Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00502.x Byline: Ursula Smartt (1), Helmut Kury (2) Abstract: Objective. This article examines the notion of the family and within its postmodern definition the research undertaken in the field of domestic violence and its consequences for criminal justice agencies in the United Kingdom and Germany. Has the notion of the family changed in Western culture? How has legislation changed regarding domestic violence in line with criminologists' and social scientists' hypotheses, reflections, and recommendations? How are victims and witnesses protected from perpetrators? Methods. The authors discuss how legislation in both countries has changed to meet the needs of victims and witnesses of domestic violence. The article looks at different forms of law enforcement in domestic violence and how the agencies assess future dangerousness. Results. Research analyses show that domestic violence is now taken seriously in both countries' legislation. But what is the impact on policing domestic violence in both countries? It is argued that U.K. law enforcement agencies are more advanced that the German police in dealing with domestic violence in a practical and pragmatic fashion. Conclusions. The authors explore the shift in cultural beliefs affecting male dominance in the family setting, how public attitudes to domestic violence have changed, and how law enforcement agencies are now dealing with violence within the family in both countries. Author Affiliation: (1)Thames Valley University, London (2)Max Planck Institut fur Auslandisches und Internationales Strafrecht, Freiburg

This article looks first at the definition of "journalism" in various cases and preliminary rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), specifically at the Sergejs Buivids judgment (2019) whether a citizen journalist YouTuber falls under the legal definition of "journalist" and the related freedom of expression and processing of personal data exemption and derogation under (former) art.9 of Directive 95/46, now replaced by art. 85 G DPR. The CJEU held in Buivids that art.9 of the Data Protection Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a video recording for YouTube) may constitute a processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes, and consequently rely on the derogation for journalistic purposes in relation to data protection law andfreedom of expression. Second, we will examine the trilogy of significant CJEUjudgments, all referred by the German Bundesgerichtshof--/'«Funke Medien, Spiegel Online and Pelham (Kraftwerk)--all concerned with the interplay between copyright and fundamental rights within the scope of EU data protection law. While EU law has already "harmonised" copyright law, we will look at the national copyright systems in the UK and Germany and how domestic legislation has historically defined the skill and labour approach ("sweat of the brow"). The overallfocus will be on journalistic practices and press freedom in relation to modern media practices, such as blogs, YouTube videos and social media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article re-examines the Google Spain (2014)' ruling--the "right to be forgotten" (RTBF)--in the light of spent criminal convictions and acquittal at a rape trial and how it is left up to the courts to decide when an order for de-listing or de-indexing can be made on operators of internet search engines (ISEs). It will be shown how the complexities of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), in conjunction with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), conflict with the RTBF principle and interfere with an individual's privacy right under art.8(l) ECHR. Questions will be asked in relation to three claims--all decided in 2018--how different interpretations of "rehabilitation" and "remorse" can lead to personal information being "delisted" (NT2) or not (NT1),2 and how disclosure on an Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate (ECRC) can show a rape acquittal (AR)) Have the courts become moral rather than legal arbitrators in deciding and downplaying the right to privacy and conveniently ignoring the RTBF principle, depending on the type of charge, length of sentence and remorse? It will be argued that the ROA 1974 is not fit for the digital age and is too complex to interpret for de-listing purposes and completion of an ECRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]