Criminal Investigation Process
The criminal investigation process is a complex aspect of the legal system that has had mixed levels of success in achieving justice lawfully, justly and in the accordance with the rights of the victims, accused and society. The criminal investigation process encapsulates the powers of police to; search and seize (e.g. drug detection dogs); arrest (including the use of tasers); use of technology (DNA evidence); and entails the rights of suspects, such as bail and remand and the right to counsel during interrogation. One integral piece of legislation is the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPAR), which has consolidated police powers.
Firstly, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process is effective in achieving justice, as it protects the rights of suspects. Individual’s rights are protected as legislation is in place to strictly regulate the use of DDD and the places they can be deployed (LEPAR). For example, in the case of Darby v DPP [2004], Darby was acquitted of drug possession after it was found that the sniffer dog committed an illegal search, by coming in contact with the suspect’s pocket. Thus, under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), it was found that this evidence was unlawfully obtained and hence, inadmissible in court. According to Geesce Jacobson (SMH), the conditions and circumstances for obtaining illegal evidence might let probable suspects off and hence pervade the course of justice for victims and society, rendering it somewhat ineffective. However, drug detection dogs statistically have been proven to be a source of situational crime prevention – active, visible police presence which has had a significant deterring effect and also source of social crime prevention as drug detection dogs are likely to help reduce the ‘social acceptability’ of drug use in the community.
Conversely, drug detection dogs involve resource efficiency and whether the cost/benefit analysis justifies the use of DDD in the
Firstly, it can be argued that the criminal investigation process is effective in achieving justice, as it protects the rights of suspects. Individual’s rights are protected as legislation is in place to strictly regulate the use of DDD and the places they can be deployed (LEPAR). For example, in the case of Darby v DPP [2004], Darby was acquitted of drug possession after it was found that the sniffer dog committed an illegal search, by coming in contact with the suspect’s pocket. Thus, under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), it was found that this evidence was unlawfully obtained and hence, inadmissible in court. According to Geesce Jacobson (SMH), the conditions and circumstances for obtaining illegal evidence might let probable suspects off and hence pervade the course of justice for victims and society, rendering it somewhat ineffective. However, drug detection dogs statistically have been proven to be a source of situational crime prevention – active, visible police presence which has had a significant deterring effect and also source of social crime prevention as drug detection dogs are likely to help reduce the ‘social acceptability’ of drug use in the community.
Conversely, drug detection dogs involve resource efficiency and whether the cost/benefit analysis justifies the use of DDD in the