4. Character of defendant

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
The Common ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
Complex Question

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter concerns a complex question in criminal evidence: situations where defendants may adduce evidence of good character to suggest lack of guilt and support credibility, and those where prosecution counsel or counsel for the co-defendant may cross-examine them on previous ‘reprehensible’ behaviour. The exclusionary rule was fundamental to the English legal system and founded on the principle that the defendant should have a fair trial. The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 made comprehensive changes to the rules of admissibility of evidence of bad character of the defendant and witnesses providing that ‘the common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished’. There is now a presumption of admissibility of that evidence.

4. Character

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
The Common ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
Complex Question

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter concerns a complex question in criminal evidence: situations where defendants may adduce evidence of good character to suggest lack of guilt and support credibility, and those where prosecution counsel or counsel for the co-defendant may cross-examine them on previous ‘reprehensible’ behaviour. The exclusionary rule was fundamental to the English legal system and founded on the principle that the defendant should have a fair trial. The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 made comprehensive changes to the rules of admissibility of evidence of bad character of the defendant and witnesses providing that ‘the common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished’. There is now a presumption of admissibility of that evidence.

scholarly journals A Triumph of Liberalism: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Exclusion of Evidence

1969 ◽  
pp. 299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julianne Parfett
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Causal Connection ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Cost

The common law has historically defined self- incrimination narrowly. Using Packer's models of the criminal justice system as a framework, the article examines the Supreme Court of Canada's interpretations of s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Court has expanded the definitions of both self incrimination and remoteness. The author argues that s. 24(2) has ceased to be a remedy requiring the balancing of interests and has become a quasi- automatic rule of exclusion, which promotes individual rights at the cost of victim's rights. Further, in the Court's zeal to protect the integrity of the system, there is no allowance made for the seriousness of the breach, the consequences of the exclusion, or the causal connection between the breach and any evidence obtained. The author argues that this has resulted in a justice system more concerned with police behaviour than with the pursuit of truth. Instead, either the exclusionary rule must be used to foster a balance of individual and communitarian rights, or other more imaginative remedies should be crafted from s. 24(2) to protect the integrity of the legal system.

scholarly journals Plea Bargaining dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Beberapa Negara

Wajah Hukum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Nella Octaviany Siregar
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Basic Concept ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Common

Plea Bargaining System is widely interpreted as a statement of guilt of a suspect or defendant. Plea Bargaining practised in many countries that have embraced the Common Law legal system. Plea Bargaining that was developed in the common law "legal system" has inspired the emergence of "mediation" in the practice of the judiciary based on the criminal law in the Netherlands and France, known as "transactie". Plea Bargaining is categorized as a settling outside the hearing and their users is also based on specific reasons. Even in the renewal of law criminal justice events in Indonesia, has also picked up the basic concept of plea bargaining that was adopted in the RUU KUHAP with the concept of "Jalur Khusus". That with the presence of the concept of "Jalur Khusus", is also a concern when viewed can enactment back recognition of guilt of the defendant as the basis of the judge's verdict is dropping. The purpose of this paper is to find out, analyze the plea bargaining in some countries. The type of research used is the juridical normative research, using a conceptual approach, comparative approach, historical approach.

10. Privilege and public policy

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
Legal Professional ◽  
The Right

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter covers evidence excluded for policy or public interest considerations: public interest immunity (PII). A party, witness or non-participant in proceedings may refuse to disclose information, papers or answer questions, even though such material may be highly relevant and reliable. If PII applies, neither party has access to the evidence. For privilege, the areas most likely to occur in Evidence courses are privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. The former includes the right to silence of the defendant. The privilege against self-incrimination is generally upheld by common law and by implication by Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Legal professional privilege is a common law exclusionary rule principle that applies in civil and criminal proceedings.

10. Privilege and public policy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
Flow Charts ◽  
Legal Professional ◽  
The Right

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter covers evidence excluded for policy or public interest considerations: public interest immunity (PII). A party, witness or non-participant in proceedings may refuse to disclose information, papers or answer questions, even though such material may be highly relevant and reliable. If PII applies, neither party has access to the evidence. For privilege, the areas most likely to occur in Evidence courses are privilege against self-incrimination and legal professional privilege. The former includes the right to silence of the defendant. The privilege against self-incrimination is generally upheld by common law and by implication by Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Legal professional privilege is a common law exclusionary rule principle that applies in civil and criminal proceedings.

XII. Hearsay in general

2018 ◽  
pp. 562-594
Author(s):  
Roderick Munday
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
The Common ◽  
Hearsay Rule

This chapter takes a look at the hearsay rule. Though it is one of the most complex and confusing of the exclusionary rules of evidence, the hearsay rule can be used as the background and foundation to understand the new statutory provisions for civil and criminal proceedings. The chapter first discusses the hearsay rule at the common law level, explaining why such an exclusionary rule was thought necessary. It also indicates the tenor of this rule's development and reform. Next, the chapter more closely examines the scope of the rule, implied assertions, res gestae, the rule against narrative, and the extent to which admissions constitute an exception to the rule.

scholarly journals Children in the Criminal Justice System: the High Court Cases of GW and RP

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-21
Author(s):  
Gregor Urbas ◽  
Michael Harris
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
High Court ◽  
First Case ◽  
The Common ◽  
High Court Of Australia

In two decisions handed down in 2016, the High Court of Australia considered legal measures designed to deal with children in the criminal justice system in an age-appropriate manner. The first case, The Queen v GW, was a prosecution appeal involving the unsworn evidence of a child witness. In this decision, the High Court reviewed the common law and statutory background to unsworn evidence, and gave important guidance on the proper approach to dealing with such evidence in proceedings. The second case was RP v The Queen, which involved the criminal responsibility of a child defendant, and in particular the application of the doli incapax presumption. In this decision, the High Court reviewed the common law background to doli incapax, and gave guidance on its application in criminal proceedings. This commentary discusses both cases and the principles underlying the High Court’s reasoning.

scholarly journals From Norms to Facts: The Realization of Rights in Common and Civil Private Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helge Dedek
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Social Reality ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
The Ideal

Every legal system that ties judicial decision making to a body of preconceived norms has to face the tension between the normative formulation of the ideal and its approximation in social reality. In the parlance of the common law, it is, more concretely, the remedy that bridges the gap between the ideal and the real, or, rather, between norms and facts. In the common law world—particularly in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—a lively discourse has developed around the question of how rights relate to remedies. To the civilian legal scholar—used to thinking within a framework that strictly categorizes terms like substance and procedure, subjective right, action, and execution—the concept of remedy remains a mystery. The lack of “remedy” in the vocabulary of the civil law is more than just a matter of attaching different labels to functional equivalents, it is the expression of a different way of thinking about law. Only if a legal system is capable of satisfactorily transposing the abstract discourse of the law into social reality does the legal machinery fulfill its purpose: due to the pivotal importance of this translational process, the way it is cast in legal concepts thus allows for an insight into the deep structure of a legal culture, and, convergence notwithstanding, the remaining epistemological differences between the legal traditions of the West. A mixed jurisdiction must reflect upon these differences in order to understand its own condition and to define its future course.

scholarly journals Interpreting change through legal culture: the case of the Irish exclusionary rule

Legal Studies ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Claire Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Culture ◽  
Macro Level ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Common ◽  
Law Of Evidence

Abstract The changes to the Irish exclusionary rule introduced by the judgment in People (DPP) v JC mark an important watershed in the Irish law of evidence and Irish legal culture more generally. The case relaxed the exclusionary rule established in People (DPP) v Kenny, one of the strictest in the common law world, by creating an exception based on ‘inadvertence’. This paper examines the decision through the lens of legal culture, drawing in particular on Lawrence Friedman's distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ legal culture to help understand the factors contributing to the decision. The paper argues that Friedman's concept and, in particular, the dialectic between internal and external legal culture, holds much utility at a micro as well as macro level, in interrogating the cultural logics at work in judicial decision-making.

scholarly journals Thabo Meli Revisited: The Pernicious Effects of Result-Driven Decisions

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Arenson
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Natural Consequence ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
The Public ◽  
Adversarial System ◽  
The Common

Despite the hackneyed expression that ‘judges should interpret the law and not make it’, the fact remains that there is some scope within the separation of powers doctrine for the courts to develop the common law incrementally. To this extent, the courts can effectively legislate, but only to this limited extent if they are to respect the separation of powers doctrine. On occasion, however, the courts have usurped the power entrusted to Parliament, and particularly so in instances where a strict application of the existing law would lead to results that offend their personal notions of what is fair and just. When this occurs, the natural consequence is that lawyers, academics and the public in general lose respect for both the judges involved as well as the adversarial system of criminal justice. In order to illustrate this point, attention will focus on the case of Thabo Meli v United Kingdom in which the Privy Council, mistakenly believing that it could not reach its desired outcome through a strict application of the common law rule of temporal coincidence, emasculated the rule beyond recognition in order to convict the accused. Moreover, the discussion to follow will demonstrate that not only was the court wrong in its belief that the case involved the doctrine of temporal coincidence, but the same result would have been achieved had the Council correctly identified the issue as one of legal causation and correctly applied the principles relating thereto.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document