.R. 130 at 143, delivered by Lord MacDermott, Lord Chief Justice, which, though immediately concerned with a question of discretio......
-
R v McEvilly
...to be applied in these cases is clear. It is stated in a number of cases and nowhere better, if I may respectfully say so, than in R. v. Murphy, (1965) Northern Ireland Law Reports 138, in a decision of the Northern Ireland Court Martial Appeal Court. It is not necessary to go through the f......
-
Evidence 1
...garb of innocence. Lord Mac Dermott L.C.J. while considering this Police procedure of detection by deception in the case of R. v. Murphy (1965) N.I. 138 commented at 147: - “Detection by deception is a form of Police procedure to be directed and used sparingly and with circumspection but as......
-
Courts of Appeal
...torefuse to admit such evidence.Thecourtfound particularly persuasivethe words to thiseffectofLord MacDermott CJinthecaseofR. v.Murphy (1965, N I 138 at p.147),and alsonotedthatin Sneddon v.Stevenson (1967, 1 W L R 1051) Lord Parker CJsaid atp.1057:"Nodoubtactionofthis sort should not be em......