Search

Much academic literature explores the reliability of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. However, almost no attention has been paid to misconduct by experts giving evidence in criminal cases. Whilst rare, its serious impact on the administration of justice and public trust in it means that this area requires analysis. This article explores possible responses to expert witness misconduct occurring in the context of criminal proceedings in England and Wales, noting particularly the differences in responses available, depending firstly upon whether the expert is a registered professional, and secondly whether the expert has stepped outside of their expertise; did not have relevant expertise at all, or was dishonest. Professional disciplinary procedures focus on 'fitness to practise', and it is argued that this is sufficient where a registered professional has overstepped their expertise, but has not displayed mala fides. On the contrary, where someone gives evidence purporting to have expertise that they do not, or lies about their conduct as an expert in the case, criminal sanctions are available, appropriate, and should be used. These include contempt of court; perverting the course of justice; fraud by false representation, and perjury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a recent high-profile case in which a regulatory, strict liability offence was utilised to provide the "unlawful act" in unlawful act manslaughter, this article examines what is a sufficiently "unlawful" act to underpin that offence. It argues that the breadth of offences that can now be used to found an unlawful act manslaughter charge has led to a departure from the fair-labelling principle and traditional notions of culpability. Even the traditional argument, that the requirement of dangerousness sufficiently circumscribes those offences that qualify, has been weakened as that requirement has been diluted, and no longer provides adequate protection. Considering the legal position when a death resulted from a collision with a bike which did not comply with a Regulation, this article argues that Hying to use unlawful act manslaughter to fill a lacuna in the law relating to fatal collisions involving cyclists risks unfairness to defendants through the unwarranted expansion of liability. New legislation is likely to be the most appropriate way properly to criminalise riding falling below the standard of a reasonable cyclist, but not amounting to gross negligence, that causes death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The last year has seen a revolt against the recommendations of the Zellick Report (1994) in England and Wales, and pressure on universities worldwide to bring serious criminal conduct within their own disciplinary structures. This paper examines the reasons why the Zellick Report advised against this, and why higher-education institutions have now turned their back on a number of its recommendations. Factors including student pressure and concerns about low conviction rates for sexual offences in the criminal courts have been cited, but this paper argues that universities will struggle to create a disciplinary system that is fair to both those who are accused of such offences and those who have been victims of them. A recent Universities UK report has reversed the Zellick guidance that conduct amounting to a serious criminal offence should never be pursued under university disciplinary structures. Drawing on both authors' experiences as practitioners, and using the first author's experience of university disciplinary matters as a case-study, this paper reviews the practical problems of bringing such serious conduct under university disciplinary structures, focusing particularly on the intersection of criminal and internal disciplinary proceedings. It concludes by suggesting possible ways of ameliorating these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In October 2016, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Norman, an appeal against conviction for misconduct in public office on the basis of information sold to a newspaper by a serving prison officer. The particular interest in the appeal, however, comes from its wider engagement of rights afforded by Article 10 ECHR and the interaction of that provision with voluntary disclosure. The decision highlights that where information about a source is provided voluntarily by a newspaper, the source will struggle to argue that Article 10 rights have been infringed. This article explores the existing law on journalistic privilege and highlights the gap in the precedents that means, even post Norman, there is no clear answer to a question likely to be increasingly important in times of closer scrutiny of the media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article highlights three challenges arising from the interpretation of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 s.5 just over 10 years after it came into force. These are the formulation as a single offence, the reasonableness test in s.5(l)(d)(i), and the factual basis of the jury 's verdict. The author argues that these three matters may continue to compromise the section s usefulness if they are not approached with clarity by trial judges and the appellate courts. Due to the relatively scarce use of this section, it is argued that the law in relation to it has been slow to develop, and this is regrettable for a serious offence that deals with a particularly difficult element of human experience—the death of a child at the hands of someone in the household. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the normative position and theoretical justifications for sentencing first-time offenders more leniently than repeat offenders, and examines whether such a practice is defensible. Those justifications include a lack of awareness of the gravity of criminal behaviour, a single lapse, that no censure has previously been communicated by the criminal justice system to that person, adolescent-limited offending, the impact of being in a minority group, and non-uniform impact. It examines whether various sentencing philosophies support sentence reductions for first-time offenders, and whether the justifiability of such practices depends on the theoretical basis and aims of sentencing, for instance the role of proportionality and deterrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]