Search

The article explores how the plan of the British government to abolish jury trials during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may affect the administration of criminal justice in Great Britain. Topics discussed include the condition of the British criminal justice system prior to the pandemic, the recorded decline in criminal legal aid expenditure, and the commitment expressed by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to reform and modernization.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various articles within the issue on topics including a proposal for common law offence on a statutory basis, a debate about criminal law which is focused on punishing wrongdoers, and admissibility of improperly obtained evidence.

The criminal law looks set to play a larger role in regulating healthcare. Until recently, health professionals only faced the prospect of criminal liability if it could be proved that their gross negligence resulted in the death of a patient. In such a case, the professional could face a charge of gross negligence manslaughter (GNM). Prosecutions for ‘medical manslaughter’ have generated concern among doctors worried about what is perceived as a rise in the number of doctors facing criminal prosecution and the impact prosecutions are having on healthcare practice. May more frequent resort to the criminal process damage rather than promote better health care? In seeking to try to answer this question, the first problem is that reliable data in this area about how many prosecutions are brought and how they fare are limited due to the way cases are recorded. What evidence does exist is often based on media reports or samples that are not representative. This paper will argue that, while the real risk of being prosecuted for medical manslaughter remains low, such fears should not be dismissed because, as Donald Berwick has argued, ‘fear is toxic’ – for health professionals and their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much attention has focussed on the severity of the sentences imposed following the 2011 'summer rioting' in England. The Court of Appeal confirmed that participation in a collective outbreak of disorder takes offending outside the sentencing guidelines. The position for sentencing riot-related offending in future is unclear, however, as the Court gave no indication of how to calibrate this departure, and the Sentencing Council has made offending during public disorder an aggravating factor only in its burglary guideline. This article explores new empirical evidence regarding the sentences imposed in Manchester, together with national Ministry of Justice data, to demonstrate for the first time how this 'uplift' effect was a feature throughout the criminal process, from arrest to sentence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the vast transitional justice scholarship relating to prisoner release, amnesties and prosecutions when conflicts end, there is a significant gap in practice and academic literature regarding wrongful convictions. Uniquely amongst post-conflict societies, Northern Ireland has a body for investigating miscarriages of justice, albeit one designed for 'ordinary' appeals. In the absence of a formal truth-recovery process, criminal appeals are becoming a proxy for addressing the role of the state during 'The Troubles,' as well as remedying individual injustices. This article examines the approach of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal during the conflict. It charts the developments in its decision-making following the cease-fires and the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It concludes that the current system is unsatisfactory as it ignores the effects of the conflict on the appeal process and offers no insights into the role of the Court during the conflict. Alternative models are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court determined that a 'fresh approach' was needed in an attempt to bring some clarity to the issue of the eligibility for compensation of those who have had their convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal. The definition that the majority agreed upon was that 'a new fact will show that a miscarriage of justice has occurred when it so undermines the evidence against the defendant that no conviction could possibly be based upon it'. This article argues that the judgment suffers from a failure to consider the purpose of the legislation; that it is unclear whether the test is normative or historical and that this presents a particular problem in cases relating to the Northern Ireland conflict. The Court focuses on the guilt of the appellant and excludes from its consideration any notion of culpability by the state, which is a cause for concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines two contrasting proposals for the reform of criminal appeals: the government's recent proposal that the guilty should no longer have their convictions quashed on ‘technicalities’; and calls by campaigners for the Court of Appeal to consider innocence rather than the ‘safety of the conviction,’ together with their associated attempts to establish Innocence Projects in the UK. Despite the rhetorical power of ‘innocence’ as a campaigning tool, it is contended that to import such a standard into the legal system would be retrogressive and counter-productive, both as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and in protecting the integrity of the system. In order to be meaningful, due process protections must apply to all. The government's proposals attack this principle directly; innocence campaigners risk unwittingly assisting their endeavours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disclosure of unused material is essential to a fair trial, and non-disclosure has been a potent cause of miscarriages of justice. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, however, recent legislation addressing this issue has prioritised the alleged problems that disclosure causes to the prosecution, rather than its demonstrable importance as a safeguard against wrongful convictions. Despite amendment by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, it is argued that the controversial disclosure provisions of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 cannot be made to work. This is a consequence of three fundamental defects in the statutory scheme: lack of consideration of the working cultures and practices of the key protagonists; the resulting inappropriate allocation of responsibilities; and insufficient recognition of the limited sanctions for disclosure failures that can be imposed fairly upon defendants under the current system. It has long been recognised that the effectiveness of due process reforms may be limited by police culture and the inadequate delivery of defence legal services. Drawing on new empirical data, this article suggests that it is equally important to consider the interplay between crime control legislation and occupational cultures. Legislative changes may otherwise reinforce poor practice and provoke injustice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author focuses on the Economic and Social Research Council-funded seminar series entitled, "Criminalising Contagion: Legal and Ethical Challenges of Disease Transmission and the Criminal Law." The author states that the seminar discussed issues related to public health from sexually transmitted diseases to swine flu.