1 / 9

Alternatives to Prison Conference Encounter/RSE Edinburgh, 7-9 Dec 2006

Alternatives to Prison Conference Encounter/RSE Edinburgh, 7-9 Dec 2006. Whither the Golden Thread? Claire Hamilton Dublin Institute of Technology chamilton@dit.ie. Presumption of Innocence.

star
Download Presentation

Alternatives to Prison Conference Encounter/RSE Edinburgh, 7-9 Dec 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Alternatives to Prison Conference Encounter/RSEEdinburgh, 7-9 Dec 2006 Whither the Golden Thread? Claire Hamilton Dublin Institute of Technology chamilton@dit.ie

  2. Presumption of Innocence • Focus today on effects of recent English and Irish legislation on presumption of innocence. Is the presumption being deprived of its tangible effects? • Tony Blair, June 2002: “It is perhaps the biggest miscarriage of justice in today’s system when the guilty walk away unpunished” • Arguments in favour of the presumption of innocence: • Subjective harms • Moral harms (Dworkin) • Myths of the “other” and of “the benign State” (Kennedy) • Effectiveness of erosion.

  3. English Criminal Justice Act 2003 • Flagship legislation to “rebalance system in favour of victims” • Presumption of Innocence and bad character rules (Part 11, s.101). • Presumption of Innocence and double jeopardy rules (Part 10, ss.78 & 79)

  4. Bad Character Rules • From PV v. PE to “general tendency” • Bad character=misconduct=other reprehensible behaviour • Reasoning Prejudice • Moral Prejudice • Empirical support: Lloyd-Bostock (2000)

  5. Retrial for Serious Offences • Broad definition of “qualifying offence” • “New and compelling evidence”= “reliable, substantial and highly probative of guilt” (s.78) • Jury mere rubberstamp? • Government’s response to stifle media coverage

  6. Irish Criminal Justice Act 2006 • McDowell: “Balance shifted too far in favour of accused” • Walsh: “Completing a crime control model” • Detention provisions, limited prosecution appeals, etc. • ASBOs (“Civil orders/behaviour orders”) and Presumption of Innocence. • New proposals for victims: curtail right to silence; bad character evidence.

  7. Civil Orders/Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) • Hybrid structure of orders disguising criminal action? • R v. McCann-HOL designated civil • Superficial reading focusing on form not substance • Previous acts TIC when sentencing • Paradoxical conclusion-civil yet “seriousness of matters involved” mandates criminal SOP

  8. Proposed Law Reforms to Rebalance the System • Curtail the right to silence through adverse inferences: consequent shift of focus to accused. • Bad Character: as seen above, conjures up a prejudicial atmosphere (R v. Perry) • Nullifying an acquittal in certain circumstances.

  9. Whither the Golden Thread? • Is it real for accused persons in the UK and Ireland? Kilcommins et al (2004): Irish due process rights have a “look but do not touch; touch but do not taste” quality. • Ashworth and Blake (1996): 40% of Crown Court offences offend the presumption. • Chakrabati (2005): “The presumption…like innocence itself, is more easily compromised than reclaimed. It seems to me that we would not be living with the chilling spectre of the anti-terror ‘control order’ if we had been more critical of his older cousin, the ASBO”,

More Related