警察武力之善法良治——论警察武力法的正义价值标准

警察武力法的正义价值标准由标示正义价值方向的基本理念和标示正义价值尺度的基本原则两项基本要件分级承担并贯彻。中国警察武力法有:社会正义与法律正义有机统一、保权与控权有机统一和价值、规范、事实有机统一三个居位"法上之法"的基本理念和危害行为与武力行为法定、危害行为与武力行为相当、武力行为克减和多样化和正当程序四个居位"法上之法"的基本原则。上述基本理念和基本原则,对系统理解、把握中国警察使用武力的基本原则和构成要件、各种规范的内在关连性,以及构思未来的、"应然"的中国警察武力立法具有不可或缺的重要意义。     

‘Fat cat’ lawyers and ‘illegal’ migrants: the impact of intersecting hostilities and toxic narratives on access to justice

ABSTRACT

This article examines how three spheres of hostility intersect to prevent effective access to justice for those living with insecure immigration status. The neoliberal governance model, the barren justice landscape and the hostile environment are supported by the cynical construction of the ‘fat cat’ lawyer and the toxic ‘folk devil’ narrative of the ‘bogus’ asylum seeker. To the extent that the judiciary have frustrated the more obvious, ideologically driven, attempts to restrict access to justice for migrants, the austerity predicated measures pursuant to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) have completely altered the legal landscape. The analysis is informed by the findings of the ‘Legal advice and support for persons with insecure status’ project (hereafter LAPIS) in Nottingham which explores the challenges faced by service providers and the lived experiences of those with insecurity of status. It is clear that access to justice is a passport to the realisation of other rights, yet participants struggled to access a remedy because legal advice is too often out of reach.     

专家参与刑事司法的多元功能及其体系化

从1979年刑事诉讼法颁布至今,专家参与我国刑事司法的制度功能变得开放而多元。专家制度功能的多元化,根源于刑事司法的三重逻辑:弥合法律人与专家之间知识鸿沟的“认知逻辑”;落实公检法机关“分工负责,互相配合,互相制约”原则的“权力逻辑”;保障当事人合法权益与实现控辩平等的“权利逻辑”。从结构主义与整体主义的视角看,当前,刑事专家制度存在明显的体系化缺陷,主要表现为专家制度过度权力化、专家制度功能尚未结构化、专家制度不够规范化。改进刑事专家制度,应当采取体系化路径:首先,将多元专家参与模式调整为鉴定人与专家辅助人二元专家模式;其次,彰显专家制度的“权利逻辑”,矫正过度权力化倾向;最后,构建系统化的专家制度,为专家服务刑事司法创造制度条件。     

Lost in space? the role of place in the delivery of social welfare law advice over the telephone and face-to-face

ABSTRACT

Advice that is provided exclusively over the telephone has been promoted by government as more convenient and accessible than face-to-face appointments. The resulting push towards telephone-only provision, as implemented by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, challenges the long history of association between social welfare law advice and local delivery within disadvantaged communities. This article reports on qualitative research comparing telephone and face-to-face advice which uncovers the continuing relevance of place in the dynamics and mechanics of social welfare law provision. Familiarity with the geographical location, knowledge of local policies and procedures, relationships with opponents and allies, and an understanding of the ‘local legal culture’ mean that face-to-face advisers are often able to conduct their legal casework more effectively. Conversely, local knowledge is unlikely to be available to Community Legal Advice telephone advisers. This research suggests that, in addition, telephone-only advisers may be developing a more narrow understanding of the essential qualities of casework. These findings are particularly significant in view of the likely future expansion of remote methods of delivery in legal aid work.     

Seeking or controlling the truth? An examination of courtroom questioning practices by Canadian lawyers*

ABSTRACT

The questioning practices of Canadian lawyers were examined. Courtroom examinations (N?=?91) were coded for the type of utterance, the assumed purpose of the utterance, and the length of utterance. Results showed that approximately one-fifth of all utterances were classified as productive for gathering reliable information (i.e. open-ended, probing); less than one percent of all utterances were open-ended. Direct examinations contained more closed yes/no, probing, and open-ended questions. Cross-examinations contained more leading and clarification questions, and opinions. Moreover, cross- (vs. direct) examinations contained more questions with a ‘challenging the witness’ purpose. The longest utterances were opinions, followed by multiple and forced-choice questions. The longest answers were in response to open-ended questions, followed by multiple and probing questions. Implications for the truth-seeking function of the judiciary are discussed.     

个人生物识别信息民事权利诉讼救济问题研究

我国《民法典(草案)》将"生物识别信息"列入"隐私权和个人信息保护"的范围。目前,在外国以保护隐私权思路保护个人生物识别信息的民事诉讼实践中所遇到的困难主要包括:"类主体"与"类事由"化问题;侵权行为的"程序性违法"问题;传统"案件—诉讼—损害"的民事法理逻辑对损害赔偿的限定等问题。充分完善"类诉讼"制度;解决新兴权利的法律赋权问题;确定"程序性违法"的"损害"认定标准以及完善举证责任制度,是保证个人生物识别信息民事权利诉讼救济充分实现的制度优化措施。     

保障当事人诉讼权利的基本课题

在司法文明指数报告中,考察当事人诉讼权利的基本思路,包括设计二级指标和测试题目两方面内容。通过分析指数报告,可以发现当事人诉讼权利的保障情况总体不佳。保障当事人诉讼权利,应当强调发挥法院的作用;而未来改革的基本课题,包括如何防止权力主体滥用自由裁量权,以及如何为权力主体依法行使职权提供必要的外部保障。     

Are Power Asymmetries a Reason for the State to Intervene?

Power asymmetries between farmers and slaughterhouses have led the Swiss government to install an independent agency that evaluates the quality of pig and cattle carcasses. This case is used to explore public interventions to mitigate power asymmetries. The independent classification is described and its economic rationale explored. The positions of the most important stakeholders in the system are depicted and the counter-arguments analyzed by objective hermeneutics. It is concluded that public interventions against power asymmetries are no panacea but can be useful to create a just and effective system.     

香港民事诉讼制度改革之回顾与前瞻

香港的民事司法改革历时十年,彰显了民事司法理念的深度变迁,对民事司法制度的发展具有里程碑意义。新规则自2009年4月2日正式施行以来进展大致顺利,在克服诉讼拖延、促进和解、发展调解等方面取得了一定的成效,但改革终究不是一蹴而就的纸面化改造。在新制度与旧观念相互碰撞又各自发挥作用的时期,如欲推翻法律职业者乃至普通民众的思维定势,变革深埋于制度底层的文化样态,其中的困难同样是显而易见的。     

刑事审讯的程序违法性透析——以刑事错案的成因为视角

程序性违法是刑事错案产生的重要原因之一。刑事审讯作为公安机关侦查办案中获取犯罪嫌疑人言词证据的重要方法和手段，受到公安机关和办案人员的高度重视。在“口供至上”的刑事办案理念的影响下，为了获取侦查破案的所谓“关键”证据，办案人员在刑事审讯时不惜违反程序法的相关规定。通过对刑事错案成因的考察可知，在刑事审讯过程中，较为典型的程序违法行为有：讯问地点违法、超期羁押、自创程序、假借合法程序名义非法讯问等等。强化办案人员的程序法定理念、确保刑事审讯的程序合法是预防刑事错案的良策之一。