scholarly journals Searching for Change: Scottish Stop and Search Powers

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genevieve Lennon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
Statutory Power ◽  
Stop And Search ◽  
Poor Practice

Dr Lennon examines the existing Scottish law relating to police stop and search powers, and offers a critique of their compatibility with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. She argues that two of the three categories of powers – non-statutory and suspicionless statutory – are likely to be in breach of the ECHR, with the final category evidencing poor practice that provides insufficient protection to the public and insufficient guidance to officers. While she argues that the non-statutory power should be prohibited, the other categories can be amended to ensure they comply the requirements of the ECHR and best practice. There is an urgent need for law reform in this area.

Muslim Reformists, Female Citizenship, and the Public Accommodation of Islam in Liberal Democracy

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Fadel
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Gender Equality ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Gender Hierarchy ◽  
Normative Justification

AbstractThe European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in a trilogy of cases involving Muslim claimants, has granted state parties to the European Convention on Human Rights a wide margin of appreciation with respect to the regulation of public manifestations of Islam. The ECHR has justified its decisions in these cases on the grounds that Islamic symbols, such as the ḥijāb, or Muslim commitments to the shari‘a — Islamic law — are inconsistent with the democratic order of Europe. This article raises the question of what kinds of commitments to gender equality and democratic decision-making are sufficient for a democratic order, and whether modernist Islamic teachings manifest a satisfactory normative commitment in this regard. It uses the arguments of two modern Muslim reformist scholars — Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwī and ‘Abd al-Ḥalīm Abū Shuqqa — as evidence to argue that if the relevant degree of commitment to gender equality is understood from the perspective of political rather than comprehensive liberalism, doctrines such as those elaborated by these two religious scholars evidence sufficient commitment to the value of political equality between men and women. This makes less plausible the ECHR's arguments justifying a different treatment of Muslims on account of alleged Islamic commitments to gender hierarchy. It also argues that in light of Muslim modernist conceptions of the shari‘a, there is no normative justification to conclude that faithfulness to the shari‘a entails a categorical rejection of democracy as the ECHR suggested.

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.

scholarly journals The bastard verdict and its influence on jurors

2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-35
Author(s):  
Lee J. Curley ◽  
Rory MacLean ◽  
Jennifer Murray ◽  
Phyllis Laybourn ◽  
David Brown
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Choice Models ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Guilty Verdict ◽  
Anglo American

The Scottish legal system is a unique jurisdiction, as jurors are able to give not proven verdicts in addition to the well-known Anglo-American verdicts (guilty and not guilty). The not proven verdict has never been legally defined, meaning that currently legal practitioners can only estimate why a not proven verdict has been given. The main aim of this study was to investigate if jurors violate the regularity principle, which is commonly incorporated in many rational choice models, by testing if the introduction of the not proven verdict has an impact on the outcomes given by jurors. In addition, this study aimed to test if the introduction of the not proven verdict has an impact upon how the not guilty verdict is perceived by jurors. In this study, 128 participants listened to two vignettes centred on homicide trials. Jurors could give one of two verdicts in one of the vignettes and one of three verdicts in the other vignette. The vignettes were counterbalanced in regard to how many verdicts could be given at the end of them. It was found that jurors in a three-verdict system were less likely to give a not guilty verdict in comparison to jurors in a two-verdict system, showing that jurors violate the regularity principle and that the not proven verdict may change how the not guilty verdict is perceived. The findings of this research have implications in relation to juror communication, article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and juror rationality.

Stop and Search as a Respectful Encounter

2020 ◽  
pp. 68-94
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Watson
Keyword(s):  
Police Officers ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Crime Control ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Bodily Integrity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Minority Ethnic Groups ◽  
Statutory Power ◽  
Stop And Search ◽  
Minority Ethnic

In this chapter, there is a shift in focus to the statutory power of the police to stop and search, the controversial status of which is not new. Less well documented, however, is that stop and search is highly relevant to the study of respect, since the practice tends to undermine the value, if not render it conspicuously absent. The chapter is organised as follows. The opening section explores how we might sharpen our critique of stop and search by framing it in terms of respect. Stop and search—a common form of adversarial contact between the police and the public—taps into deep and ingrained tensions between preventive policing, the exercise of coercive state authority, due process, and crime control. Among the most incisive criticisms of the power are its disproportionate and discriminatory exercise in relation to minority ethnic groups, its role in eroding police legitimacy, and the invasion of privacy and violation of bodily integrity necessitated by the search itself. The next section assesses three prominent proposals for the reform of stop and search—procedural justice training for police officers, tighter legal regulation of the power, and abolition—in terms of respect.

1. An introduction to the criminal law

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-25
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Wrong ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Harm To Others

It is neither easy to define crime nor identify the aims of criminal law but some characteristics may be universal to every crime, including that it involves public wrongs and moral wrongs. ‘Public wrongs’ reflect the important role of the public in punishing crimes. A crime incorporating a moral wrong implies that a ‘wrong’ is done or harm to others is involved but experience suggests that morality and criminal law are not coextensive. The chapter introduces students to thinking about criminalization and the need to guard against overcriminalization. It also examines the principal sources of criminal law: common law, statute, EU law, international law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Problematically, important and serious offences and most defences in English law derive from common law rather than statute, and some offences—from public nuisance to gross negligence manslaughter—have been challenged recently on grounds of certainty and retrospectivity.

scholarly journals A law-and-community approach to compensation for takings of property under the European Convention on Human Rights

Legal Studies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-414
Author(s):  
Ting Xu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Relations ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Best Approximation ◽  
Community Approach ◽  
European Court

AbstractStudies of takings of property highlight the increasing penetration of state power into private life. Controversies regularly surround compensation provisions. Many academic analyses and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have supported the proposition that market value offers the best approximation of just compensation. However, full market value compensation may not be guaranteed if the taking of property fulfils certain legitimate objectives of the ‘public interest’. To unpack the complexity surrounding compensation provisions under the European Convention on Human Rights, this paper adopts and develops a ‘law-and-community’ approach – an important dimension, not previously investigated in the study of takings of property – which sees ‘community’ as networks of social relations, and views law as not only grounded in community but also existing to regulate communal networks. This paper then identifies the limits of both Art 1, Protocol 1 of the ECHR and the current approaches to compensation in the light of this law-and-community approach. In so doing, the paper makes a distinctive contribution by offering a new socio-legal interpretation of controversies surrounding compensation for takings of property beyond the private/public divide and by proposing an alternative framework of engaging law and regulation in wider social life.

scholarly journals The United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act, deprivations of liberty, and the right to liberty and security of the person

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract In response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic the UK government has passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA). Among other things, this act extends existing statutory powers to impose restrictions of liberty for public health purposes. The extension of such powers naturally raises concerns about whether their use will be compatible with human rights law. In particular, it is unclear whether their use will fall within the public heath exception to the Article 5 right to liberty and security of the person in the European Convention of Human Rights. In this paper, I outline key features of the CA, and briefly consider how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the public health exception to Article 5 rights. This analysis suggests two grounds on which restrictions of liberty enforced some under the CA might be vulnerable to claims of Article 5 rights violations. First, the absence of specified time limits on certain restrictions of liberty means that they may fail the requirement of legal certainty championed by the European Court in its interpretation of the public health exception. Second, the Coronavirus Act’s extension of powers to individuals lacking public health expertise may undermine the extent to which the act will ensure that deprivations of liberty are necessary and proportionate.

The European Convention on Human Rights and International Public Order

2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 237-270
Author(s):  
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Order ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
European Public ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of

It is commonly assumed that the European Convention on Human Rights, being a treaty of specific nature, embodies elements of European public order. However, there seems to be no authoritative or generally accepted definition of the public order of Europe, of its essential components, and of its relationship with the notion of international public order. This article will examine these questions. In pursuing this goal, the law-enforcement resources accumulated within the European system of human rights protection will be examined in the context of interaction between the public order of Europe as part of the law of the European Convention, and international public order as part of general international law.

The ‘Iukos Affair’. The Russian Judiciary and the European Court of Human Rights

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence A. Groen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
European Court ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Structural Nature ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

This note analyzes the functioning of the Russian judiciary on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the cases of OAO Neftianaia Kompaniia Iukos and three of the company’s former leading executives, Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovskii, Platon Leonidovich Lebedev and the late Vasilii Aleksanian. The analysis turns to the breaches by the Russian state of Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 18 (permissible restrictions to the rights guaranteed) of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as established by the Court in the aforementioned cases, and the role of the Russian judiciary therein. In light of the fundamental flaws and structural nature characterizing the violations found, the conclusion is reached that the Russian judiciary (still) appears not to be entirely free from undue influence by the other branches of government.

3. The Powers to Stop, Search and Arrest

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Hannibal ◽  
Lisa Mountford
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Stop And Search

The police have extensive statutory powers to stop and search and to arrest a person in connection with the investigation of a criminal offence under various statutes, including the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984), the Terrorism Act 2000, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. This chapter examines the powers of stop and search before arrest; powers of arrest under PACE 1984; powers to search a person and his property after arrest; the power to grant street bail; and the right to liberty under Article 5 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR 1950).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document