Search

This article, focusing on the issue of custody time limits litigated under Covid-19 conditions, sets out how reasoned decisions to refuse to extend custody for unconvicted defendants excited the disapproval of senior judges such that fundamental changes were made to evidence, procedure and proof as well as effecting permanent manipulation of the composition of the adjudicating panels authorised to deal with such cases. This additionally raises fundamental questions about the administration and governance of the courts, the independence of the judiciary in decision-making and the basic utility of the presumption of innocence in such cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the role of the senior judiciary in policy-making in criminal justice in England and Wales. Topics covered include the independence of the senior judiciary from the executive, its implications for the rule of law, and the restructuring of the criminal justice system including the Criminal Procedure Rules.

In a context where the criminal courts have been drastically affected by coronavirus, this paper seeks to demonstrate that the presumption of innocence risks becoming a further casualty of Covid-19. It will argue that prolonged pre-trial detention of unconvicted defendants has been sanctioned by the senior judiciary under the Custody Time Limit (CTL) Regulations. Following a series of important CTL decisions, a universal position of the senior judiciary, one supportive of government, is emerging: despite the case backlog resulting in defendants facing trial delays of unknown length, the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic which the executive faces, amounts to 'good cause' to extend CTLs. It will be argued that the correct approach for courts to follow is that that they must hear evidence that justifies why no court rooms are available before using that to mandate extensions. It will be further contended that these far-reaching decisions came from the senior judiciary's perceived need to mop up the problem posed by widespread refusals to extend CTLs, raising questions as to their ability to act independently of political pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sir Brian Leveson’s Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings (2015) represents the latest judicial effort in England and Wales supporting executive attempts, under the guise of ‘efficiency’ measures, to scale back protections traditionally afforded to criminal defendants and has dramatic implications for the maintenance of accurate case outcomes. This includes the integrity of the prosecution process, in particular the reliability of CPS decision-making; the quality and completeness of the disclosure regime; the culture of the CPS; and its management and oversight.This article will argue that the Review adopts a narrow approach to ‘efficiency’ which takes no account of the interest in the accuracy of verdicts, as set out in Rule 1.1.(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, and will have no bearing upon the ‘real inefficiencies’ of the process. What appears to be the core of the Review is in fact floss surrounding its competing ambition: shifting cases to magistrates, intensifying pressure to plead guilty, marginalizing the defence, and diminishing jury trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the approach of criminal courts in England and Wales to case management alongside the contradictory pressures placed upon the pre-trial role of the defence advocate, when advising on plea, which have led to the erosion of the adversary ideal. It focuses on the overarching procedural code that 'governs' the relationship between defence lawyers and the judiciary in the conduct of criminal cases (the Criminal Procedure Rules) and draws upon a recent important decision which extends the antipathy of the courts towards adversarial advocacy. The conclusion drawn is that traditional understandings of the adversarial advocate have expired together with the duty of defence lawyers to 'promote fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the client's best interests'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a landmark ruling of Hong Kong's Court of Final Appeal, there is good reason to believe that a future challenge to legislation restricting marriage to opposite sex couples will be successful. Through the lens ofWv.Registrar of Marriages, this article argues that the right to marry in Hong Kong is to be understood as an evolving concept and subject to a living interpretation by the courts. The government's argument that the courts should defer to the legislature's interpretation of the right to marry, in order to ascertain ‘societal consensus’, is challenged. Furthermore, it is argued that the government is unable to furnish good reasons to justify the restriction on the right of same-sex couples to marry. Throughout the article, both Hong Kong case law and relevant comparative jurisprudence inform the discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court case Miranda v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis, wherein the British High Court stated that the Security Service's detention of a journalist's partner under legislation to combat terrorism did not breach European human rights protections of freedom of expression. Topics discussed include the proportionality principle, protections afforded to journalistic expression, and police power.

The doctrine of Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE), which imposes individual criminal responsibility on an accused for their participation in a group's common criminal plan, rose to prominence in the ICTY Appeal Chamber decision, Prosecutor v. Tadić. Since Tadić, there has been a general reluctance by international ad hoc tribunals to review the legal foundation of JCE. However, on 20 May 2010, the ECCC Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) considered the applicability of JCE to the atrocities which occurred in Cambodia during 1975-1979 - the period within the tribunal's temporal jurisdiction. The PTC has, unlike any other ad hoc tribunal to date, subjected the reasoning in Tadić to close scrutiny. This article will analyse the PTC's decision. In squarely contradicting Tadić on the expanded form of JCE, its findings are to be welcomed. The PTC's decision should be upheld on appeal in order to uphold the principle of legality; to safeguard the continued respect, credibility and future legacy of the ECCC trial process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]