Search

This article examines the Sentencing Council's recent definitive guideline on what reductions in sentence can be offered for a guilty plea. We argue that its emphasis on facilitating early guilty pleas represents more than just an incentive to those intending to plead guilty and poses significant risks for defendants with vulnerabilities. The article questions whether the guideline can amount to an inducement to plead guilty which places uneven burdens on defendants and fails to pay due regard to the duties owed by public authorities under the Equality Act 2010. In so doing it asks questions about the integrity of the criminal justice process and argues that issues of cost‐efficiency and the constructed interests of victims may have outweighed both the rights of those with vulnerabilities and the objectives of the legislative framework designed to protect them. The issues raised are universally relevant to any system that favours defendants who offer guilty pleas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A commentary is presented on a case of an appellant who was convicted of robbery after a trial at which the earlier guilty plea of a co-accused had been admitted in evidence pursuant to the provisions of section 74 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) of Great Britain. Topics covered include arguments for excluding a co-accused's guilty plea and the admissibility at trial of a conviction of a person other than the accused under section 74.

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]

The proper boundaries of criminal liability with respect to those with questionable mental capacity are currently under review. In its deliberations in the areas of unfitness to plead, automatism and the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity the Law Commission for England and Wales have been cognizant of particular difficulties in fairly attributing criminal responsibility to those whose mental capacities may or may not have impinged on their decisions, either at the time of the offence or at trial. And they have referenced the potential breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) posed by the state of our current laws. However, in their efforts to remedy these potential deficiencies is the Law Commission heading in a direction that is fundamentally incompatible with the direction embodied by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD)? Whether one must cede sensibly to the other, or whether some compromise might emerge, perhaps through an extension of supportive services or through the development of disability-neutral criminal law, forms the subject of this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court Great Britain court case R v Ramchurn, focused on the relationship between the Section 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and sentencing in the cases of manslaughter in Great Britain. It mentions that the appellant killed his wife by violently striking her with a hammer. It mentions that the appellant was pleaded guilty for manslaughter by reason that he was suffering from adjustment disorder.

The article discusses the European Court of Human Rights' ruling in the 2011 case Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom which deals with human rights laws and the treatment of Iraqi civilians and detainees by British soldiers during the occupation phase of the Iraq conflict. Military discipline law and international humanitarian law are addressed, along with guilty pleas, transitional governments, and the Coalitional Provisional Authority (CPA).

The article discusses a court case in which the offender was sentenced to six years and four months' imprisonment for offences relating to indecent photographs of children. In HM Advocate v. Graham, the defendant pleaded guilty to making indecent photographs of children and distributing such photographs. The judge initially sentenced the offender to six months' imprisonment, but the Crown sought to appeal the sentence as unduly lenient. The guidance in England and Wales issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council in April 2007 is also examined.

The 2006 UK Fraud Review took a strategic approach to fraud, addressing a spectrum of issues from prevention in the private sector to the introduction of plea bargaining in criminal cases. The work of the review was followed by the establishment of a National Strategic Fraud Authority (now the National Fraud Authority) to deliver a comprehensive strategy. Underlying both the background to the review and the implementation of the strategy has been the availability of police staff resources. The article discusses the decline in resources prior to 2006 but notes that not only is the decline continuing, but that policing priorities do not appear to suggest that this is likely to be reversed - with implications for the effectiveness of the strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article begins with the historical review of different attitudes toward bargained justice in countries belonging to the Continental European tradition, and those belonging to the tradition deriving from England. The last century has led to the rapprochement of these attitudes, but residual differences remain, and the author focuses on the most prominent among them. He then discusses arguments in favour and against negotiated outcomes of criminal cases, irrespective of the form of these negotiations. He concludes that the only persuasive arguments in favour of the practice are those of practical necessity – the over-burdening of courts, and evidentiary difficulties in piercing the veil of organized crime. Leaving the context of national systems, the author then examines those special features of international crimes, and the context in which they occur, that have a bearing on the desirability of bargaining with the accused. He argues that these special features reinforce the view that the practice can persuasively be justified only on the ground of practical utility. There follows a brief review of bargaining as practiced by ICTY, a court with a limited life-span, and bargaining as structured under the ICC normative scheme. The last section of the article is devoted to the question of which model of bargaining is better suited to the environment of international criminal proceedings - the continental one of in-court confession, or the Anglo-American one of guilty pleas. Whatever model seems most appropriate, the author concludes, it would be desirable to hold as many trials as possible, and take recourse to bargaining only when absolutely necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Focuses on the guilty plea of an appellant to manslaughter charges in light of the trial judge decision in Great Britain. Nature of defense as a lawful defense; Exclusion of crimes of negligence from unlawful act manslaughter; Degree of carelessness which the legislature makes criminal.

Richard Griffith, Senior Lecturer in Health Law at Swansea University, discusses the first time the Care Quality Commission has used its authority to prosecute a care provider and what this means for nurses and trusts [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports that the UK General Medical Council is extending its "consensual disposal" policy to handle all types of physician discipline cases. Previously, consensual disposal was only allowed for physicians in ill health or those guilty of deficient performance but by the end of 2007, any doctor not accused of a serious charge can choose this form of investigation to avoid a public hearing. In order to take advantage of this, the physician must admit to errors or shortcomings and agree to undergo retraining or have their practice restricted.

The article reports on the conviction of 13 people in a prosecution against illegal veterinary medicine business brought by the British Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) in 2011. The sale and distribution of unauthorised and prescription-only veterinary medicines were the focus of the case. Ronald Meddes and his wife Regine Lansley have allegedly led the scheme. They pleaded guilty to the charge of illegally importing and supplying such medicines at Croydon Crown Court in England.