R v Murphy
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1965 |
| Date | 01 January 1965 |
| Court | Courts-Martial Appeal Court (Northern Ireland) |
(C.-M.A.C.)
R
and
Murphy
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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
37 cases
-
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......
- Sneddon v Stevenson
-
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......
Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
-
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......