VIII. Bad character of the accused

2018 ◽  
pp. 381-424
Author(s):  
Roderick Munday
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform

This chapter takes up the discussion from the previous chapter by exploring the bad character of the accused. This subject matter is almost wholly governed by certain provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Thus, the chapter first considers the nature of the problem of the admission of evidence of the bad character of the accused; then attempts at reform, at common law, by recommendations of law reform bodies, and by legislation; an indication of the principal forms of continuing dissatisfaction; and finally the intentions and techniques designed to remedy them. Next, the chapter considers the structure of the bad character provisions from the 2003 legislation and the gateways it provides for admissibility. Finally, this chapter concludes with a brief appraisal of the 2003 act.

The Trade Mark, Other Product Designations, and Goodwill

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Pila
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Geographical Indication ◽  
Passing Off ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Essential Properties ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter considers the meaning of the terms that appropriately denote the subject matter protectable by registered trade mark and allied rights, including the common law action of passing off. Drawing on the earlier analyses of the objects protectable by patent and copyright, it defines the trade mark, designation of origin, and geographical indication in their current European and UK conception as hybrid inventions/works in the form of purpose-limited expressive objects. It also considers the relationship between the different requirements for trade mark and allied rights protection, and related principles of entitlement. In its conclusion, the legal understandings of trade mark and allied rights subject matter are presented as answers to the questions identified in Chapter 3 concerning the categories and essential properties of the subject matter in question, their method of individuation, and the relationship between and method of establishing their and their tokens’ existence.

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of The Role and Position of Dispute Resolution Councils In Iran's Criminal Policy In Comparison with Similar Institutions In The French Judiciary

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-258
Author(s):  
Hassan Vahedi ◽  
Abdolvahid Zahedi ◽  
Firooz Mahmoudi Janaki
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Criminal Justice Policy ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
The People ◽  
The Common

The Dispute Resolution Council was established as a public institution in the last few decades to reduce the number of cases sent to the judiciary in Iran and strengthen public participation and increase the role of the people in criminal justice policy. Although the activities of this institution in recent years have led to a decrease in the number of cases sent to judicial institutions, but its public aspect was not fulfilled as intended. In addition, the law of this council has many contradictions with the constitution with limitations and problems in the legal and structural field that have affected its functions. However, the role of the people is significant in similar institutions in the legal system of the Common Law and France, while strengthening the participatory aspect. This issue has been an effective measure in strengthening participatory criminal policy in these countries. The purpose of this research was to investigate the criminal policy of the Dispute Resolution Council and similar institutions in France.Keywords: Dispute Resolution Council, French Law, Iranian Criminal Justice Policy Evaluasi Peran dan Kedudukan Dewan Penyelesaian Sengketa Dalam Kebijakan Pidana Iran Dibandingkan dengan Institusi Serupa di Peradilan Prancis AbstrakDewan Penyelesaian Sengketa didirikan sebagai lembaga publik dalam beberapa dekade terakhir untuk mengurangi jumlah kasus yang dikirim ke peradilan di Iran dan memperkuat partisipasi publik dan meningkatkan peran masyarakat dalam kebijakan peradilan pidana. Meskipun kegiatan lembaga ini dalam beberapa tahun terakhir telah menyebabkan penurunan jumlah kasus yang dikirim ke lembaga peradilan, tetapi aspek publiknya tidak terpenuhi sebagaimana dimaksud. Selain itu, undang-undang dewan ini memiliki banyak kontradiksi dengan konstitusi dengan keterbatasan dan masalah di bidang hukum dan struktural yang mempengaruhi fungsinya. Namun, peran masyarakat cukup signifikan dalam lembaga sejenis dalam sistem hukum Common Law dan Perancis, sekaligus memperkuat aspek partisipatif. Isu ini telah menjadi langkah yang efektif dalam memperkuat kebijakan kriminal partisipatif di negara-negara tersebut. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui kebijakan kriminal dari Dispute Resolution Council dan lembaga sejenis di Perancis.Kata Kunci: Dewan Penyelesaian Sengketa, Hukum Prancis, Kebijakan Peradilan Pidana Iran Оценка роли и позиции советов по решению спорных вопросов В уголовной политике ирана по сравнению с аналогичными учреждениями во французской судебной системе  АннотацияСовет по решению спорных вопросов был создан как государственное учреждение в последние десятилетия для сокращения количества дел, передаваемых в судебные органы в Иране, и расширения участия общественности и повышения роли общественности в политике уголовного правосудия. Хотя деятельность этого учреждения в последние годы привела к уменьшению количества дел, направляемых в судебные органы, общественный аспект не выполняется должным образом. Кроме того, закон этого совета имеет много противоречий с конституцией с ограничениями и проблемами в правовой и структурной областях, которые влияют на его функционирование. Тем не менее, роль сообщества весьма значительна в аналогичных учреждениях в системе общего права и правовой системы Франции, а также в усилении аспекта участия. Этот вопрос стал эффективным шагом в укреплении совместной уголовной политики в этих странах. Целью данного исследования является определение уголовной политики Совета по разрешению спорных вопросов и аналогичных учреждений во Франции.Ключевые Слова: Совет по решению спорных вопросов, Французское право, политика в области уголовного правосудия в Иране 

scholarly journals ‘The Very Foundations of Any System of Criminal Justice’: Criminal Responsibility in the Australian Model Criminal Code

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 8-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arlie Loughnan
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Conceptual Level ◽  
Top Down ◽  
The Core ◽  
Reform Project

The Model Criminal Code (MCC) was intended to be a Code for all Australian jurisdictions. It represents a high point of faith in the value and possibility of systematising, rationalising and modernising criminal law. The core of the MCC is Chapter 2, the ‘general principles of criminal responsibility’, which outlines the ‘physical’ and ‘fault’ elements of criminal offences, and defines concepts such as recklessness. This paper assesses the MCC as a criminal law reform project and explores questions of how the MCC came into being, and why it took shape in certain ways at a particular point in time. The paper tackles these questions from two different perspectives—‘external’ and ‘internal’ (looking at the MCC from the ‘outside’ and the ‘inside’). I make two main arguments. First, I argue that, driven by a ‘top down’ law reform process, the MCC came into being at a time when changes in crime and criminal justice were occurring, and that it may be understood as an attempt to achieve stability in a time of change. Second, I argue that the significance of the principles of criminal responsibility, which formed the central pivot of the MCC, lies on the conceptual level—in relation to the language through which the criminal law is thought about, organised and reformed.

Disclosure, Security, Technology

2021 ◽  
pp. 100-116
Author(s):  
Darryl K. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Information Disclosure ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Digital Evidence ◽  
Security Technology ◽  
Evidence Gathering ◽  
Disclosure Rules ◽  
Types Of Information ◽  
Trial Evidence

Criminal disclosure rules in all common law jurisdictions are organized around the same sets of conflicting aims. Pre-trial evidence disclosure is essential to fair and accurate adjudication. Yet certain types of information, such as identities of undercover operatives and ongoing law enforcement surveillance, must be kept confidential. Beyond these tensions, disclosure practices face new challenges arising primarily from evolving technology and investigative tactics. This chapter describes divergent approaches across common law jurisdictions—especially among U.S. states—to these challenges and offers explanations for their differences. It also sketches the technology-based challenges that discovery schemes face and offers options, or tentative predictions about their resolution. Differences often turn on who decides whether to withhold information from the defense—judges or prosecutors—and when certain information must be disclosed. Broader disclosure regimes tend to put greater trust in judicial capacity to dictate or at least review hard questions about the costs, benefits, and timing of disclosure; narrower systems leave more power in prosecutors’ hands. Technology has multiplied challenges for disclosure policy by vastly increasing evidence-gathering tactics and thus the nature and volume of information. Disclosure rules adapted fairly easily to the rise much forensic lab analysis. But fast-growing forms of digital evidence is more problematic. Defendants may lack the time to examine volumes of video and technical resources to analyze other data; sometimes prosecutors do as well. The chapter identifies some possible solutions emerging through technology and law reform, as well as trend toward greater judicial management of pre-trial disclosure.

Policy-based Implied Bare Licences

2021 ◽  
pp. 196-230
Author(s):  
Poorna Mysoor
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Step Test ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Copyright Enforcement ◽  
Prior Relationship

This chapter addresses policy-based implied bare licences. Unlike in the previous chapter, there is no contract in existence and no voluntariness on the part of the copyright owner, and indeed in some cases, no prior relationship between the parties. Historically, English common law has recognised an open-ended power of the courts to restrict or prevent copyright enforcement in the public interest, which has been acknowledged under section 171(3) of the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. The chapter considers how a successful invocation of this provision implies a bare licence to achieve policy goals. Although there is no statutory equivalent of this provision in other common law jurisdictions considered here, the chapter explores if the power has nevertheless been exercised by the courts based on their inherent powers. Since policy-based implied bare licences produce the same effect on copyright owners as the statutory limitations or exceptions, the framework for implying this type of licence draws inspiration from the three-step test and the fundamental rights regime.

“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.

Appraisal and Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 255-276
Author(s):  
Mike McConville ◽  
Luke Marsh
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Final Destination ◽  
The Common ◽  
Future Direction

The concluding Chapter scrutinises the validity and relevance of the book’s hitherto unseen archival files, from which its account stems. In pulling together its main themes concerning the role of civil servants, the Executive and the Judiciary in administering criminal justice, it retraces the trajectory of suspects’ rights in the late nineteenth century, from their seemingly ‘bedrock’ foundation within the common law to their rough distillation (at home and abroad) through various iterations of Judges’ ‘Rules’, themselves of dubious pedigree. In documenting this journey, this Chapter underscores how Senior Judges, confronted by Executive power impinging upon the future direction of system protections, enfeebled themselves, allowing ‘police interests’ to prevail. With Parliament kept in the dark as to the ongoing subterfuge; and the integrity of the Home Office, as an institution, long dissolved, ‘Executive interests’ took the reins of a system within which much mileage for ‘culture change’ lay ahead. This Chapter helps chart their final destination; ultimately, one where new Rules (the CrimPR) replace those exposed as failures, leading to governmental success of a distinct kind: traditional understandings of ‘rights’ belonging to suspects and defendants subverted into ‘obligations’ owing to the Court and an adversarial process underpinning determinations of guilt long-disbanded in the quest for so-called ‘efficiency’. In explaining the implications of the events discussed in this book for the issue of ‘Judicial Independence’ and the ‘Separation of Powers’, this Chapter offers a theoretical framework that illuminates the role and practices of the Senior Judiciary in criminal justice policy today.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document