Contents
Volume 69 Number 6 2005
ISSN: 0022-0183 eISSN: 1740-5580
Show list with all abstracts • Links to other issues
Index
iii
Cases
v
Opinion
Jury service: Life enhancing ? No. Worthwhile? Yes
James Morton
449
Criminal Law Legislation Update
Sally Ireland
452
Divisional Court
Public Order Act 1986, s. 5: religiously aggravated behaviour
457
Public Order Act 1986, s. 5: lawfulness of arrest; Police Act 1996, s. 89(2): resisting police constable in the execution of duty
460
Court of Appeal
Necessity: supply of cannabis for medical purpose
464
Conspiracy: mens rea
469
Multiple infant deaths: expert witness testimony
473
House of Lords
Reverse burden and Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights: drunk in charge; terrorism offence
478
Juries: secrecy of deliberations
484
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999: special measures directions —compliance with Article 6
488
Privy Council
Dock identification: compatibility with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
494
Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Appeal [Ordinary Jurisdiction]): Großer Senat für Strafsachen (Great Criminal Senate) Plea bargaining: waiver of right to appeal
499
Comment
Reform of fraud law comes closer: Fraud Bill 2005–06
Jessica Holroyd
503
Articles
Fraud trials: A brave New World
David Kirk
508
[close]
JCL 69 (2005) 508
Fraud trials: A brave New World
David Kirk
The management of long fraud trials has come under the spotlight again following the collapse of the Jubilee Line Extension case. Three major changes to fraud trials procedures are in the process of being introduced: the Lord Chief Justice's complex trials management protocol, a new offence of fraud (the Fraud Bill), and the removal of jury trial (implementing s. 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003). This article examines these initiatives and debates and considers whether they will improve the quality of justice.
[close]
Trial by jury: Still a lamp in the dark?
Laura McGowan
518
[close]
JCL 69 (2005) 518
Trial by jury: Still a lamp in the dark?
Laura McGowan
Under the current law, where evidence of jury impropriety has become known following a trial, the Court of Appeal cannot investigate jury deliberations to determine if the verdict is unsafe. This article considers whether the justifications for this rule, and the safeguards present in a jury trial, are sufficient to justify the prohibition. It concludes that they are not. The rule is indefensible, and investigations should be permitted in certain circumstances.
[close]
Complicity in suicide
Alec Samuels
535
[close]
JCL 69 (2005) 535
Complicity in suicide
Alec Samuels
This article addresses the extent to which, if at all, a person may lawfully ‘help’ another person, for example a terminally ill spouse, to take his own life or submit to euthanasia. It considers what intent is required to be proved for a crime and the situation where the intent is mercy. In addition, it looks at the position of a survivor of a suicide pact and whether there is a human right to die. Other questions raised are: How near to voluntary euthanasia is English law now? Is an advance decision ‘no treatment if I am terminally ill’ legally valid? What is the legal duty of the doctor towards a terminally ill patient?
[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]
