Contents
Volume 67 Number 2 2003
ISSN: 0022-0183 eISSN: 1740-5580
Show list with all abstracts • Links to other issues
Index
iii
Cases
iv
Central Criminal Court
Disclosure of defence statement to co-defendant
85
Divisional Court
Abuse of process: destruction of CCTV evidence
87
Court of Appeal
Identification of suspects from CCTV and video recordings
91
Reverse burden and Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights: Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
97
Strict liability: gambling-related insolvency offence
101
Objective recklessness and criminal damage
109
Identification: requirement for Forbes direction
115
European Court of Human Rights
Interception of communications: failure to comply with the right to private life
118
Privy Council
Bahamas: whether corporal punishment unconstitutional
121
Belize: whether mandatory death penalty unconstitutional
124
Unreasonable delay: power of Lord Advocate and court to continue proceedings
127
Comment
Is murder 'most foul'?
Christopher Gale and Annabelle James
130
Articles
Fraud-the latest Law Commission proposals
G. R. Sullivan
139
[close]
JCL 67 (2003) 139
Fraud-the latest Law Commission proposals
G. R. Sullivan
This article examines the latest Law Commission proposals for replacing conspiracy to defraud with statutory offences. The Report proposes a general offence of fraud which can be committed three ways: (1) by false representation; (2) wrongfully failing to disclose; (3) abuse of position. The first form of the general offence constitutes a very useful reform whereas aspects of the second and third ways of committing the general offence are criticised for engendering uncertainty and for their potential to criminalise otherwise valid civil law transactions. Additionally the Report proposes a broad offence of obtaining services by dishonesty; this is found to be a very useful proposal.
[close]
Double jeopardy: one idea and two myths from the Criminal Justice Bill 2002
Ben Fitzpatrick
149
[close]
JCL 67 (2003) 149
Double jeopardy: one idea and two myths from the Criminal Justice Bill 2002
Ben Fitzpatrick
In November 2002, the government introduced the Criminal Justice Bill 2002 to Parliament. The Bill is far-reaching, covering issues from the pre-trial process to sentencing. This article focuses on one of the higher profile, and, arguably, more controversial proposals in the Bill, the relaxation of the rule against double jeopardy. The proposal is described and analysed. It is also suggested that the Bill and the proposal are underpinned by two criminal justice policy positions—(1) that defendants are unfairly advantaged in the criminal process; and (2) that the best way to enhance victims' rights is to diminish those of defendants. It is suggested that these positions are misguided, and that they constitute powerful and persistent criminal justice myths.
[close]
Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: towards the human rights of victims and vulnerable witnesses?
Claire de Than
165
[close]
JCL 67 (2003) 165
Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: towards the human rights of victims and vulnerable witnesses?
Claire de Than
This article argues that victims of crime and vulnerable witnesses already have identifiable human rights stemming from the positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Since these rights do exist, albeit in partial form, it is suggested that the focus of current reform proposals should be on upholding and extending these rights rather than simply creating guidelines, codes of practice and ombudsmen.
[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
Volume 72 (2008) : 1 2 3 4 5 6
[close]
