Contents
Volume 72 Number 2 2008
ISSN: 0022-0183 eISSN: 1740-5580
Show list with all abstracts • Links to other issues
Opinion
Road kill
David Kirk
89
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.480
Criminal Law Legislation Update
Laura McGowan
92
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.481
Divisional Court
Affray and the test for excessive force in relation to self-defence
95
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.482
Criminal Justice Act 2003: hearsay evidence
97
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.482
Court of Appeal
Terrorism-related Documents: defining the ambit of s. 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000
102
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.484
Criminal Justice Act 2003: meaning of ‘bad character’
105
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.484
German Federal Court of Appeal [Ordinary Jurisdiction] (Bundesgerichtshof?BGH), 3rd Criminal Senate
Plea bargaining; defence rights
109
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.485
Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China
Causing death by inflicting injury: causation and sentencing
113
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.486
Comment
R v Kennedy revisited
Michael Nkrumah
117
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.487
Articles
The contours of the right to self-defence: is the requirement of imminence merely a translator for the concept of necessity?
Keywords: Categorisation of self-defence; Necessity and duress; Excuse and justification; Battered women; Exculpation
Onder Bakircioglu
131
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.488
[close]
JCL 72 (2008) 131
The contours of the right to self-defence: is the requirement of imminence merely a translator for the concept of necessity?
Onder Bakircioglu
The right to self-defence has lately been subjected to intense academic controversy, both at the domestic and international level. The debate is focused on the question of whether or not the requirement of imminence is merely a translator for the notion of necessity. At the domestic level, the debate has mainly been kindled by feminist scholars, who, in the context of the ‘battered woman’, argue that the requirement of imminence should be discarded from the contours of the self-defence doctrine. The purpose of this article is to prove the necessity of the imminence requirement as a litmus test to detect possible abuses of the self-defence doctrine.
[close]
Disciplinary uniformity in uniform?a success of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Keywords: Courts-martial; Armed forces; Military; Human rights; Codes of practice
Chris Gale
170
DOI: 1350/jcla.2008.72.2.489
[close]
JCL 72 (2008) 170
Disciplinary uniformity in uniform?a success of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Chris Gale
Apart from an awareness of shameful treatment to some shell-shocked soldiers on active duty in the First World War, the subjects of military discipline in general and courts-martial in particular are unlikely to permeate the consciousness of the public at large or, indeed, the vast majority of criminal lawyers. This article explores some of the history of both, the current position in relation to courts-martial and the planned reforms under the Armed Forces Act 2006. That the Human Rights Act 1998 exposed some of the anomalies and worst practices of courts-martial is undeniable. It seems equally likely that the 1998 Act was at least a catalyst for the wholesale review and modernisation of military discipline carried out by the 2006 Act.
[close]
[close]
Links to other issues
Volume 65 (2001) : 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume 66 (2002) : 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume 67 (2003) : 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume 68 (2004) : 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume 69 (2005) : 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume 70 (2006) : 1 2 3 4 5 6
Volume 71 (2007) : 1 2 3 4 5 6
[close]
