Contents

[close]

JCL 68 (2004) 411

Investigating impropriety in jury deliberations: A recipe for disaster?
Nicola Haralambous 

In light of recent case law, this article explores the principles underlying the common law prohibition against investigating into jury deliberations. It considers the effect of judicial refusal to inquire into genuine and serious allegations of impropriety in the jury room and examines the effect of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, s. 8. It proposes that the restrictive secrecy laws be qualified in order to safeguard against miscarriages of justice and to preserve the moral integrity of the criminal justice process.

[close]

[close]

JCL 68 (2004) 423

Human rights issues in Guantanamo Bay
Daniella Schneider 

This article addresses the developments surrounding the continued detention and treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and examines the legal issues arising from them. The present political environment has left deep scars in international and human rights law. The detention of some 660 individuals in Guantanamo Bay has caused academic and diplomatic disputes. There is a serious legal debate as to the legality of the detention. The USA has classified these men as 'unlawful combatants', who are not subject to the Geneva Convention of 1949, which regulates the treatment of detainees in an armed conflict. According to the US authorities, Taleban fighters and Al-Qaeda do not fall within the Geneva Conventions. No attempts have been made on behalf of the US to verify the detainees' legal status by way of a tribunal. This article examines the possibility of alternative legal recourses, such as the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention which protects civilians who fall in the hands of the enemy, the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the USA has ratified, and finally the existence of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Each of these instruments, despite the complexity of their provisions, ensures a minimum standard of treatment of the detainees. The detainees' legal status, however, remains unclear; accordingly they are trapped in a legal black hole. Numerous attempts have been made to solve this international embarrassment. The USA opted for trial by military commission, to which the international community was strongly opposed. The measures carried out by the US authorities and by the British government in relation to the detention of suspected international terrorists are critically scrutinised in this article. Some detainees have been freed, which raises questions of possible compensation. Consideration is also given as to whether the legal measures taken until now are sufficient for the protection of their human rights. What is certain is that the treatment of possible terrorists has drastically changed, undermining human rights and civil liberties.

[close]

[close]

JCL 68 (2004) 440

Necessity as a justification in Re A (Children)
Itzhak Kugler 

In criminal law theory, it is common to distinguish between the defence of necessity as a justification and the defence of necessity as an excuse. However, it is sometimes said that English law does not clearly distinguish between justification and excuse. In Re A (Children) the Court of Appeal permitted the separation of conjoined twins although the separation would lead to the immediate death of one of the twins. In his judgment, Brooke LJ invoked the defence of necessity and appears to be ready to base his decision on necessity as an excuse. It is, however, submitted in this article that Brooke LJ's decision should be interpreted as having been based on necessity as a justification. Consequently, it cannot be said any longer that English law does not distinguish between justification and excuse.

[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

Volume 73 (2009) :   1   2   3   4   6

Volume 74 (2010) :   1   2   3   4

[close]