that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The significance of this discretion lay in the fact that it could be exercised notwithstanding that the time limits for lodging an appeal to had expired long ago. Following criticisms of the involvement of politicians in this aspect of the criminal justice process the 1995 Act withdrew the Home Secretary’s powers of referral and instead vested them in an independent body, the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Under s 5 of the 1995 Act (amending s 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968) the Court of Appeal can ask the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate a particular case on its behalf:

1996 ◽  
pp. 74-87
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Miscarriage Of Justice

11. When things go wrong in the criminal justice process

2021 ◽  
pp. 518-598
Author(s):  
Lucy Welsh ◽  
Layla Skinns ◽  
Andrew Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Institutional Architecture ◽  
Criminal Justice Practitioners

In this chapter, we identify and critically evaluate the kind of things that can go wrong in the criminal justice process and describe the institutional architecture used to regulate the actions and effects of criminal justice practitioners and to hold them to account. The focus of the chapter is on the organisational, legal and democratic regulatory and accountability mechanisms associated with the police, courts and CPS. Specifically the chapter covers: Police and Crime Commissioners; citizen- and volunteer-led forms of accountability/regulation; royal commissions, public inquiries and independent inquiries; police complaints processes and inspectorates; trial remedies and appeals; the Criminal Cases Review Commission; civil proceedings; inquests and Coronial Courts.

scholarly journals Institute of Returning a Criminal Case to the Prosecutor in the System of Criminally-Remedial Means, Ensuring the Victim's Right to Protection from Crime and Access to Justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 512-526
Author(s):  
Tatyana Ryabinina
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process

The article deals with current and controversial issue in the criminal science, specifically the need for the Russian criminal justice process to have an institute to return a criminal case to the procurator at the stage of appointment and preparation of the court hearing. The author emphasizes that during the continuance of RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, a special emphasis was put on it as a guarantee of the delivery of justice and the rights of the participants in the proceedings, that put in place the arrangements necessary for an effective court trial. The goal of modern judicial reform is to establish an independent judiciary whose main function is the delivery of justice which can be implemented in criminal proceedings only in adversary criminal proceedings. Since the beginning of its implementation, attitudes towards the institution of returning a criminal case by a court to a procurator to correct lacunae, loopholes, contradictions, irregularities or flaws in pre-trial proceedings have changed dramatically. It is perceived as an attribute of the courts prosecutorial activities, which is inconsistent with its new role as an independent body to resolve legal disputes between a state and an individual awaiting for a founded and equitable decision from the court. Despite critical rhetoric towards the institution of returning the criminal case to the prosecutor, the author argues that it is necessary due to specific status of the first judicial phase in a staged system of Russian criminal justice process. This institute creates conditions for monitoring and verification activities of judges at this stage, and the corresponding authority of judges to determine the future course of criminal cases brought before the courts. However, the author concludes that the task of rectifying the shortcomings of the prosecution can be addressed at the preliminary hearing introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation to resolve various contentious issues. When it is impossible to remove the obstacles that prevent the court from conducting a trial, the judge may, taking into account the views of the parties, decide to return the case to the prosecutor.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTASI ASAS LEX SPECIALIS DEROGAT LEGI GENERALI DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 503
Author(s):  
Shinta Agustina
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Cumulative Model

This study aims to assess and analyze the application of the principle of lex specialis the derogat legi generali in the Criminal Justice System related to the stages in the criminal justice process, and the form of the indictment in applying the principle of lex specialis the derogat legi generali. The method used is empirical juridical with descriptive analytical. The result shows that this principle is applied in criminal cases that violating the general and special criminal provisions in the Penal Code, the general criminal provisions in the Penal Code and special criminal provisions outside the Penal Code, as well as criminal cases that violating two special criminal acts outside the Penal Code. Regarding the fase of criminal procedure in handling the case under this principle, it is implemented in the adjudication process, using the subsidiarity or cumulative model of chargingPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji dan menganalisis penerapan asas lex specialis derogat legi generali dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana terkait dengan tahapan dalam proses peradilan pidana, dan bentuk surat dakwaan dalam menerapkan asas lex xpecialis derogat legi generali tersebut. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode  yuridis empiris yang bersifat deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian memperlihatkan bahwa asas lex specialis derogat legi generali diterapkan dalam perkara pidana yang mempertemukan ketentuan pidana umum dan khusus dalam KUHP, ketentuan pidana umum dalam KUHP dan ketentuan pidana khusus di luar KUHP, serta perkara pidana yang mempertemukan dua atau lebih ketentuan pidana khusus di luar KUHP. Berkenaan dengan tahapan dalam sistem peradilan pidana, asas ini diterapkan dalam tahap adjudication, yang mengharuskan surat dakwaan dibuat dalam model subsidiaritas atau kumulatif

KONSEP DIVERSI DAN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE SEBAGAI PERGESERAN TANGGUNG JAWAB PIDANA PADA SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA ANAK

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-106
Author(s):  
Pangestika Rizki Utami
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Penalties

The concept of diversity and restorative Justice is a criminal cases settlement form that provide children protection by promoting the best interest of the child principle. To protect children from the formal process of criminal justice system, the legal and humanitarian experts conceptualize the act of removing child who has allegedly committed a criminal offense from the general criminal justice process by providing an alternative punishment that is considered better for children. The concept of diversion is created based on the fact that the criminal justice process for children as the perpetrators through the conventional criminal justice system causes more harm than good. Restorative Justice is a fair resolving criminal cases system with by emphasizing recovery in its original state. This article will discuss about the shifting of children criminal responsibility from conservative criminal penalties to child friendly criminal penalties with the concept of diversity and restorative justice.

Forensic Psychology in Historical Perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Wolffram
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Forensic Psychology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Offender Profiling ◽  
Witness Credibility ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Psychological Knowledge ◽  
Psychological Expertise

Forensic psychology in the 21st century entails the application of psychology to all aspects of the criminal justice process. Forensic psychologists, therefore, are engaged in the theorization of offending, offender profiling, the psychology of testimony, investigative interviewing, the psychology of juries and judges, and psychological approaches to the punishment and treatment of offenders. Historically, however, forensic psychology, has been narrower in scope. Founded principally in Europe during the late 19th century as a response to the reform of criminal procedure and research on suggestion, which undermined confidence in witness credibility, forensic psychology was initially pursued by jurists and psychiatrists eager to understand the behavior of all those involved in the criminal justice process. While this ambition was pursued piecemeal by jurists throughout the early 20th century in their studies of guilty knowledge, judges, jurors, and investigators, the exigencies of the courtroom, soon saw the field become focused on the psychology of the witness, particularly the juvenile witness. Important, in this regard were the efforts of both European and American experimental psychologists, whose precarious position within universities at the fin de siècle saw them look for real-world applications for psychology and led them to campaign voraciously for the inclusion of psychological knowledge and psychological expertise in legal proceedings. Competition between several disciplines, including law, psychology, psychiatry, and pedagogy, over the role of psychological expert made the professionalization of this field difficult up until the Second World War. During the late 1940s and 1950s, however, not only did forensic psychology increasingly become the exclusive purview of psychologists, but the discipline’s scope began to expand. Notable in this regard was offender profiling, which emerged from the psychological analysis of war criminals and the application of the insights gained here to several high-profile criminal cases in the United States.

The Agreement of Uncontroversial Evidence and the Presumption of Innocence: An Insoluble Dilemma?

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Duff
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Relationship

On 1 April 1996, a rather odd provision was introduced into the Scottish criminal justice process, namely a duty on both prosecution and defence to try to agree uncontroversial evidence in advance of criminal trial.1 As far as the writer is aware, such a provision is unique, although the philosophy underlying its introduction is not totally alien to inquisitorial systems of criminal justice.2 What is particularly peculiar about this duty is that there is no sanction for a failure, however unreasonable, to agree uncontroversial evidence.3 The lack of a sanction resulted from a concern that the creation of any penalty would impinge unjustifiably upon the rights of the accused. The intention in this article is to explore in detail the relationship between the duty to agree uncontroversial evidence and the position of the accused, and to suggest that the imposition of a sanction for a breach of this duty is not as problematic as was thought by those responsible for the legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document