XIV. Hearsay in criminal proceedings

2018 ◽  
pp. 611-674
Author(s):  
Roderick Munday
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Evidential Value ◽  
Police Investigation ◽  
Codes Of Practice ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

This chapter considers hearsay in light of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It first discusses the relevant provisions of the act before turning to the rules relating to confessions. Along with confessions, the chapter also takes a look at the evidential value of inferences from the accused's silence. In relation to both, the chapter considers the Codes of Practice relating to different aspects of police investigation, which often form a component in the exercise of the judge's discretion to exclude evidence. In addition, the chapter examines the reforms made to the law of hearsay, including the basic policy of the reform, the general exception, special exceptions for business documents and previous statements of witnesses, the impact of discretion, and provisions relating to the authenticity and weight of hearsay.

12. The rule against hearsay III

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Glover
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Mentally Handicapped ◽  
Codes Of Practice ◽  
Hearsay Evidence

Admissions and confessions are the most important common law exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Section 118(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserves any rule of law relating to the admissibility of admissions made by agents in criminal proceedings. This chapter is divided into two parts, the first of which discusses admissions, covering the principles of admissibility; what admissions may bind a party; and what may be proved by admission. The second part deals with confessions, covering the admissibility of confessions; the exclusion of confessions; evidence yielded by inadmissible confessions; excluded confessions as relevant non-hearsay evidence; confessions by the mentally handicapped and those otherwise impaired; the Codes of Practice and the discretionary exclusion of confessions; the use of confessions by co-accused; confessions implicating co-accused; and partly adverse (‘mixed’) statements.

10. Character Evidence

Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Character Evidence ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases

Chapter 10 begins with a discussion of the relevance of evidence of character. It then deals with the admissibility of character evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil cases, the admissibility of evidence of a party’s bad character is governed simply by the test of relevance. In criminal proceedings, the entitlement of a defendant to a direction on the significance of his or her good character is taken seriously. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 now provides a comprehensive statement of the law on evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings.

A Comparative Study of the Relationship Between Time and Criminal Justice: the New Face of Criminal Statutes of Limitations in Italy

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 300-334
Author(s):  
Simone Lonati
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
Limitation Periods ◽  
The Government ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Made In

Addressing the need to avoid punishing long past events that have fallen into oblivion, only to then come into play when the government, by means of proceedings, stages a re-enactment and thus a reminiscence of those events: statutes of limitations in criminal law are marked by an axiological ambiguity. The debate on their quomodo becomes particularly heated when the focus turns to the possible interferences between limitation periods and criminal proceedings. The discussion stems from the difficult attempt to balance primary and essentially heterogeneous interests: on the one hand, protecting the accused from the “punishment of trial” and, on the other, providing the criminal justice system with adequate time for prosecuting and adjudicating criminal offences as a way to effectively protect the interests harmed by the commission of certain crimes. Furthermore, there is a widespread concern to avoid instrumental conducts by the parties solely aimed at running out the clock. The matter is undoubtedly complex, as the issues and implications it gives rise to are multiple and varied. In an attempt to outline a possible statutory framework that may govern the relationship between the passage of time after the commission of an offence and the time needed for its adjudication, it may be useful to expand the knowledge base from which to draw upon in order to identify appropriate solutions: to look beyond domestic boundaries is, after all, good practice when faced with an impasse. This analysis aims to closely examine the choices made in two legal systems-Germany and Spain-whose legal traditions are the closest to Italy. Firstly, the study will describe the key features characterizing, in general, limitation periods for criminal offences. Subsequently, special attention will be paid to the rules governing the impact that the launch and dynamics of criminal proceedings have on the running of limitation periods. Based on the differences and especially the similarities between the respective rules in force in the two countries, it will be possible to formulate a number of observations regarding the provisions implemented by the Italian legislator. Lastly, comparing and contrasting the German and Spanish legal experiences will allow a closer look at the more recent reforms of statutes of limitations in Italy, to the extent that the latter appear roughly inspired by the principles applied in the aforementioned systems.

scholarly journals Child-friendly Justice and Procedural Safeguards For Children in Criminal Proceedings: New Momentum for Children in Conflict with the Law?

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Ton Liefaard
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Past ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Child Friendly ◽  
The Law ◽  
Justice Systems

Child-friendly justice has its focus on on the effective participation of children in justice systems. During the past decade the concept, grounded in international children’s rights, has become meaningful for justice systems in Europe and beyond. Despite its flaws and gaps, it has the potential of making justice systems more accessible for children, including the (juvenile) criminal justice system with its particular complexity. However, in order to understand its true potential more research is needed. This article elaborates on the concept of child-friendly justice and sheds light on a research agenda around its core elements.  

10. Character Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 229-261
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Character Evidence ◽  
The Law ◽  
Civil Cases

Chapter 10 begins with a discussion of the relevance of evidence of character. It then deals with the admissibility of character evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil cases, the admissibility of evidence of a party’s bad character is governed simply by the test of relevance. In criminal proceedings, the entitlement of a defendant to a direction on the significance of his or her good character is taken seriously. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 now provides a comprehensive statement of the law on evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings.

Previous Consistent Statements

1968 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-101
Author(s):  
R. N. Gooderson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Or Practice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
Short Time ◽  
Near Future

No expert long range forecast is needed to predict that in the near future a wind of change of a velocity and a turbulence hitherto unknown is going to sweep away many common law principles of the law of evidence regarded in the past as fundamental. In civil proceedings, the hurricane is upon us, with the thirteenth report of the Law Reform Committee, and the Civil Evidence Bill 1967, virtually providing for the abolition of the rule against first-hand hearsay and the rule against narrative, and substituting a wide discretion in the court. All the signs are that in a short time analogous reforms for criminal proceedings will be announced, and already previous statements have been rendered widely admissible by the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The object of this article is to look at the common law relating to the rule against narrative in criminal proceedings, as it is applied in England and in the United States, and to make a few comments on the procedure introduced by section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.The rule against narrative is sometimes called the rule against self-corroboration. This is misleading, in that a witness can never corroborate himself where corroboration is required by any rule of law or practice. In the thirteenth report, the first description is said to be a misnomer, but a helpful summary of the rule is given: “what the witness himself said outside the witness-box is not evidence.” Wills describes the rule in this way: “… the witness may not repeat to the Court his own previous narratives or statements concerning the relevant facts made to other persons out of Court; when he is in the witness-box he must take his mind back, directly so to speak, to the facts he is called to prove, and must give to the Court his present recollection of those facts.”

scholarly journals DIVERSI TINDAK PIDANA NARKOTIKA DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
I Made Wiharsa
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Research Type

Diversion of narcotic crime in the criminal justice system for the children. Children in conflict with the law, especially in narcotic cases not specifically regulated in Law Number 35 of 2009 on the Narcotics. During this time the children in conflict with the law that is drafted in the Law Number 11 of 2012 on the Criminal Justice System for The Children. Criminal punishment against with a certain person started because that person has committed a crime. Children in the case of a criminal act of narcotics criminal sanctions will have a negative impact on a child's future. Referring to the criminal justice system for the children are known to attempt a diversion to divert the child's completion of the criminal case of the trial into a non-judicial process. This research with the normative methods research type, which aims to determine the impact of the imposition of criminal sanctions and diversion efforts for children in narcotic crime. Diversi tindak pidana narkotika dalam sistem peradilan pidana anak. Anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum khususnya dalam tindak pidana narkotika belum diatur secara khusus dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 35 Tahun 2009 Tentang Narkotika. Selama ini terhadap anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum mengacu pada Undang-Undang Nomor. 11 Tahun 2012 Tentang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak.  Penjatuhan pidana terhadap seseorang bermula karena seseorang tersebut telah melakukan suatu tindak pidana. Anak dalam hal melakukan tindak pidana narkotika yang dijatuhi sanksi pidana akan berdampak buruk pada masa depan anak. Mengacu pada sistem peradilan pidana anak yang dikenal upaya diversi untuk mengalihkan penyelesaian perkara tindak pidana anak dari proses peradilan ke proses non peradilan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metoda penelitian hukum normatif, yang bertujuan untuk dapat mengetahui dampak penjatuhan sanksi pidana dan upaya diversi bagi anak dalam tindak pidana narkotika.

scholarly journals Moral Origins — Reasonable Doubts

Russian judge ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 62-64
Author(s):  
Elena V. Selina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Mission Statement ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law

Once again, it is time to talk about moral principles. This concept is clearly established in the law. But its content-content remains in the circle of discrepancies. The countdown of its history is usually considered when referring to the essay by A.F. Kony ‘Moral principles in criminal proceedings (General features of judicial ethics)’. This article is based on the author’s previous research, which showed that the idea of moral principles as a corresponding category was suggested by A.F. Kony and F.M. Dostoevsky. The article is devoted to the further goal-to extract the missing (according to the essay by A.F. Kony) information about moral principles from the artistic and publicistic works of F.M. Dostoevsky. The works of F.M. Dostoevsky are considered from the point of view of searching for the mechanism of the criminal justice system taking into account the moral principles. A.F. Kony’s essay on moral principles is filled with the history of the criminal process, and only a small part of it has become considered as a mission statement and widely.

scholarly journals Teleological ambitions of the criminal process

2021 ◽  
pp. 96-103
Author(s):  
Mihail Polyakov ◽  
Maria Aleshina
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Goal Setting ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Special Element ◽  
The Law

The article is devoted to the issues of goal-setting in criminal proceedings. The authors believe that a special element of the legal technique of goal-setting at the level of the law is the method of forming the super-tasks of the criminal process. The authors called this technique «teleological ambitions of criminal justice». It is through this technique that the legislator confirms his commitment to the principle of the inevitability of punishment (responsibility).

Therapeutic Jurisprudence in International and Comparative Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Stobbs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Therapeutic Jurisprudence ◽  
Offender Treatment ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is a multidisciplinary approach to assessing the impact of the law itself on the emotional and psychological experiences of all those who have contact with the legal system. Variously described as a theory, a method, a lens, or a process of analysis, its distinguishing feature is to conceive of the law as a “therapeutic agent.” That agency can cause both therapeutic and antitherapeutic consequences. By investigating and assessing the social, professional, and political contexts in which laws are made and applied, TJ seeks to identify how unintentional harms are caused and suggests ways to remedy them. It also identifies opportunities to enhance psychological strengths and positive emotional experiences to improve legal outcomes. It has commonalities with positive criminology, restorative justice, procedural justice, and other less adversarial approaches within the criminal justice system. Since being founded by David Wexler and Bruce Winick in the 1980s as a project to improve the experiences of those subjected to mental disability law in the United States, the theory and methodology of TJ has evolved, and its influence has expanded to virtually every major legal system and jurisdiction. TJ was at the core of the operating philosophy of the problem-solving court movement, which now operates across nine countries. It is increasingly influential in new approaches to probation and offender treatment models in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, and in influencing access to justice policies in India and Pakistan. It offers some common conceptual principles for the development of First Nations courts, tribunals, and dispute resolution programs seeking to eradicate systemic, monocultural bias in postcolonial criminal justice systems which tend to lead to intractable, carceral overrepresentation. TJ is currently undergoing a process of “mainstreaming” across disciplines and internationally. This involves encouraging lawyers and other criminal justice workers outside specialist court and diversion jurisdictions to adopt therapeutic outlooks and practices. So far there have been projects to mainstream TJ principles in police interviewing, risk assessment, diversion, criminal settlement conferences, bail, sentencing, conditional release from custody, and appeals. The sorts of reforms, innovations, and changes in mindsets suggested by TJ work has also sparked resistance and criticism. The latter ranges from constructive concerns about conceptual vagueness, risks of paternalism, and coercion to absolute ideological opposition on the grounds that TJ allegedly advocates for the complete abandonment of the adversarial system and strongarms defendants into surrendering their constitutional and due process rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document