Law - new material (40)
01 November 2001
The law on extradition: a review. A Justice response. Justice, June 2001, pp10.
Response to the consultation paper published by the Home Office in March 2001 (see Statewatch vol 11 no 2). Focuses on the radical Tier 1 fast-track extradition proposals to be introduced for EU member states. The report questions whether the justifications for change stand up to scrutiny, whether the Human Rights Act can adequately replace existing safeguards on conditions in the requesting state, and whether minimum common standards, which are not discussed in the consultation paper, should be introduced in the areas of bail, detention, legal aid and interpreters as part of the review. It notes that insufficient attention is paid to protecting the fundamental rights of defendants in requesting countries and expresses concern over the future addition of countries with less than satisfactory legal systems to fast-track extradition procedures. Necessary safeguards which Justice argues should be maintained include "a minimum punishability requirement of 12 months imprisonment in the requesting state", double jeopardy, dual criminality, that is, the requirement that a criminal offence be considered as such in both countries (because "the laws of our European partners, like our own laws, are littered with absurd offences that have no place in a modern democracy"), specialty (that the extradited person only be tried for the offence for which their extradition was sought), political offence exception, and in absentia trials.
Reforming French criminal justice, Jacqueline Hodgson. Legal Action November 2001, pp6-8.
This article considers recent changes in French criminal justice to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and discusses how it contrasts with the UK's adversarial system. Considers the "Criminal procedure code", "Investigatory and judicial roles", "Police custody", "Judicial supervision", "Detention of witnesses" and "Suspects' rights".
Advance disclosure: reflections on the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, C Taylor. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice vol 49 no 2 (May) 2001, pp114?125. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act (CPIA) 1996 introduced a regime for advance disclosure which is at odds with the operational practices of police officers, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and defence solicitors. Discretion in matters of disclosure has largely been returned to police officers with evidence of flawed supervision of the process by both police and CPS. As a consequence errors, whether inadvertent or otherwise, may not be recognised and the result is a system which presents real risks of future miscarriages of justice.