Search

The article presents an evaluation of proposals for reform to the adversarial mode of trials for treatment and protection of vulnerable child witnesses and defendants under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2013 (CPR). It informs that the proposals include the exclusion of counsel from cross-examination, pre-trial cross-examination intermediary in interlocutory decisions, and the right to independent legal representation.

Second, given that the reforms aimed at resolving the lack of cross-examination constantly fail, is adversarial trial the only or best option for China's criminal procedure reform? Therefore, a critical reflection on the influential theory of adversarial trial and its future feasibility in China might shed light on any rethinking of China's criminal procedure reforms. Second, from the perspective of Criminal Procedure Law, the 2012 amendment (effective 2013) and the 2018 amendment are the two major criminal procedure reforms that have been passed since the 1996 amendment. [Extracted from the article]

In September 2013, the Polish Parliament passed an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legislators decided to expand a number of adversarial elements present in current Polish criminal proceedings. When these changes come into effect (July 1, 2015), Polish criminal procedure will be similar to American regulations, in which the judge's role is to be an impartial arbitrator, not an investigator. The authors of the article describe the meaning of the principle of adversarial trial in Poland. They also emphasized relations between this principle and the concept of 'material truth'. The changes established by the amendment are shown in perspective of the American definition of adversarial trial. The authors analyze the reform and attempt to predict the problems with new regulations in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the legal and political role of the jury system in contemporary Russia. It aims to examine whether trial by jury is an essential right of Russian citizens (jurata patriae) or, rather, a prerogative of the state (raison d'etat). The main focus of the paper is the analysis of the Russian Constitution and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In particular, the authors consider a recent majority decision of the Constitutional Court, which uphold the constitutionality of the law that abolished jury trials for terrorist, espionage and other crimes against the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many scholars have analysed the differences between criminal trials in common and civil law systems. The adversarial trial in England, Australia and elsewhere provides a contrast with the inquisitorial process found in continental Europe and other civil law countries. Legal history adds another dimension. The common law criminal trial was once less adversarial and more like the civil law model than is generally appreciated. Lawyers came late to the prosecution process: the accused was not permitted to be defended by counsel, and so it was rare for counsel to appear for the prosecution. This meant that the judge took the lead in questioning the accused and the witnesses. Counsel were finally permitted to appear in the early 18th century, and this was the key factor in the evolution of the modern adversarial trial. One of the elements in this story is that in England, for many years, prosecution was primarily carried out by lawyers in private practice. It was not until 1985 that the Crown Prosecution Service was established. It is here that the Australian experience has been rather different. In Australia, from the early days of settlement, public officers were appointed to undertake criminal prosecutions. In part, this was due to the special circumstances prevailing in the early years of colonial settlement, when very few lawyers were available. It was also due to difficulties with transplanting fundamental aspects of English criminal procedure such as the grand jury: in Western Australia, when the grand jury was abolished, the Advocate-General and the Crown Solicitor assumed full responsibility for prosecutions. The Western Australian experience also shows the extent to which English rules and practices were perpetuated or adapted in a small colony on the other side of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the enactment of the Law on Criminal Procedure in 2010, the Macedonian legislator has introduced many modern adversarial trial instruments that were supposed to improve the efficiency of the Macedonian criminal trials. After ten years from the enactment of this new law that has provided a new concept of the criminal trials, we deem that it is necessary to reevaluate the effects of these reformshi and their practical implementation. In this occasion, the author evaluates the Macedonian court's practice of implementation of the defendant's guilty plea during the main hearing of the criminal trials through the verdicts delivered for the crimes of Illicit Manufacture and Trade of Firearms as regulated in article 396 of the Criminal Code. The author specifically focuses upon the factual support of the guilty plea and analyses the amount of evidence that is needed in order for the court to accept the guilty plea for such cases. Author concludes that in the analyzed cases, the court does not provide sufficient factual support to the defendants' guilty plea and this guilty plea is considered as "regina probationem". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of its EU accession agenda, Republic of North Macedonia has performed series of reforms of its legal system in order to reach EU legal standards. As part of this agenda, improvement of the efficiency of the criminal trials was marked as highly relevant. New Law on Criminal Procedure, consisting many modern adversarial trial instruments, enacted in 2010, supposed to improve the efficiency of the Macedonian criminal trials. However, after a certain period we deem that it is necessary to reevaluate the effects of these reforms and their practical implementation. Hence, the author evaluates the Macedonian court's practice of implementation of the defendant's guilty plea during the main hearing of the criminal procedure together with the reasons for decline in the use of these instruments into the court's practice. The main reasons for such decline of the implementation in practice can be located in several areas. Such areas are improper implementation of the law, legal imperfections together with the length of the criminal trials, lesser sanctioning policy and absence of proper instrument for providing of the expected sentence as an outcome from the bargaining procedure. However, besides these already known weak areas concerning the implementation of these instruments in practice the author has detected an additional problematic area about the factual support of the guilty plea during the main hearing. In addition, the author analyzes the practice of evaluation of additional evidence in case of guilty plea, and the amount and the quality of evidence provided by the prosecutor as support to the defendant's guilty plea. Author concludes that there is a gap between the theoretical definitions of the guilty plea and its practical implementation, and provides practical proposals for improvement of the provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure. He concludes that these amendments are necessary for proper implementation of the Law and of the protection of the defendant's rights and pertaining the impression of just criminal procedure in cases when defendant pleads guilty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the procedural law of the International Criminal Court (ICC) allows for the prospect of judge-led proceedings, the task of leading trials held by the ICC has thus far belonged to the parties. In 2015, Judge Håkan Friman expressed an opinion that this approach is likely to continue, as the adversarial trial model ‘is also the prevailing practice of most international criminal tribunals’. This contribution uses Håkan Friman’s prediction as a frame of reference. It considers how the dominance of the adversarial model in international criminal practice may potentially impact future ICC proceedings, as well as the likely effect that the prevailing practice has had on the Court’s trials to date. In so doing, it demonstrates why proponents of judge-led international criminal proceedings face significant challenges at the ICC and beyond. At the same time, it posits that the developing model may insufficiently account for the Court’s reliance on a party-driven construct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Review essay discussing studies of fingerprint evidence in legal decisions. • Compares legal approaches with scientific research and advice. • Fingerprint evidence hardly ever challenged on methodological grounds. • Very little legal engagement with scientific research. • Reflects on effectiveness of adversarial trial safeguards. This article provides an overview of recent research on latent fingerprint evidence featured in reported legal decisions from England and Wales, Australia and New Zealand. The research casts doubts on the effectiveness of adversarial criminal procedure. Rather, than engage with the methodological foundations – e.g. validity and reliability – and the actual abilities of fingerprint examiners, for more than a century, challenges were based on legal considerations and the meaning of categorical identification for the specific proceedings. Lawyers challenged fingerprint evidence based on the circumstances in which reference prints were collected, whether fingerprint records were hearsay, whether relying on a fingerprint record is unfair because it suggests prior criminality, whether the jurors could make their own comparison and so forth. There is no reported consideration of the validity and reliability of fingerprint comparison, and no requirement for fingerprint examiners to qualify the significance of a match decision, even after the abandonment of point standards and the appearance of critical reports from the United States and Scotland, and advice from the Forensic Science Regulator. To the extent that they considered the admissibility and probative value of this prominent forensic science evidence, lawyers and judges relied heavily on proxies such as training, experience and long use. In consequence, the article considers how we should understand adversarial legal practice, the performance of lawyers and judges, as well as the implications for forensic scientists and their evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to delineate the boundaries of the evidence initiative of the Court of the First Instance, which bears the responsibility to fulfil the goals of criminal proceedings, as outlined in Article 2 § 1 item 1 and § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the perspective of evidence reliability, an essential component of the fair criminal trial concept. The court's evidentiary actions were thus examined through the lens of requirements stemming from Article 6(1) and (3) of the ECHR, especially the principles of independence, impartiality, adversarial process, immediacy, and access to criminal proceeding materials. The article adopts a dogmatic approach, building on an analysis of current national legal standards and the Rome Convention's provisions, viewed through doctrine and jurisprudence of national courts and the Court in Strasbourg. This makes the publication relevant for both legal scholars and practitioners involved in criminal proceedings. The analysis suggests that the court's initiative to introduce evidence, its methods of evidence gathering, and access to collected materials during proceedings must not curtail the rights of the parties, especially the accused, to conduct their evidentiary activities. Depriving the court of the primacy of independence and impartiality, restricting the parties' capacity to engage in dispute in favour of an inquisitorial jurisdictional body violates the right to fair evidentiary proceedings. The court, in safeguarding the principle of material truth, must remember its role as a justice administrator and balance all arguments accordingly. Seeking evidence solely to establish the accused's guilt contradicts the procedural function of adjudication and compromises the court's neutrality, making it an extension of the prosecution. Hence, a thorough elucidation of case circumstances by the court should not disempower the parties, particularly regarding their initiative to present evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of 'special measures' within England and Wales (i.e., provisions for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses at court) marked a significant change in legal tradition and trial procedures such that victim and witness care was repositioned as a primary concern alongside the longstanding rights afforded to defendants. As public perceptions towards the legitimacy of criminal justice procedure remain a key concern among legal scholars and social scientists, this study aimed to examine individual differences in attitudes held towards the rights afforded to complainants and defendants within English courts. Adopting a cross-sectional study design, 114 UK adults were recruited to take part in an online survey. Questions centered around the importance of providing adequate witness care whilst protecting defendants' rights to a fair trial. A new measurement tool was developed to allow these attitudes to be systematically assessed and understood, termed the Attitudes Towards Vulnerable Victims Scale (ATVVS). Results indicate that respondent age, gender, level of education, and belief in a just world are important determinants of public support for the use of special measures at trial as well as perceptions towards complainant and defendants' rights. Taken together, findings indicate that misconceptions about vulnerable victims appear to underlie a lack of support for the use of special measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we examine the effects of remote criminal justice on expressions and perceptions of emotion. We draw on original interview data from the Australian Research Council funded study 'The Digital Criminal Justice Project: Vulnerability and the Digital Subject' DE210100586 (2021–2024). This project focuses on the benefits and challenges of vulnerable individuals' use of remote communication technologies from the perspective of 85 Australian judicial officers, lawyers and affiliated professionals. During the fieldwork interviews, several judicial officers and lawyers raised concerns regarding the perceived 'blunting of the emotional impact' (defence lawyer DL26) of this mode of evidence and appearance. For instance, one Supreme Court Judge (SCJ3) felt that a plea from a remote prisoner lacked emotion, impacting the engagement between the court and that individual, and devaluing their role in proceedings. This is significant because: 'criminal trials are all about people and emotions' (SCJ3). The foregrounding of emotion and empathy by judges and lawyers during the interviews was particularly interesting as none of the interview questions directly raised that specific issue. In this article, we analyse these new empirical data in the context of relevant literature concerning the effects of remote criminal justice on emotion and empathy. While we find indications that emotion and empathy may potentially be 'blunted' by technologies, there remain cogent reasons for vulnerable witnesses to use the remote mode. However, regarding remote people-in-prison, we find that the technology can diminish empathetic engagement during both legal conferencing and court appearances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the general requirements for proper proof established by the European Court of Human Rights under para. 1, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms based on the practice of criminal case resolution. The above requirements include the implementation of adversarial trial model; parties equality in proof; applicability of evidence in the court; judgment reasoning. The observance of the requirements in fact-finding process in Ukrainian criminal procedure is studied. The need in harmonization of Ukrainian criminal procedure with the European standards is identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the admissibility of forensic science and medicine in criminal proceedings. In Part ii, we explain how reliability-based admissibility standards in the United States have been unevenly applied to expert evidence in civil and criminal cases and have not prevented wrongful convictions. In Part iii, we review a recent Consultation Paper (and report) issued by the Law Commission of England and Wales. Though focused on the need for 'sufficiently reliable' expert opinion evidence, we challenge its contemplation of easier admissibility for experience-based forensic sciences and techniques traditionally admitted. In Part iv we examine the evolving law on the admissibility of expert evidence in Canada. In response, we argue that while front-end reforms to the organization and practice of forensic science and medicine, advocated by the Goudge Inquiry and the American National Academy of Sciences, appear more promising than reliance on the adversary system, the gate-keeping role of trial judges should be strengthened. In the concluding section, we contend that threshold reliability standards should be grounded in criminal-justice system values, emerging empirical insights about the weakness of the adversarial trial and be sensitive to the particular evidence and its use, rather than applied mechanically using simplistic models of science and expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article outlines the two aspects of a liberal theory of the criminal trial. It suggests a conception of the adversarial trial primarily as a process of holding the executive to account on its request for conviction and punishment. It examines how liberal principles are reflected in the common law form of criminal proceedings and notes on the importance of a due process.

The aim of this essay is to contribute to the understanding of the neglected topic of sentencing hearings, by describing the historical circumstances that led to the emergence of distinct sentencing hearings within the criminal trial. The novel account offered in this essay suggests that sentencing hearings evolved as a partially unintended result of the massive changes in the adversarial trial that took place during the second part of the 18th century. As a result of these changes, sentencing hearings began to emerge at the end of the 18th century. These findings stand in contradiction to various suggestions made in American case-law and law review articles, which linked the development of sentencing hearings to the rise of the rehabilitation model at the end of the 19th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In seven trials to date, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has relied on the expertise of historians, anthropologists and political scientists to provide historical and political context. Overview expert witnesses help the judges appreciate the evidence of charged crimes in a wider context of conflict and violence. In this article, I consider the fundamental purpose and factors militating in favour of engaging an overview expert. In addition, I first review and then reflect on the current use of overview expert evidence — as a subset of expert evidence — in ICC trials, to better understand its legal and practical utility in international crimes cases. I focus on four aspects: relevance in criminal proceedings, timing of engaging an expert, selection of experts and impact on the fairness of proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law & Justice Review is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Equality of arms for child and other vulnerable defendants, in particular access to the special measures routinely provided to prosecution witnesses with the same vulnerabilities, has been contentious since 1999. Much progress has been forced through rulings by courts concerned about such defendants' capacity to cope with the demands of the adversarial trial. This progress appears to have been reversed by the April 2016 Criminal Practice Direction stating that the appointment of defendant intermediaries should be "rare" for the defendant's testimony, and "extremely rare" for the entire trial. This article considers the legal options for challenging this retrograde step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper contains an analysis of judgments based on agreement of the parties, a Croatian model of plea bargaining, drawing on the experiences of three groups of practitioners: judges, state attorneys, and defence counsels. Previously conducted comparative legal analysis, as well as analysis of the Croatian normative framework and jurisprudence, was not able to provide answers to a number of questions about the motivation of the parties to negotiate, on the negotiation procedure which is not recorded in the protocol, about the real and the ideal role of the court, and about the real position of the parties and the victim. Hence, these issues were researched through semi-structured interviews with 60 practitioners and then further discussed in four focus groups. Some of the findings uncovered systemic inconsistencies in everyday legal practice in a number of areas. For instance, judgment based on agreement of the parties is more readily used in cases of serious offences, while other consensual forms of proceedings tend to be used for less serious offences. Informal negotiations at all stages of the criminal procedure have proven to be very popular with practitioners and sometimes even encouraged by judges. Yet, the issue of judicial control of the plea agreement divided the respondents, even though the right to judicial review of criminal prosecution is a fundamental principle of Croatian criminal procedure, which covers not only the fundamental issues of legality and voluntariness of the concluded agreement, but also the purposefulness of the proposed sanction. The victim's position in the plea-bargaining procedure is considered to be adequate, at least as long as the victim is involved, and there is a tendency to consult the victim even in cases when his or her consent is not required by law. Finally, although it is generally considered that defence rights are well protected, there are problematic issues, namely tariffs or the 'take it or leave it' offer, as well as the wide discretion of the state attorney when deciding to enter into negotiations and reach agreement. The qualitative analysis of the findings, which is presented in this paper, should contribute to drafting specific proposals for improvements in the legislation and practice of the judgment based on agreement of the parties in Croatian law. Many of these findings may also be relevant for other legal systems, especially those of the continental European legal tradition, since they may face the same problems and questions related to plea bargaining as a global phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the relation between hypotheticals and epistemic stance in jury trials, and it reveals how hypothetically framed questions (HQs) are used in crossexamination to construct "the admissible truth" (Gutheil et al. 2003) which is then turned into evidence. It looks at a selection of interactional exchanges identified in the transcripts and video recordings which document two days of expert witness crossexamination in two high-profile criminal cases. In the study, two approaches to data analysis were combined: a bottom-up approach focusing on markers of HQs offering "points of entry" into discourse through a corpus-assisted analysis and a top-down approach looking at cross-examination as a complex communicative event, providing a more holistic view of the interactional context in which HQs are used. The paper explains the role which such questions play in the positioning of opposing knowledge claims, as well as discusses the effect they create in hostile interaction with expert witnesses. As is revealed, HQs are used to elicit the witness's assessments of alternative scenarios of past events and causal links involving the facts of the case; to elicit the witness's assessments of general hypothetical scenarios not involving the facts of the case, or to undermine the validity of the witness's method of analysis. In sum, the paper explains how the use of HQs aids cross-examining attorneys in deconstructing unfavourable testimony and constructing the "legal truth" which supports their narrative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Every state enacts and publishes laws according to its peculiar socio-economic and cultural peculiarities. Pakistan inherited prevalent laws from the British Common Law. Pakistan Penal Code (1860) and Criminal Procedure Code (1898) govern dispensation of criminal justice system in Pakistan. Through reformation efforts have been ongoing to reform of the criminal justice system to accommodate socio-economic and cultural challenges, however, same has not been successful due to host of political, social and institutional issues. However, despite challenges, the system has delivered albeit at slow and selective pace. Apropos, there remain gaps in the system which are reflected though Pakistan's standing in international indices and a general dissatisfaction of masses. The inadequacy of the criminal justice system has been considered as manipulative, cumbersome, slow and inadequate. The inadequacies have impinged upon the governance and national security domains of the State causing negative outlook. Consequently, every stratum of the internal social order, socio-economic and human terrain of national security and principles of governance are witnessing a gradual decline. Consequent outcome is violation of citizen-state contract hence erosion of public trust in the system. This paper undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the Criminal Justice System of Pakistan, focused on reasons for non/delayed dispensation of justice and its impact on governance & national security, leading to policy recommendation for reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the concept of defense disclosures within the theory of managerialism in criminal proceedings in Ghana. Through a doctrinal and comparative legal analysis with the English jurisdiction, it finds that in substance, the requirement of defense disclosure seeks to move the criminal process from its core protectionist ideology that insulates the accused from matters of proof toward a managerial process informed by objectives of truth-finding, trial efficiency and case management. Ironically, this new direction in the criminal trial process is in practice denounced as being at odds with the procedural due process values that shield the accused from matters of proof and pretrial disclosures. The problem is that unlike in England where the move towards defense disclosures is informed by a clear policy change, the managerial policy introduced by the Judiciary in Ghana is not grounded in any articulated theory or policy direction. While pursuing a path of ensuring effective criminal adjudication through mutual disclosures by the parties, it is important to find a proper balance between the denounced but yet adopted procedural concept of defense disclosures and the highly valued protectionist rights of the accused. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reforms of the criminal procedure in the region have been encouraged by the transformation of the socio-political system following the dissolution of former Yugoslavia and have been aimed to democratize the procedure within the wider reforms of the socio and political system. International human rights standards and constitutionalism have been, within that context, strong engines of reform in the criminal procedure. A crucial feature of the criminal procedure reforms of the countries in the region is the acceptance of modern reform trends in Europe inclined to abandon inquisitorial elements and establish a modern adversarial procedure. The main characteristics of that reform are the abolition of the investigative judge and the introduction of an adversarial trial involving cross-examination, acceleration of the criminal procedure, which could be reached through the introduction of plea bargaining and other forms of simplified procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article considers the current state of sentencing in South Africa, based on the judgment by the Supreme Court of Appeal in S v Ferretra, a case that attracted considerable media attention. Having explained the principles on which the various sentences in this case are based, two considerations are identified which, although not immediately evident, nevertheless prevent sentencing in South Africa from being more principled and less intuitive. The first consideration is the role of the sentencing discretion, and the problems that our courts experience in separating the fact-finding phase from the decision-making phase. The second consideration is that most role players in the criminal justice system have been schooled in the adversarial trial system, and have difficulty dealing with the more inquisitorial procedure required during sentencing. These considerations clearly impacted upon this judgment as well. Finally, certain recommendations are made as to how the basic principles of sentencing could be utilised to ensure more principled sentencing outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archivio Giuridico is the property of Mucchi Editore and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Over the past two decades, there have been significant legal developments aimed at securing and enhancing the participation of vulnerable witnesses in criminal trials. Yet, there remains relatively little regard for the fact that many defendants, including those who are not deemed to be vulnerable, are unable to participate in criminal proceedings in a meaningful sense. This paper aims to address two questions. First, why should defendants have participatory rights and be capable of meaningful participation in criminal proceedings? Second, why has it proven so difficult to attain meaningful participation of defendants? It is contended that barriers to meaningful communication between the defendant and the court could be dismantled without great difficulty, but continue to exist because due regard is not given to the normative rationales for participatory rights and defendant participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Negotiated agreements in criminal proceedings have often been regarded as the embodiment of a negative wider trend towards the informalization of the criminal procedure, and have—especially in Germany—long been the subject of vivid controversies. A criminal proceeding in the traditional sense aims to establish the truth ex officio, which is achieved by means of a comprehensive inquiry into the facts conducted by the court during the trial, followed by a sentence that appropriately reflects the individual guilt of the defendant, which can then, in turn, achieve the procedural objective of "justice." A streamlining of the extensive inquiry into the facts that the court would normally have to conduct via the consensual process of negotiation does not, a priori, fit the mold of a criminal procedure in the aforementioned sense. At the same time, the consensual termination of criminal proceedings—which also includes other forms of termination of the proceeding besides the concept of Verständigung, which occur by means of a preferment of public charges—is, in fact, more prevalent in practice these days than judgments rendered in adversarial trials are. Our Article focuses on the reasons why this stark contrast between legal doctrine and reality came to pass and which aspects of the implementation of the concept of consensus into the German law of criminal procedure still seem problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Crimen: Journal for Criminal Justice is the property of University of Belgrade, Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

For over a quarter of century Ireland's statutory special measures framework, as originally enacted by the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, remained largely unchanged, falling beyond the reformative gaze of successive Irish governments. This period of political inertia, however, came to an abrupt end in 2017 when Irish policymakers, motivated by developments at a European Union level, introduced two landmark legislative instruments which promised to reimagine the availability and diversity of Ireland's store of statutory testimonial accommodations, namely the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 and the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017. By interrogating these newly-commenced instruments in light of the experience of crime victims with intellectual disabilities, this paper surveys the current procedural landscape governing the treatment of vulnerable crime victims in Ireland and is intended to go some way towards exposing the embedded evidential barriers which continue to prejudice efforts aimed at securing their best evidence in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the legal framework for the grant and exercise of the right to self-representation in criminal proceedings in Ghana, using a doctrinal research approach. It finds that the exaltation of the value of autonomy of the right above considerations of procedural equality and trial fairness affects the integrity of the trial process. More importantly, the legal system in Ghana provides little or no standards setting the modalities of the exercise or revocation of the right. This article recommends a departure from the general standard of proceeding pro se which pays no regard to the competency of the accused person in favour of an adoption of a competency-based approach in order to guarantee an effective exercise of the right to self-representation. It also suggests the formulation and adoption of efficient standards in line with international law for the purpose of delimiting the scope of revocation of the right in criminal proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our paper surveys the development of criminal hybrid models in two continental jurisdictions, Italy and France, following the 1987 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to accelerate criminal proceedings through the introduction of guilty pleas, out-of-court settlements and simplified proceedings. We describe various frameworks for criminal justice as a multi-door arena, of which the plea bargaining is but one of several possibilities. In our review, we emphasize consensual elements, the place of the search of truth, and the role of the judges and other stakeholders. We outline the different paths that France and Italy have taken as incorporating adversarial and inquisitorial elements to increase efficiency. The French system made gradual modifications and remained inquisitorial by nature. Aside from the more recent integration of proceedings without trial inspired by plea bargaining, it has developed doors of abbreviated trials where the investigation stage is minimized. This has resulted in a different version of the vanishing trial—the vanishing investigation. The Italian system, on the other hand, has announced a drastic transformation to an adversarial framework of trial, while adopting mainly proceedings without trial. This shift has not resulted in a vanishing trial phenomenon, and currently, the full adversarial-type trial remains the main door in Italy. We describe the sequence of transformations of these systems and emphasize the significance of this contemporary patchwork of doors in terms of the role of the judges and the possibility of implementing a conflict resolution criminal justice perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chinese criminal procedural law has recently been undergoing rapid transformation. While the search for 'truth', embodied in a confession by the accused, has traditionally dominated the criminal process, efforts are now being made to secure more procedural fairness. This is exemplified by the introduction of rules to render inadmissible at trial confessions extorted from suspects by ill treatment. Unsurprisingly, it has proved difficult to shift the mindsets of the players in the criminal justice process. The new rules have not been fully implemented in many respects and there is still confusion over the criteria to be used by the courts in making decisions about inadmissibility. Further, it has proved difficult to enable defence lawyers to play a more active role in defending their clients and to render it normal for witnesses to testify at trial. This handicaps the drive to secure a better balance between the search for truth and procedural fairness in the Chinese criminal trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper considers active court-based case management of civil proceedings. It was originally prepared as a General Report for the International Association of Procedural Law/China Law Society Conference 2017; as such, it draws on a number of national reports. It provides an indepth examination of the approach to case management taken in: Austria; Australia; Brazil; Chile; England and Wales; France; Germany; Italy; the Netherlands; Norway; Poland; the United States of America. It also considers the approach in Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore. It examines the following specific issues: differing approaches to case management's purpose; differential approaches to the role played by courts and parties; specific case management provisions, such as procedural case tracks; procedural innovation, such as flexible forms of case management and contract procedure; and, to a lesser extent, the management of mass litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ius Humani is the property of Ius Humani and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)