The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court

This handbook examines various aspects of the criminal process, including the role of prosecutors in common law and civil law jurisdictions, the rights and duties of experts, victim rights in civil law jurisdictions, surveillance and investigation, criminal prosecution and its alternatives, evidence discovery and disclosure in common law systems, evidence law as forensic science, common law plea bargaining, appeals and post-conviction review, and procedure in international tribunals. The book is organized into eight parts covering topics ranging from criminal process in the dual penal state to interrogation law and practice in common law jurisdictions, empirical and comparative approaches to criminal procedure, prosecution-led investigations and measures of procedural coercion in the field of corruption, international corporate prosecutions, special procedures for white-collar and corporate wrongdoing in Europe, and trial procedure in response to terrorism. Also discussed are the roles of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights as guardians of fair criminal proceedings in Europe, double jeopardy or ne bis in idem in common law and civil law jurisdictions, plea bargaining vs. abbreviated trial procedures, restorative justice as an alternative to penal sanctions, and the pluralistic nature of international criminal procedure.

scholarly journals GARANTISMO, SISTEMA ACUSATÓRIO E A PRODUÇÃO DE PROVA EX OFFICIO PELO MAGISTRADO

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (59) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Teodoro Silva SANTOS ◽  
Nestor Eduardo Araruna SANTIAGO
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Accurate Analysis ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court

RESUMO Objetivo: A análise da possibilidade de produção de provas ex officio pelo magistrado, prevista na redação do inciso I do art. 156 do Código de Processo Penal, advinda da reforma implementada pela Lei nº. 11.690/2008, que alterou os dispositivos relativos à prova no Processo Penal à luz da Constituição e do Garantismo Penal. Metodologia: Métodos analítico e dedutivo, mediante pesquisa bibliográfica e documental de doutrina e jurisprudência, especialmente dos tribunais superiores brasileiros e do Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos, no âmbito do modelo garantista constitucional e também legal. Resultados: A possibilidade de iniciativa probatória pelo juiz no processo penal antes de iniciada a ação penal, expressa no art. 156, inciso I, do Código de Processo Penal, com a redação advinda da Lei nº. 11.690/2008, contrapõe-se ao garantismo penal, bem como à Constituição, por colocar em risco a imparcialidade judicial. A norma se exprime como resquício de um regime inquisitorial, por afrontar os direitos e as garantias fundamentais, notadamente o princípio da imparcialidade, alcançado por meio do distanciamento do magistrado da função probatória. Contribuições: O tema é relevante, pois abre espaço para uma análise precisa da persecução da verdade no contexto do processo penal ante a possibilidade de atuação ex officio do juiz na produção de provas, fato este que se contrapõe ao sistema processual acusatório adotado no Brasil, centrado na existência de sujeitos processuais diversos e detentores de funções distintas: acusar, defender e julgar, em consonância com o princípio do devido processo legal e de outros princípios corolários deste. Palavras-chave: sistema acusatório; garantismo processual; produção de prova ex officio; imparcialidade. ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the possibility of producing ex officio evidence by the magistrate, provided for in item I of article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising from the reform implemented by Law no. 11,690 / 2008, which amended the provisions relating to evidence in the Criminal Procedure in the light of the Constitution and the Penal Guarantee. Methodology: Analytic and deductive methods, by way of bibliographic and documentary research of doctrine and jurisprudence, especially from the Brazilian higher courts and the European Court of Human Rights, within the scope of the constitutional and also legal guarantee model. Results: The possibility of evidential initiative by the judge in the criminal process before the beginning of the criminal lawsuit, expressed in Article 156, item I of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the wording granted by Law no. 11,690/2008, opposes the criminal guarantee, as well as the Constitution, for putting at risk the judicial impartiality. The law expresses as a remnant of an inquisitorial regime to affront fundamental rights and guarantees, notably the principle of impartiality, achieved by way of distancing the magistrate from the evidence function. Contributions: The topic is relevant, as it opens up an accurate analysis of the pursuit of the truth in the context of criminal proceedings given the possibility of ex officio action by the judge in the production of evidence, a fact that contrasts with the accusatory procedural system adopted in Brazil, centered in the existence of different procedural subjects and holders of different functions: accusing, defending and judging, in line with the principle of due legal process and other corollary principles thereof. Keywords: accusatory system; procedural guarantee; production of ex officio evidence; impartiality.

The Right to Fair Preliminary Investigation and Trial for Vulnerable Defendants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
PHPHMC van Kempen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Right

Mainly as a result of the nature of criminal procedure in the Netherlands, which until recently could be characterized as a modern moderate inquisitorial system, the fitness-to- plead principle has been rather underdeveloped here. This chapter analyses how the European Convention on Human Rights, EU Directives, and the increase of adversarial elements in an originally inquisitorial criminal justice system are now catalysing the fitness-to-plead principle. Fourteen recommendations will be provided for what is considered a necessary reinforcement of the legal position of defendants who possess insufficient abilities to adequately participate during criminal proceedings—both preliminary investigation and trial—or who are even unfit to stand trial. The recommendations are based on a detailed analyses of criminal procedure law of the Netherlands, case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and several EU Directives that are relevant for the fitness to plead principle..

Comparative Approaches to Criminal Procedure

2019 ◽  
pp. 66-88
Author(s):  
Eliabetta Grande
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Revolutionary Change ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Adversarial Model

This chapter discusses comparative approaches to criminal procedure, focusing on transplants, translations, and adversarial-model reforms in European criminal process. In particular, it examines the idea of “Americanization/adversarialization” of European criminal procedures—that is, the possible convergence between American common law and European civil law criminal procedure systems toward a common adversary core structure. The chapter also considers the implications of transplanting some American adversarial features into the non-adversary European soil, such as pretrial investigations conducted by the police and the public prosecutor in lieu of the investigating judge typical of the civilian tradition; exclusionary rules; cross-examination; and jury trial. It compares the so-called tango justice with rumba justice and analyzes the “revolutionary change of procedure” with respect to cross-examination of witnesses, jury trial in Spain, and plea bargaining in Europe.

Waiver in the Russian Criminal Process from the Point of View of Standards of European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 746
Author(s):  
Irina N. CHEBOTAREVA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Russian Law

The research deals with the case law of European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation on complaints of its citizens regarding violation of Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights in criminal proceedings when it considers waiver. The author has defined and analyzed both the standards of waiver and the Court’s approaches to the establishment of waiver and the requirements and conditions developed by it. The author’s analysis of the decisions of European Court of Justice in respect of Russia, in which the court considered the legality of waiver in specific criminal cases when the Russian authorities claimed that the Applicant had waived his right, has led to the conclusion about misunderstanding of the Russian law executor of this legal phenomenon. As a result the defects of law enforcement are hidden behind the waiver of one’s right in the Russian criminal process.

scholarly journals REASONABLE TIME OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: CRIMINALISTIC CHARACTER

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-111
Author(s):  
K. A. Korsakov ◽  
V. V. Konin ◽  
E. V. Sidorenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

In the Russian legal system, the understanding that justice should be not only timely, but also fast enough has matured for a long time. The delay in the investigation of a criminal case and its consideration by the court allows the guilty to avoid the deserved punishment in some cases, which calls into question the principle of inevitability of punishment on the one hand, and hinders the right to access justice, on the other hand. The term reasonable time for legal proceedings has emerged as a requirement of international law to be tried without undue delay. The right to a reasonable period of criminal proceedings is regulated by Article 6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, but this norm is not fully implemented to date, as evidenced by the decisions of the European court of human rights issued on complaints of violation by the Russian Federation of the provisions of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. At the same time, the available research considers the requirement of reasonable terms in criminal proceedings from the standpoint of criminal procedure law, which is not fully justified. The article attempts to consider the problematic issues of reasonable terms of criminal proceedings from the perspective of criminology, as a science that has incorporated theoretical and practical issues of fighting crime, as well as the problems of criminalistic criteria in criminal proceedings.

Professional secrecy and legal professional privilege

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorg Sladič
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Family Life ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Professional ◽  
The Right

Legal privilege and professional secrecy of attorneys relate to the right to a fair trial (Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) as well as to the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). The reason for protecting the lawyer via fundamental rights is the protection of fundamental rights of the lawyer’s clients. All legal orders apply legal privileges and professional secrecy; however, the contents of such are not identical. Traditionally there is an important difference between common and civil law. The professional secrecy of an attorney in civil law jurisdictions is his right and at the same time his obligation based on his membership of the Bar (that is his legal profession). In common law legal privilege comprises the contents of documents issued by an attorney to the client. Professional secrecy of attorneys in civil law jurisdictions applies solely to independent lawyers; in-house lawyers are usually not allowed to benefit from rules on professional secrecy (exceptions in the Netherlands and Belgium). On the other hand, common law jurisdictions apply legal professional privilege, recognized also to in-house lawyers. Slovenian law follows the traditional civil law concept of professional secrecy and sets a limited privilege to in-house lawyers. The article then discusses Slovenian law of civil procedure and compares the position of professional secrecy in lawsuits before State’s courts and in arbitration.

Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Does the European Court of Human Rights Offer a Coherent and Convincing Approach?

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-153
Author(s):  
Wojciech Jasiński
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Main Shortcoming

Abstract The paper presents and assesses the approach of the ECtHR to admissibility of evidence obtained through torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in the criminal process. The author examines the content of the standard, its justifications and the consistency of the ECtHR's reasoning. The paper refers both to the admissibility of statements and real evidence as well as to primary and derivate evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 echr. The admissibility of evidence obtained by oppressive conduct of private individuals is also analysed. The assessment of the Strasbourg Court’s case law indicates that its approach is quite nuanced and, unfortunately, inconsistent and incoherent. Its main shortcoming is the lack of an in-depth analysis of the rationale for the inadmissibility of evidence obtained by maltreatment and the piecemeal treatment of individual categories of such evidence devoid of attempt to comprehensively address its admissibility in criminal proceedings.

Rights and Methods to Challenge Evidence and Witnesses in Civil Law Jurisdictions

2019 ◽  
pp. 839-864
Author(s):  
Lorena Bachmaier
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
The Cross

This chapter examines the primary grounds for challenging the admissibility of evidence, the methods to do it, and the potential consequences of those challenges for civil law systems. It first provides an overview of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with respect to admissibility of evidence, before discussing the exclusionary rules of evidence, focusing on the methods for excluding unreliable evidence, irrelevant or unnecessary evidence, and illegally obtained evidence. It then considers the process for challenging the admissibility of evidence, the cross-examination of witnesses, and the role of trial courts in the questioning of witnesses. It also tackles the admissibility of out-of-court witness testimonies in European civil law systems and notes the convergence between common law and civil law systems with regard to methods for excluding evidence and for questioning witnesses.

scholarly journals The institution of suspicion and the initial stage of the criminal process: interrelated prospects of development

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-131
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Polikarpova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Initial Moment ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Initial Stage

The article considers the question of the interdependence of the improvement of the institution of suspicion and the transformation of the initial stage of the Russian criminal process. The article highlights the problem of the legislative limitation of the period of the procedural status of a person as a suspect in the event of a criminal case being initiated not against him, but upon the commission of a crime and insufficient evidence of the involvement/non-involvement of such a person in a criminal offence committed at the initial stage of the investigation, which often does not allow avoiding unreasonable restrictions on the constitutional rights and freedoms of this participant in criminal proceedings. The relevant experience of some post-Soviet states that followed the path of a radical change in the criminal procedure model after the collapse of the USSR is analysed. The article compares the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic directly related to the institution of suspicion, including the moment of triggering criminal prosecution and the duration of a suspect’s keeping the specified procedural status. The arguments given in the article substantiate the need to reform the initial moment of the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in Russian criminal proceedings and the associated expediency of abolishing the stage of initiation of a criminal case in order to increase the guarantee of the rights and legitimate interests of the person introduced into the procedural status we are analysing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document