Search

Dissatisfaction with the administration of justice is as old as law proclaimed the distinguished American legal scholar Roscoe Pound in 1906. The system of administration of justice has been under considerable scrutiny in Cyprus following the excessive delays in resolving disputes that are highlighted in reports such as the European Union's Justice Scoreboard, the World Bank's Doing Business Reports as well as European Commission papers on Cyprus, urging authorities to modernize the system in order to be able to meet the demands following the financial crisis. For this reason, various experts have been assigned with the task of identifying the problems and coming up with proposals and solutions. The discussions, though, are not new as similar problems have been presented in common law jurisdictions, in particular, but they have been tackled decades ago, with the adoption of reforms that moved the adversarial system of justice closer to civilian stereotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The vast majority of accused in Canada are released on bail with conditions pending the resolution of their case. As members of the court-room workgroup, the defence, the Crown, and the Justice of the Peace (JP) are tasked with negotiating a set of release conditions in a timely fashion; yet little work has attempted to understand how exchanges between these court-room participants shape the number and type of bail conditions imposed and how closely their in-court actions align with their legally mandated roles. Data collected from court-room observations of 257 bail cases in southwestern Ontario show that the distinct occupational roles of the defence, the Crown, and JPs are blurred within bail proceedings, contributing to a culture of numerous conditions and restrictive releases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Courts are starting to keep data about the numbers of litigants who personally file court documents and appear without counsel. The growth in numbers of unrepresented litigants is aptly described as a phenomenon and can be attributed to various causes. Whether or not it is a ‘problem’ however, is arguable. This article explores the concept of the unrepresented litigant in a strange and unnavigable milieu and the ethical duties of lawyers as officers of the court in that context. Focussing on Australian examples, the primary aim of the article is to highlight the lack of guidance in both codes of ethical conduct and judicial commentary on ethical issues for lawyers faced with an unrepresented opponent. Ethical issues at various stages of the dispute resolution process are discussed, including the complexities involved with unbundled legal services. The author argues that as an officer of the court, counsel should assist the judicial officer and consider the situation through a lens of ethical reasoning, while recognising the dilemma this can pose for lawyers who must respect their duties to their own clients. The article concludes that lawyers must abide by their ethical responsibilities whether or not the opponent has representation, while acknowledging that this may be challenging for a variety of reasons. It also suggests that the absence of any reference to unrepresented litigants in ethical codes of conduct should be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlike most Latin American countries, the implementation of restorative justice in Chile has not been regulated by law. In Chile, restorative justice is implemented on a limited basis through pilot programs limited to specific jurisdictions. Most of these pilot programs establish prosecutors as gatekeepers when referring criminal cases to restorative justice programs. Regardless of this crucial role, there is a lack of studies addressing prosecutors’ definitions toward restorative justice and the obstacles they face when referring criminal cases to restorative programs. This study fills this gap by interviewing high-ranking prosecutors from Chile (N = 25), exploring their definitions and obstacles in applying restorative programs within the adversarial system. Our findings reveal the existence of contrasting restorative justice definitions, including victim-centered perspectives and conceptualizations focused on the rehabilitation and punishment of the accused. Also, our findings suggest that legal rules and policies play a key role in the prosecutors’ application of restorative justice programs. The obstacles to apply restorative justice programs include two main themes: (1) prosecutors’ conflicting roles and duties toward victims and (2) values incompatible with restorative justice promoted by public defenders. We conclude by highlighting policy and training implications to expand the use of restorative justice programs in adversarial settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first part of a two-part article, which calls for the removal of terms such as rights and custody, including joint and shared custody, and visitation from the legal discourse in relation to children and their parents. This part demonstrates how the current discourse, based on the competing rights of the parents, leads inevitably to competitiveness and litigation, which are highly damaging to the child. The proposed paradigm of parental responsibilities requires establishing the needs of the specific child when there are parental disharmony and separation, while emphasizing the joint responsibilities of both parents to ensure that those needs are adequately met. This part also addresses the question: who has parental responsibilities, when a child is born as a result of Assisted Reproductive Technology, and also the quasi-parental role of the court. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We investigated differences in judges' attitudes between court-appointed and party-appointed forensic psychiatric expert evidence, including who commissioned the report and how this impacted on the judges' perception of the evidence presented. We also investigated the experts' views on being either a party-appointed or court-appointed expert. This survey has no explicit preconceptions. It sought to gather information empirically. The attitudes towards the experts are seen both from the legal professionals' view and from that of the experts themselves. Two groups, one of 107 forensic psychiatric experts (39 psychologists, 65 psychiatrists and three non-specialist medical doctors), and one of 157 legal professionals (44 judges, 74 attorneys and 39 prosecutors) responded to an online survey. We found that 88% of the experts had been appointed by the court and of these, 73% preferred to be court-appointed. Fifty-one per cent had also been party-appointed and the most common principal was the defence attorney (46%). Sixty-two per cent of the judges who had an opinion stated that the party-appointed experts did not assist the court. This indicates that the judges clearly preferred independent court-appointed experts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses in depth, a conviction for the offense of receiving, issued by the Circuit Criminal Court 30 of Bogotá (Colombia), in term of the adversarial system provided in the Legislative Act 03 of 2002 and Act 906 of 2004. Through a deconstruction process, I show the arguments of the judicial office to take an adverse choice to the interests of the sentenced and the possible flaws that could incur, based on the guidelines of the criminal dogmatic, the improper evidence assessment and the failure of the constitutional principles underlying criminal proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to discuss and examine the implications of holding mental health tribunals in public. Design/methodology/approach -- The paper discusses the functioning of tribunals, compares tribunals with other legal processes in the UK and elsewhere, and reviews the legal reasoning for holding tribunal hearings in public. Findings -- The first tribunal hearing has already been held in public and another public hearing is agreed. Public hearings should allow for greater transparency and scrutiny than has thus far been possible, and may change the behaviour of attendees. Originality/value -- Public tribunal hearings have not yet been widely discussed in the academic literature, yet are expected to have implications for all involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explains the procedure of impeachment of the credibility of the witness in the Colombian accusatory criminal system established by the law 906 of 2004, analyzing some of its problematic aspects from a procedural and probative perspective; it exposes the mistakes of the concept "impeachment" in our environment and its relation to good judgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the Woolf reforms presented in the 'Access to Justice--Final Report 1996,' by Lord Woolf. Function of the alternative dispute resolution; Characteristics of the civil justice system; Concept of blame.