Improperly Obtained Evidence in Anglo-American and Continental Law

Title page
Copyright
Dedication
PREFACE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CASES
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
1
Introduction
	I. Four Comparative Law Pillars
	II. Linguistics
	III. Who Excludes?
	IV. At What Stage of the Processis Evidence Excluded?
	V. What Happens after Exclusion?
	VI. Organisation of the Book
2 Exclusionary Rules for Evidence Obtained in Violation of the Right to Privacy: Greece and the United States
	I. Prolegomena on the Link BetweenConstitutionalisation and AutomaticExclusionary Rules
	II. Reading the Exclusionary Rule into the Constitution
	III. Constitutional Exclusionary Rules
	IV. The Greek Exclusionary Rule for Evidence Obtained by the Commission of Criminal Offences
	V. Same Origins, Different Directions: The Deterrent and Protective Rationales in Action
	VI. Caveats
	VII. Concluding Thoughts
	VIII. Epilogue: Triggers for the Constitutionalisationof the Exclusionary Rule
3 Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence Obtained in Violation of the Right to Privacy: France and England and Wales
	I. General Principles and Legislative Framework
	II. Jurisprudential Applications: Admitting Evidence Obtained in Violation of the Right to Privacy
	III. Evidence Obtained Through the Bugging of PoliceCells: French Lessons for England and Wales?
	IV. Concluding Thoughts
4 Improperly Obtained Confessional Evidence: Converging Rights-Based Approaches
	I. The Modern Metamorphoses of the French Nullitésof the Garde À Vue: The Road to Automatic Nullities
	II. Automatic Nullities for Violations of Suspects’ Rights in Greece
	III. Miranda v Arizona: The Exclusionary Rule in Fast Decline (but Exclusion is Still Automatic)
	IV. Confessional Evidence, Reliability and Suspects’ Rights: A Mixed Picture in the UK
	V. Concluding Thoughts
5 Confessional Evidence and European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence: Building Rights-based Consensus or Backtracking on Rights Protection?
	I. The European Court of Human Rights’ Miranda Moment: The Salduz Jurisprudence
	II. From Salduz’s Exclusionary Rule to Common Custodial Interrogation Rights in Europe (Passing by the EU Procedural Rights Directives)
	III. Throwing Salduz ‘Off the Rails’?
	IV. Concluding Thoughts
6 Reinvigorating the Rights Thesis
	I. Improperly Obtained Evidence and the Aims of the Criminal Process
	II. ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights’ Revisited
	III. Is There Support in Comparative Law for the Rights Thesis?
	IV. Concluding Thoughts
7 Epilogue: The Future
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX