11. Evidence obtained by illegal or unfair means

2020 ◽  
pp. 320-348
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter discusses the circumstances in which relevant evidence can be excluded, as a matter of law or discretion, on the grounds that it was obtained illegally, improperly, or unfairly. The principles for exclusion of evidence are considered, and exclusion in both civil and criminal cases discussed. In respect of civil cases, discretionary exclusion under the civil procedure rules is discussed. In respect of criminal cases, discretionary exclusion at common law and under statute is discussed. The chapter also considers the circumstances in which criminal proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of the court’s process, where a trial would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute.

3. Evidence obtained by illegal or unfair means

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Keane ◽  
Paul McKeown
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Civil Cases

This chapter discusses the circumstances in which relevant evidence can be excluded, as a matter of law or discretion, on the grounds that it was obtained illegally, improperly, or unfairly. The principles for exclusion of evidence are considered, and exclusion in both civil and criminal cases discussed. In respect of civil cases, discretionary exclusion under the civil procedure rules is discussed. In respect of criminal cases, discretionary exclusion at common law and under statute is discussed. The chapter also considers the circumstances in which criminal proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of the court’s process, where a trial would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute.

scholarly journals Between Convictions and Reconciliations: Processing Criminal Cases in Kazakhstani Courts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexei Trochev
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Prison Population ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
Incentive Structure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Major Reform ◽  
The Right

Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 50 : No. 1 , Article 5The criminal justice system in Kazakhstan is full of contradictions: Soviet-era accusatorial bias in pre-trial detention and sentencing goes hand in hand with the pro-defendant bias in closing criminal cases. This paradoxical co-existence of seemingly contradictory biases fits well within the informal power map of the criminal justice system. The major reform—reducing prison population to decrease recidivism and minimize international shaming—was coupled with the more recent drives for closing cases on the basis of reconciliation, the total registration of crimes, and zero tolerance approach to combating crime have been achieved only through the change of the incentive structure in the criminal justice system. The post-Soviet innovation of closing criminal cases of public prosecution based on the reconciliation with the victim of crime has proliferated in Kazakhstan because this matched both the incentives of the key actors in the criminal justice system and demands from private actors who are involved in criminal proceedings. In contrast, other types of public participation, such as jury trials, which implement the right to a fair trial, give teeth to adversarial proceedings, and cultivate judicial independence—requirements of the Constitution of Kazakhstan—have rarely been used because they disrupt existing power relationships within the law-enforcement system.

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.

Suspended Sentences in Spain: An Alternative to Prison or a “Bargaining Chip” in Plea Negotiations?

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-378
Author(s):  
Daniel Varona ◽  
Steven Kemp
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Research ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The One

Abstract Criminal proceedings in many European states are increasingly being resolved via plea bargaining agreements; yet, there is relatively scant European research on the implications for the defendant or the role this practice plays within the criminal justice system. Using a sample of 1417 criminal cases, this paper examines how suspended prison sentences may be utilized in Spain to encourage or coerce defendants into a guilty plea. In addition to more traditional regression analysis, covariates are controlled through an entropy balancing process. The findings show defendants who agree a plea deal are indeed less likely to enter prison, which has profound implications for criminal justice in Spain and beyond. On the one hand, it appears plea bargaining is being used to improve the efficiency of the system and, thus, maintain its very existence. On the other hand, issues regarding false confessions and sentencing disparities are specifically highlighted.

What of the Child? Preventing the Publication of Children's Names After the Age of 18

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Sophy Baird
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Child Victims ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Right

Children are afforded a number of protections when they encounter the criminal justice system. The need for special protection stems from the vulnerable position children occupy in society. When children form part of the criminal justice system, either by being an offender, victim, or witness, they may be subjected to harm. To mitigate against the potential harm that may be caused, our law provides that criminal proceedings involving children should not be open to the public, subject to the discretion of the court. This protection naturally seems at odds with the principle of open justice. However, the courts have reconciled the limitation with the legal purpose it serves. For all the protection and the lengths that the law goes to protect the identity of children in this regard, it appears there is an unofficial timer dictating when this protection should end. The media have been at the forefront of this conundrum to the extent that they believe that once a child (offender, victim, or witness) turns 18 years old, they are free to reveal the child's identity. This belief, grounded in the right to freedom of expression and the principle of open justice, is at odds with the principle of child's best interests, right to dignity and the right to privacy. It also stares incredulously in the face of the aims of the Child Justice Act and the principles of restorative justice. Measured against the detrimental psychological effects experienced by child victims, witnesses, and offenders, this article aims to critically analyse the legal and practical implications of revealing the identity of child victims, witnesses, and offenders after they turn 18 years old.

scholarly journals Investigating the Impact of Jury Sentencing Recommendations Using Procedural Justice Theory

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianni Ribeiro ◽  
Emma Antrobus
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Frustration Effect ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Justice Theory ◽  
Perceptions Of Fairness ◽  
Sentencing Recommendations ◽  
The Impact

Public confidence in the criminal justice system is critical for the system to function effectively. Two studies investigated the impact of jury sentencing recommendations on public confidence using procedural justice theory. The first study (N = 80) manipulated the presence of jury involvement in sentencing (voice present versus voice absent) and the punitiveness of the minimum non-parole period (more punitive versus less punitive) to examine whether giving juries a “voice”—a key element of procedural justice—would increase public confidence in the courts, as well as perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. Contrary to predictions, results revealed that a more punitive sentence led to increased perceptions of legitimacy, which was associated with higher confidence. The second study (N = 60) examined whether manipulating the Judge’s agreement with the jury’s recommendation—as well as the Judge’s reason for disagreement—would elicit the “frustration effect,” leading to a decrease in confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. There was no evidence to suggest that the frustration effect was present. Results of both studies could suggest that jury sentencing recommendations may not effectively increase public confidence and perceptions of fairness and legitimacy in the courts, however alternate explanations are discussed.

scholarly journals Penegakan Hukum Pidana Terhadap Anak Yang Terjerat Perkara Pidana Melalui Diversi (Studi Di Polrestabes Medan)

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-84
Author(s):  
Akalafikta Jaya ◽  
Triono Eddy ◽  
Alpi Sahari
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Juvenile Justice System ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Convictions ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Law

In the past, the punishment of children was the same as the punishment of adults. This causes the psychological condition of children ranging from investigation, investigation and trial to be disturbed because it is often intimidated by law enforcement agencies. Under these conditions, Law No. 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Justice System was born. One of the reforms in the Child Criminal Justice System Law requires the settlement of a child criminal case by diversion. Based on the results of research that the conception of criminal offenses against children in conflict with the law in Indonesia is different from criminal convictions to adults. Children are given the lightest possible punishment and half of the criminal convictions of adult criminal offenses. That criminal liability for children who are ensnared in a criminal case according to the Law on the Criminal Justice System for Children is still carried out but with different legal sanctions from adults. Criminal imprisonment against children is an ultimumremedium effort, meaning that criminal imprisonment against children is the last legal remedy after there are no other legal remedies that benefit the child. That the concept of enforcement of criminal law against children caught in criminal cases through diversion is in fact not all have applied it. Some criminal cases involving children as the culprit, in court proceedings there are still judges who impose prison sentences on children who are dealing with the law.

The readiness of various communities for the implementation of restorative justice in the community setting: A perspective of community organization

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-398
Author(s):  
Taufik Mohammad
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Community Organization ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Offender Rehabilitation ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Criminal Cases

The method of community organization can be used to implement restorative justice within the community. This study aimed at understanding whether members from seven communities in Malaysia would assume responsibility for restorative justice initiatives, accept various elements of restorative justice, and welcome offenders back into the community. The findings are mixed. Some community members believed that the community setting may offer resources for offender rehabilitation that the criminal justice system does not have; others raised concerns over various limitations such that communities may not be equipped to deal with criminal cases.

“Visible” and “Invisible” Victims in the Criminal Justice System

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Armando Saponaro
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Victim Impact Statement

This chapter outlines the “conflict” and “peace-keeping” victim-oriented justice paradigms. The latter empowers the victims of crime, putting them at the center of an encounter and using interindividual mediation or collective circles to address conflict resolution. Two models are critically discussed in the conflict victim-oriented justice paradigm. The European continental “visible victim” model structures the role of the victim as a full-fledged processual party together with the public prosecutor and offender. In this model, the victim has the same rights and powers of the defendant. The “invisible victim” common law model views the victim as a trial witness, participating, for example, through a victim impact statement (in the United States) or victim personal statement (in the United Kingdom) at the sentencing stage. The visible victim conflict paradigm model enhances a victim's role and involvement in the criminal justice system, offering a solution to existing controversial and critical common law system issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document