Contents
Volume 70 Number 2 2006
ISSN: 0022-0183 eISSN: 1740-5580
Show list with all abstracts • Links to other issues
Index
iii
Cases
iv
Opinion
If I ran the criminal justice system
James Morton
93
Criminal Law Legislation Update
Sally Ireland
97
Divisional Court
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005: statutory interpretation
103
Court of Appeal
Bad character: Criminal Justice Act 2003; defendant’s bad character; s. 101 ‘gateways’
109
Bad character: Criminal Justice Act 2003; defendant attacking character of another; propensity
115
Provocation: objective test; precedent
121
European Court of Human Rights
‘Indecent’ images: European Convention on Human Rights, Article 7
127
Federal Court of Justice of Germany (Ordinary Jurisdiction) (Bundesgerichtshof—BGH), 1st Criminal Senate
131
Causing grievous bodily harm: mens rea; intention attempts: withdrawal
135
Comment
Identity cards: the final nail in the coffin of civil liberties?
Arfan Khan
139
Articles
Of shipwrecked sailors, unborn children, conjoined twins and hijacked airplanes—taking human life and the defence of necessity
Michael Bohlander
147
[close]
JCL 70 (2006) 147
Of shipwrecked sailors, unborn children, conjoined twins and hijacked airplanes—taking human life and the defence of necessity
Michael Bohlander
Necessity is not a defence to murder. This principle has been repeated ever since R v Dudley and Stephens. Behind the arguments put forward in the debate lie the sanctity of life, the idea that one could not weigh one life against another, the question as to who should be the one to make that decision and that life as such was the highest good. But is that really true? Has English law not subscribed already to the idea that it may be permissible to take a human life in situations that are commonly classified as duress, duress of circumstances or necessity? This article traces the development of areas of law where necessity arguments and balancing exercises play a role in the decision about the taking of human life, but which are not usually looked at in depth when arguments about necessity are exchanged.
[close]
Jury service for all? Analysing lawyers as jurors
R Gwynedd Parry
163
[close]
JCL 70 (2006) 163
Jury service for all? Analysing lawyers as jurors
R Gwynedd Parry
Section 321 of and Sched. 33 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolished many of the old restrictions on jury service eligibility previously contained in the Juries Act 1974. The result has been to widen significantly the pool of eligible jurors in criminal trials. This article addresses some of the implications of allowing lawyers, including members of the judiciary, to serve on juries, and considers the recent guidance issued to them in order that they perform their role as jurors appropriately. It will also reflect upon the Court of Appeal’s recent ruling in R v Abdroikov and Others, which considers many of the pertinent issues, including the issue of jury bias
[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]
