The Place of the Prosecutor in Common Law and Civil Law Jurisdictions

2019 ◽  
pp. 138-163
Author(s):  
Katalin Ligeti
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Public ◽  
Institutional Positioning ◽  
Centralization And Decentralization

This chapter focuses on the place of the public prosecutor in common law and civil law jurisdictions. It first describes the institutional positioning of public prosecutors, particularly vis-à-vis the executive power, before discussing their role and powers in regard to the pretrial phase. It then considers the increasing tendency to entrust the public prosecutor with quasi-judicial sanctioning powers in the context of out-of-court procedures (“prosecutorial adjudication”). It also examines the role of specialized law enforcement authorities in the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial functions, coercive measures and the need for judicial authorization, and prosecutorial discretion and alternatives to trial proceedings. Finally, it explains how independence, centralization and decentralization, legality and opportunity of prosecution, and the alternatives to trial proceedings have been translated to the supranational design of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO).

The Relationship between Disability Non-Discrimination Law and Quota Schemes

2019 ◽  
pp. 94-117
Author(s):  
Lisa Waddington
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common ◽  
Public And Private Sector ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter explores the relationship between disability quota schemes and non-discrimination law in Europe. While at first sight they seem to sit uneasily beside each other, the chapter reveals how, in some instances, quota schemes can serve to facilitate compliance with non-discrimination legislation. At the same time, the chapter explores seeming incompatibilities between the two approaches and considers whether there are differences between common and civil law jurisdictions in this respect. Tentative conclusions suggest that there is a greater willingness to establish quota schemes through legislation in civil law jurisdictions compared to common law jurisdictions, and that quota schemes in civil law jurisdictions are more likely to provide for the imposition of a levy in the case that employers fail to meet their quota obligations through employing the required number of people with disabilities. There also seems to be some indication that there is greater awareness of the potential for conflict or tension, in various forms, between non-discrimination law and quota schemes in common law jurisdictions than in civil law jurisdictions. Finally, the two schemes operating in the common law states are only applicable to the public sector—whilst in civil law states quotas are generally applied to both public and private sector employers. This may indicate different perceptions regarding the role of public sector employers and the legitimacy of imposing quota requirements.

Comparative Approaches to Criminal Procedure

2019 ◽  
pp. 66-88
Author(s):  
Eliabetta Grande
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Revolutionary Change ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Adversarial Model

This chapter discusses comparative approaches to criminal procedure, focusing on transplants, translations, and adversarial-model reforms in European criminal process. In particular, it examines the idea of “Americanization/adversarialization” of European criminal procedures—that is, the possible convergence between American common law and European civil law criminal procedure systems toward a common adversary core structure. The chapter also considers the implications of transplanting some American adversarial features into the non-adversary European soil, such as pretrial investigations conducted by the police and the public prosecutor in lieu of the investigating judge typical of the civilian tradition; exclusionary rules; cross-examination; and jury trial. It compares the so-called tango justice with rumba justice and analyzes the “revolutionary change of procedure” with respect to cross-examination of witnesses, jury trial in Spain, and plea bargaining in Europe.

scholarly journals Optimizing The Role of Immigration Civil Servant Investigator in Treating Criminal Actions of People Smuggling

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-45
Author(s):  
Doniar Andre Vernanda ◽  
Tony Mirwanto
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Servant ◽  
Immigration Law ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Case Files ◽  
National Police

Immigration law enforcement is carried out by civil servant investigators (PPNS) of Immigration by the mandate of Law No. 6 of 2011 on immigration. Immigration civil servant investigators have the authority to carry out the investigation process to hand over case files for subsequent prosecution in court by the public prosecutor. The results and discussion of this research are: (i) People smuggling is a crime where people illegally enter humans without legal and valid immigration travel documents aimed at personal or group gain by entering a country without going through an examination. immigration at the immigration checkpoint (TPI). Criminal sanctions related to human smuggling are regulated in article 120 of the Immigration Law with a maximum threat of 15 years and a fine of Rp. 1,500,000,000.00. (ii) According to the Immigration Law, pro Justitia law enforcement in immigration crimes is carried out by immigration civil servant investigators who have the duties and functions of carrying out investigations & investigations, coordinating with the National Police and other law enforcement agencies as well as carrying out other matters which are ordered by immigration Law

scholarly journals Judicial Resources and the Public Trust Doctrine: A Powerful Tool of Environmental Protection?

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Richardson Oakes
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Environmental Discourse ◽  
Supreme Court Justice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Trust Doctrine ◽  
Legal Frameworks

AbstractUnited Kingdom Supreme Court Justice Robert Carnwath has urged the judiciary to develop ‘common laws of the environment’, which can operate within different legal frameworks, tailored where necessary towards specific constitutions or statutory codes. One such mechanism with the potential for repositioning environmental discourse in both common law and civil law jurisdictions is the doctrine of the public trust. Basing their arguments upon a heritage of civil law and common law, supporters of the public trust doctrine are currently testing its scope in United States federal courts via groundbreaking litigation aimed at forcing the federal government to uphold its duty to protect the atmosphere. This article considers whether common law judicial resourcefulness can transform a transatlantic hybrid of uncertain parentage into a powerful tool of environmental protection.

Retaining the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in New South Wales

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Dale Greentree
Keyword(s):  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Public Record ◽  
Conception Of The Good ◽  
Appeals Process ◽  
Considerable Doubt

This article argues that the prerogative of mercy should be retained in New South Wales as a necessary and appropriate power of the Executive. Historically, pardons have provided opportunities for redemption. Currently, the statutory appeals process is limited to cases involving a miscarriage of justice where there is considerable doubt as to a person’s guilt. In cases where a person is guilty but is nevertheless deserving of mercy, the prerogative of mercy is the only avenue available. As a purely executive power, the prerogative of mercy can achieve the aims of the criminal justice system by tempering justice with mercy. The role of the sovereign involves maintaining order, but also enacting some conception of the good, driven by compassion, love, and mercy. Finally, this article argues that grants of mercy should be a matter of public record, for transparency and as a means of demonstrating this compassion to the public.

“Visible” and “Invisible” Victims in the Criminal Justice System

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Armando Saponaro
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Victim Impact Statement

This chapter outlines the “conflict” and “peace-keeping” victim-oriented justice paradigms. The latter empowers the victims of crime, putting them at the center of an encounter and using interindividual mediation or collective circles to address conflict resolution. Two models are critically discussed in the conflict victim-oriented justice paradigm. The European continental “visible victim” model structures the role of the victim as a full-fledged processual party together with the public prosecutor and offender. In this model, the victim has the same rights and powers of the defendant. The “invisible victim” common law model views the victim as a trial witness, participating, for example, through a victim impact statement (in the United States) or victim personal statement (in the United Kingdom) at the sentencing stage. The visible victim conflict paradigm model enhances a victim's role and involvement in the criminal justice system, offering a solution to existing controversial and critical common law system issues.

Appraisal and Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 255-276
Author(s):  
Mike McConville ◽  
Luke Marsh
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Home Office ◽  
Final Destination ◽  
The Common ◽  
Future Direction

The concluding Chapter scrutinises the validity and relevance of the book’s hitherto unseen archival files, from which its account stems. In pulling together its main themes concerning the role of civil servants, the Executive and the Judiciary in administering criminal justice, it retraces the trajectory of suspects’ rights in the late nineteenth century, from their seemingly ‘bedrock’ foundation within the common law to their rough distillation (at home and abroad) through various iterations of Judges’ ‘Rules’, themselves of dubious pedigree. In documenting this journey, this Chapter underscores how Senior Judges, confronted by Executive power impinging upon the future direction of system protections, enfeebled themselves, allowing ‘police interests’ to prevail. With Parliament kept in the dark as to the ongoing subterfuge; and the integrity of the Home Office, as an institution, long dissolved, ‘Executive interests’ took the reins of a system within which much mileage for ‘culture change’ lay ahead. This Chapter helps chart their final destination; ultimately, one where new Rules (the CrimPR) replace those exposed as failures, leading to governmental success of a distinct kind: traditional understandings of ‘rights’ belonging to suspects and defendants subverted into ‘obligations’ owing to the Court and an adversarial process underpinning determinations of guilt long-disbanded in the quest for so-called ‘efficiency’. In explaining the implications of the events discussed in this book for the issue of ‘Judicial Independence’ and the ‘Separation of Powers’, this Chapter offers a theoretical framework that illuminates the role and practices of the Senior Judiciary in criminal justice policy today.

Rights and Methods to Challenge Evidence and Witnesses in Civil Law Jurisdictions

2019 ◽  
pp. 839-864
Author(s):  
Lorena Bachmaier
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
The Cross

This chapter examines the primary grounds for challenging the admissibility of evidence, the methods to do it, and the potential consequences of those challenges for civil law systems. It first provides an overview of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with respect to admissibility of evidence, before discussing the exclusionary rules of evidence, focusing on the methods for excluding unreliable evidence, irrelevant or unnecessary evidence, and illegally obtained evidence. It then considers the process for challenging the admissibility of evidence, the cross-examination of witnesses, and the role of trial courts in the questioning of witnesses. It also tackles the admissibility of out-of-court witness testimonies in European civil law systems and notes the convergence between common law and civil law systems with regard to methods for excluding evidence and for questioning witnesses.

1. An introduction to the criminal law

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-25
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Wrong ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Harm To Others

It is neither easy to define crime nor identify the aims of criminal law but some characteristics may be universal to every crime, including that it involves public wrongs and moral wrongs. ‘Public wrongs’ reflect the important role of the public in punishing crimes. A crime incorporating a moral wrong implies that a ‘wrong’ is done or harm to others is involved but experience suggests that morality and criminal law are not coextensive. The chapter introduces students to thinking about criminalization and the need to guard against overcriminalization. It also examines the principal sources of criminal law: common law, statute, EU law, international law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Problematically, important and serious offences and most defences in English law derive from common law rather than statute, and some offences—from public nuisance to gross negligence manslaughter—have been challenged recently on grounds of certainty and retrospectivity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document