English law's traditional approach to the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence is currently being rethought in response to a range of domestic and international pressures. With the position in England and Wales following the House of Lords' decision in A and Others (2005) firmly in mind, this article undertakes a selective review of comparative approaches to the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Having analysed relevant legislation and case law in each jurisdiction, general principles are derived to guide future developments in English law, in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. n this article we offer, from the perspective of academic lawyers in England and Wales, some thoughts on recent developments in Commonwealth jurisdictions on the treatment of evidence that has been

No abstract

This article presents a comparative study of the 20th-century exclusion of women from participation on juries. It explains that until the 1970s, and in some cases even the 1990s, substantial formal limitations on jury franchise were placed on women in Ireland, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. This situation existed notwithstanding women’s equality of political franchise through the vote and despite judicial references to the centrality of the jury. While in England and Wales women were not treated differently from men in formal terms after the 1920s, property qualifications denied them substantive equality and informal limitations excluded women disproportionately. We highlight some distinctive features of the English experience as compared and contrasted with the laws and policies on jury composition operating in other jurisdictions, and ask whether the legacies left by the traditionally unrepresentative jury and the battles for gender equality offer lessons relevant to understanding jury trials in contemporary times.

This paper analyses the judicial contribution to the English law relating to undercover police operations. The analysis is undertaken from the perspective of an academic lawyer specialising in criminal evidence and procedure. It is demonstrated that judicial attention has largely been focused on two issues: First, the extent to which the use of undercover police operations may lead to the exclusion of prosecution evidence, or even to a complete stay of the proceedings; and, secondly, the extent to which sensitive information about undercover operations may justifiably be withheld from the defence. In examining these issues, the paper endeavours to show that there has been a tendency on the part of the English courts to advocate the use of ‘balancing tests' to resolve issues, without articulating clearly the considerations to be taken into account in performing these tests. An examination is also undertaken of the legal position in the USA and Canada and of the significance of the Human Rights Act 1998. A number of proposals for reform of the law are made. The paper was originally presented at a conference on ‘Developments in Contemporary Policing: Intelligence-led Operations and Inter-agency Co-operation’, University of Kent at Canterbury, 18th April, 1997.