Making Sense of Decision-making

2019 ◽  
pp. 28-46
Author(s):  
Carolyn Hoyle ◽  
Mai Sato
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Real Possibility ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Key Features ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

This chapter examines decision-making and the use of discretion within the Criminal Cases Review Commission using socio-legal analysis, with particular emphasis on the application of the real possibility test at screening, investigation, and referral back to the Court of Appeal. It also describes the theoretical framework used in the review of the Commission's discretion and decision-making. The chapter begins with a discussion of how the Commission decides whether there is new evidence and whether that evidence gives rise to a real possibility that the Court of Appeal will find the conviction to be unsafe. It then considers the legal and socio-legal literature on discretion, highlighting the key features of discretionary behaviour and how it is facilitated and constrained in practice. Finally, it explores three concepts proposed by Keith Hawkins in the context of legal decision-making: ‘surround’, ‘field’, and ‘frame’.

Last Chance for Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 308-338
Author(s):  
Carolyn Hoyle ◽  
Mai Sato
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Forensic Science ◽  
Referral Rate ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Real Possibility ◽  
The Real ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Science Evidence

This concluding chapter summarises the book's key findings and examines the main cultural and structural influences on the Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision-making. It begins with a discussion of three significant changes to the Commission's ‘surround’: reductions in legal aid for defendants and appellants; growing evidence of non-disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence by police and prosecution; and the declining reliability of forensic science evidence. The chapter then considers the critics' claim that the Commission's referral rate is too low and how this raises concerns about access to justice, along with developments in the surround in relation to the ‘field’ and the ‘frame’. It also analyses variability in the Commission's response to cases and its relationship with various ‘stakeholders’. Finally, it looks at the notion that the Commission is too ‘deferential’ to the Court of Appeal when it comes to making decisions about which cases meet the ‘real possibility test’.

scholarly journals Proceduralising control and discretion: Human oversight in artificial intelligence policy

2020 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2097864
Author(s):  
Riikka Koulu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Science And Technology Studies ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Legal Decision ◽  
Human In The Loop ◽  
Human Element ◽  
Legal Decision Making ◽  
Human Actors

This article is an examination of human oversight in EU policy for controlling algorithmic systems in automated legal decision making. Despite the shortcomings of human control over complex technical systems, human oversight is advocated as a solution against the risks of increasing reliance on algorithmic tools. For law, human oversight provides an attractive, easily implementable and observable procedural safeguard. However, without awareness of its inherent limitations, human oversight is in danger of becoming a value in itself, an empty procedural shell used as a stand-in justification for algorithmisation but failing to provide protection for fundamental rights. By complementing socio-legal analysis with Science and Technology Studies, critical algorithm studies, organisation studies and human-computer interaction research, the author explores the importance of keeping the human in the loop and asks what the human element at the core of legal decision making is. Through algorithmisation it is made visible how law conceptualises decision making through human actors, personalises legal decision making through the decision-maker’s discretionary power that provides proportionality and common sense, prevents gross miscarriages of justice and establishes the human encounter deemed essential for the feeling of being heard. The analysis demonstrates the necessary human element embedded in legal decision making, against which the meaningfulness of human oversight needs to be examined.

A Commission under Scrutiny

2019 ◽  
pp. 12-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Hoyle ◽  
Mai Sato
Keyword(s):  
Wrongful Conviction ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Real Possibility ◽  
The Real ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Proper Balance

This chapter examines the nature of criticisms about the Criminal Cases Review Commission, especially with regards to its application of the ‘real possibility test’ in investigating and referring potential wrongful conviction cases. It begins with a discussion of the Commission's structural failings as perceived by critics external to the institution, with particular emphasis on the argument that focusing on safety and the real possibility test prevents the Commission from referring cases to the Court of Appeal in the interests of ‘justice’, or ‘innocence’. Critics also claim that the Commission does not strike a proper balance between thoroughness and efficiency in the allocation of its finite resources; that it is inconsistent in its response; and that it sometimes does not communicate adequately with applicants and their legal representatives. The chapter concludes with an overview of the book's key research goals as well as the methods employed to realise them.

scholarly journals Learning by experience on the Innocence Project in London: the employer/employee environment

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 173
Author(s):  
Louise Hewitt
Keyword(s):  
Law Students ◽  
Clinical Learning ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Pro Bono ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Appeals Process ◽  
Innocence Project ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<p>The Innocence Project London is a <em>pro bono</em> project dedicated to investigating wrongful convictions in the context of individuals who claim actual innocence i.e. they did not commit the crime for which they have been convicted. Law students undertake work on the cases of convicted individuals who have maintained their innocence but have exhausted the criminal appeals process. The only avenue available to these individuals is to make an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which was set up to investigate the cases of people who believe they have been wrongfully convicted. The CCRC has the power to refer a case back to the Court of Appeal but requires new evidence or a new legal argument not identified at the time of the trial, which might have changed the whole outcome of the trial had the jury had been given a chance to consider it.</p><p>Whilst the notion of innocence projects has been much debated in literature the purpose of this paper is to present the pedagogy of the Innocence Project London and the meaningful learning opportunity it provides to students. The pedagogy combines experiential learning with elements of work based learning to create an employer/ employee environment. Law students are ‘employed’ to work on the Project where the employment process starts with a two-stage application. The clinical learning model on an innocence project is distinct from the traditional clinic approach, in that students start work at the end of a case rather than at the beginning. The problem-solving therefore is developed in the context of critical judgement based on what happened when the case was decided in court as opposed to how the case should be presented in court. The learning for the students has been significant.</p>

scholarly journals The Use of Wiretapping Results in Establishment of Evidence in Conditions of Developing Information Technologies (Comparative Legal Analysis of the Russian Federation Legislation and Some Foreign Countries Legislation)

Lex Russica ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 160-171
Author(s):  
E. K. Antonovich
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Information Technologies ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Individual

 The paper covers the current problems of applying the wiretapping results in the process of establishment of evidence in criminal cases, taking into account the modern requirements for information technology.In recent years, there have been some studies on the use of information technology in establishment of evidence. However, most of them deal with the problems of the use of electronic media and «electronic evidence» in criminal proceedings. The order of the analyzed event, as well as other operational investigative measures, is regulated not by the criminal procedural legislation, but by the legislation on investigative activities. In this connection, in the legal literature, discussions regarding the procedure of introduction of the wiretapping results in criminal proceedings are not dying out. The study of different opinions is not only of interest for the development of scientific thought, but also has practical significance, since it determines the admissibility of evidence and creates the necessary guarantees to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of the individual in criminal proceedings. All this does not lose the relevance in the era of digitalization.In order to search for resources to improve the efficiency of establishment of evidence, the paper provides an analysis of the positive experience of legislative regulation in some foreign countries both as ways to use information technology in the process of wiretapping, and the use of the wiretapping results in establishment of evidence. Special attention is given to the rights and legitimate interests of the person involved in the orbit of criminal proceedings.

Stereotypes and legal decision making

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
John G. Conway ◽  
Scott R. Tindale
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal Decision ◽  
Legal Decision Making
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document