Identifying Miscarriages of Justice: Why Innocence in the UK is Not the Answer

This article examines two contrasting proposals for the reform of criminal appeals: the government's recent proposal that the guilty should no longer have their convictions quashed on 'technicalities'; and calls by campaigners for the Court of Appeal to consider innocence rather than the 'safety of the conviction,' together with their associated attempts to establish Innocence Projects in the UK. Despite the rhetorical power of 'innocence' as a campaigning tool, it is contended that to import such a standard into the legal system would be retrogressive and counter-productive, both as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and in protecting the integrity of the system. In order to be meaningful, due process protections must apply to all. The government's proposals attack this principle directly; innocence campaigners risk unwittingly assisting their endeavours.     

Absurd Asymmetry – a Comment on R v Cottrell and Fletcher1 and BM,KK and DP (Petitioners) v Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission2

This note examines two cases in which English and Scottish courts have insisted that the English and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commissions adopt the same definition and approach as them to alleged ‘miscarriages of justice’ in order to reduce the number of potential referrals and increase finality, and to reduce the challenge posed by these Commissions to the courts' authority in the legal sphere. The authors consider whether the courts' approach is either necessary or appropriate.     

论国际刑事法院证据规则的混合模式——以大陆法系和英美法系证据规则比较为视角

国际刑事法院诉讼规则是一种混合模式,证据规则也不例外.而这种混合模式融合了大陆法系证据采纳的宽泛规定和普通法系证据收集、出示和审查中的对抗制因素.这种混合模式有其特定的成因,而大陆法系和普通法系对这一混合模式则存在不同的看法,本文从比较视角对这一问题进行了分析,并指出了其对我国证据立法的启示.     

论国际刑事法院证据规则的混合模式——以大陆法系和英美法系证据规则比较为视角

国际刑事法院诉讼规则是一种混合模式,证据规则也不例外。而这种混合模式融合了大陆法系证据采纳的宽泛规定和普通法系证据收集、出示和审查中的对抗制因素。这种混合模式有其特定的成因,而大陆法系和普通法系对这一混合模式则存在不同的看法,本文从比较视角对这一问题进行了分析,并指出了其对我国证据立法的启示。     

从苏丹情势分析国际刑事法院管辖权的补充性原则

联合国安理会向国际刑事法院的检察官提交的苏丹达尔富尔地区发生的情势,引发了非缔约国对国际刑事法院管辖权补充性的质疑。将达尔富尔的情势提交国际刑事法院,应由独立的机构判断苏丹政府“不愿意”和“不能”行使管辖权的客观证据。这样做,一方面为了充分支持安理会向检察官提交情势的行为;另一方面为了国际刑事法院审判工作的独立性和有效性吸引诸如中国和美国等司法制度健全的非缔约国批准《罗马规约》。中国虽然是非缔约国,但始终支持国际刑事法院的建立及其工作,并对国际刑事法院的审判活动采取一种审视态度。有理由相信,通过国际刑事法院建立的良好工作模式,如对达尔富尔公正有效的处理,以及在我国法律条件成熟的情况下,中国会成为《罗马规约》的缔约国。     

Keywords,case law and the Court of Justice: the need for legislative intervention in modernising European trade mark law

Recent preliminary references to the CJEU on online keyword advertising and registered trade mark infringement have exposed the challenges facing EU registered trade mark law in its response to new technologies. These cases and the challenges they pose provide a timely prism through which to examine the European trade mark law-making process and the role of the CJEU within that process. This article will employ an analysis of the way in which the CJEU has developed certain key new aspects of the law on ‘infringing use’ to explore concerns over the CJEU's role and approach. It will be argued that, driven by policy considerations, the CJEU has acted creatively to develop the law of infringement in ways that cannot be sustained by the TMD and CTMR and which are likely to cause increasing uncertainties going forward. With the European Commission currently considering reform of Trade Marks Directive 2008/95/EC and Community Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009/EC, this paper will argue that there is a need for more comprehensive and forward-looking legislative intervention than has yet been proposed and that such intervention will be essential to restoring balance in the European trade mark law-making process.     

A Political Economy Perspective of Judicial Review in the European Union: Judicial Appointments Rule, Accessibility and Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice

The paper examines the benefits the sovereign member states of the EU expect to derive by granting the European Court of Justice the power to review the collective policy making decisions of the EU legislative bodies. Using the methodology of constitutional political economy it investigates the one-country one-judge rule of judicial appointments in the ECJ, the restrictions imposed on litigants to access the ECJ and the limits on the jurisdiction of the ECJ to review EU legislation. It also analyses how the presence of judicial review affects the size of the policy measures taken by the policy makers.     

The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles

The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming) is an independent advisory, supervisory and judiciary board to the Netherlands Minister of Justice on matters relating to the prison system, the hospital order detention system, the probation system and the youth incarceration system. Members are recruited from a variety of backgrounds, such as magistracy, science, medicine, psychiatry and social work. As a rule, they have a full-time job in society. They are recruited by virtue of their expertise, competence and professional experience in relevant fields. Nowadays, there are about 60 members. The combination of the Council’s three tasks has been criticised. The argument is that the advisory and supervisory tasks of the Council could interfere with the independent and impartial nature of its judicial task. The supposed incompatibility of the three tasks has been one of the arguments of the Minister of Justice in defending his decision to set up an Inspectorate for the whole field of the administration of justice. This Inspectorate would overlap the Council’s supervisory task. So, legislation has been prepared in order to prevent overlap by taking away this task from the Council. The resistance to these plans was an important reason for the Dutch government to ask the Verwey-Jonker Institute to evaluate the performance of the Council. The Council performed very well in this evaluation. Its performance could not, therefore, really be used as an argument for curtailing its tasks. The independent nature of an Inspection Board is open to question, as it is functioning under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. However, the Minister of Justice has not been convinced by this and other arguments, so there is a big chance that the Council will loose its supervisory task.

Investigators and Prosecutors or, Desperately Seeking Scotland: Re-formulation of the 'Philips Principle'

Prosecution in England and Wales, traditionally private, was captured by the 'new police', creating an 'English tradition' unlike those of the rest of the United Kingdom. To overcome consequent problems, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure recommended the 'Philips principle', whereby investigator and prosecutor were separate, but co-ordinate, on which basis the Crown Prosecution Service was set up. However, the principle was in fact compromised by the 'English tradition', most obviously by permitting continued police prosecution. Moreover, the Serious Fraud Office, set up shortly thereafter, contradicted the principle. Yet, HM Customs and Excise addressed its serious problems by applying the principle. The CPS itself encountered difficulties flowing from the compromises. Reports (Runciman, Narey, Glidewell) recommended various devices, straining the principle, until the Auld Report recognised that reformulation was necessary, along the lines adopted elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that is, by recognising that there should be investigator subordination to prosecutor.     

Legislative genesis and judicial death of a directive: The European Court of Justice invalidated the data retention directive (2006/24/EC) thereby creating a sustained period of legal uncertainty about the validity of national laws which enacted it

The Grand Chamber has ruled that the data retention directive was invalid ex tunc since it seriously interfered with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and protection of personal data and exceeded the limits of the principle of proportionality which are provided for in the Charter. The scope and temporal effects of this ruling should be clarified, especially its legal impacts on national laws of Member States which enacted the directive. In addition, the findings of the Grand Chamber on geographical safeguards have far-reaching implications on the retention and storage of personal data in the EU.     

The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018: Updating the Federal Approach to Youth Involved,and At‐Risk of Becoming Involved,in the Juvenile Justice System

On December 21, 2018, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act was signed into law, marking the first update in 16 years to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. The reforms reflect much of the knowledge that has been gained through research and science over the past decade and strengthen the Act’s core protections for youth in the juvenile justice system. The changes also expand the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s role in research, and technical assistance, and provide for additional oversight for related programs.