DOCSLIB.ORG

1961-24 Repealed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1961-24 Repealed Criminal Procedure 1961-24 Repealed CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT Repealed by Act. 2011-24 as from 23.11.2012 Principal Act Act. No. 1961-24 Commencement 1.1.1962 Assent 21.12.1961 With which are incorporated parts of Acts. 1960-02 1960-17 1961-23 1972-05 Amending Relevant current Commencement enactments provisions date Acts. 1960-11 ss.136, 155 and 166 1963-02 Sch. 2 1965-11 ss.89, 173(1) and (2), 249, 256(1), 294, 303(2) and (3), 304 and 309 1966-03 ss.94 and 171 1967-01 s.184 1967-04 Sch. 1 and 2 1967-13 ss.24(1) and 271(2) 1967-14 s.111(3) 1968-24 ss.206(1) and 252 1969-21 ss.2, 4, 179 and 181 1970-02 ss.58 and 303(1) 1971-19 ss.25(2), 93(3) and Sch. 2 1972-04 s.5 and Sch. 2 1972-05 ss.11, 49, 50, 53, 55, 78, 82, 90-92, 116, 124 and 131-134 1972-15 Schs. 1 and 2 1973-18 Sch. 5 1973-31 ss.173(2), (3) and (4) 1974-24 ss.145, 147, 150, and 159 1975-11 ss.223, 224(2) and 226 1977-10 s.171 1977-28 ss.4, 139, and 255 1977-34 ss.178 and 313 1977-35 ss.135, 149-151, 153, 154, 156- © Government of Gibraltar (www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi) 1961-24 Criminal Procedure Repealed 162, 164(2), and (3), and 166 1978-06 ss.19, 59, 208(3), and 316 1980-04 s.73 1982-12 ss.183 and 275(4) 1983-44 ss.161 and 162 1983-48 Schs. 2 and 3 1986-20 ss. 133 and 134 13.11.1986 1988-35 s. 55(3) 15.12.1988 1989-15 s. 180 10.8.1989 1989-36 s. 165 21.12.1989 1989-42 s. 248 21.12.1989 1990-04 ss.236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 245 and 246 1.3.1990 1990-41 ss. 60,61, 62 and 63 15.11.1990 1991-04 ss. 2, 61, 63, 112, 133, 161, 162, 177, 189, 190, 193, 195, 266, 274, 282 and Sch. 6 4.4.1991 1991-29 Part 2, ss. 39, 40 and 41 18.7.1991 1993-11 ss. 192 and 275 11.2.1993 1994-05 ss. 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 152 27.7.1994 1995-11 s. 54 1.8.1995 1997-10 s.72 27.3.1997 LN. 1991/060 Sch. 2 and 5 11.4.1991 1991/092 Sch. 5 23.5.1991 Acts. 2000-02 ss.166 to170 20.4.2000 2000-13 ss. 219A, 219B and 219C 4.10.2001 2001-13 ss. 94, 94A, 94B, 94C, 94D, 94E, 94F, 94G, 94H, 94I, 99A, and Sch. 3A and 3B 6.6.2001 2005-68 s. 232(1) 22.12.2005 2007-17 ss. 36(2) & (3), 37(5) 14.6.2007 2010-20 ss. 135, 145 to 163 1.1.2011 2010-12 ss. 2, 275, 276, 279 to 284 1.2.20111 2011-242 s. 42 see below English sources Criminal Law Act 1826 (7 Geo. 4 c. 64) Criminal Law Act 1827 (7 & 8 Geo. 4 c. 28) Previous Conviction Act 1836 (6 & 7 Wm 4 c. 111) 1 See LN. 2011/007 2 Pursuant to s.703(2) of the Amending Act (Act. 2011-24), this amendment is deemed always to have had effect. © Government of Gibraltar (www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi) Criminal Procedure 1961-24 Repealed Trials for Felony Act 1836 (6 & 7 Wm 4 c. 114) Metropolitan Police Act 1839 (2 & 3 Vict. c. 47) Criminal Justice Administration Act 1851 (14 & 15 Vict. c. 55) Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 43) Remission of Penalties Act 1859 (22 Vict. c. 32) Criminal Lunatics Asylum Act 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 75) Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 35) Forfeiture Act 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 23) Prevention of Crimes Act 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 112) Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 38) Criminal Lunatics Act 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 64) Interpretation Act 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63) Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (61 & 62 Vict. c. 36) Criminal Appeal Act 1907 (7 Edw. 7 c. 23) Criminal Justice Administration Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5 c. 58) Indictments Act 1915 (5 & 6 Geo. 5 c. 90) Criminal Justice Act 1925 (15 & 16 Geo. 5 c. 86) Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act 1931 (21 & 22 Geo. 5 c. 24) Children & Young Persons Act 1933 (23 & 24 Geo. 5 c. 12) Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (23 & 24 Geo. 5 c. 36) Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act 1933 (23 & 24 Geo. 5 c. 38) Counterfeit Currency (Convention) Act 1935 (25 & 26 Geo. 5 c. 25) Children Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo.5 c. 43) Criminal Justice Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6 c. 58) Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1952 (15 & 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2 c. 48) Children & Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1952 (15 & 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2 c. 50) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1952 (15 & 16 Geo. 6 and 1 Eliz. 2 c. 55) Magistrates’ Courts (Appeals from Binding Over Orders) Act 1956 (4 & 5 Eliz. 2 c. 44) Magistrates’ Courts Act 1957 (5 & 6 Eliz. 2 c. 29) Criminal Justice Administration Act 1962 (10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c. 15) Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (1964 c. 84) Criminal Evidence Act 1965 (1965 c. 71) Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 (1965 c. 20) Criminal Law Act 1967 (1967 c. 58) Criminal Justice Act 1967 (1967 c. 80) Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (1968 c. 19) © Government of Gibraltar (www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi) 1961-24 Criminal Procedure Repealed RE-NUMBERING OF SECTIONS Previous New 43 44 Number Number 44 45 1 1 45 46 2 2 46 47 3 3 47 48 4 4 48 49 5 5 49 50 6 6 50 51 7 7 51 52 8 8 52 53 9 9 52A 54 10 10 53 55 11 11 54 56 12 12 55 57 13 13 56 58 14 14 57 59 15 15 57A 60 16 16 57B 61 17 17 57C 62 18 18 57D 63 19 19 58 64 20 20 59 65 21 21 60 66 22 22 61 67 23 23 62 68 24 24 63 69 25 25 64 70 26 26 65 71 27 27 66 72 28 28 67 73 29 29 68 74 30 30 68A 75 31 31 69 76 32 32 70 77 33 33 71 78 34 34 72 79 35 35 73 80 36 36 74 81 37 37 75 82 38 38 76 83 39 39 77 84 40 40 78 85 40A 41 79 86 41 42 80 87 42 43 81 88 © Government of Gibraltar (www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi) Criminal Procedure 1961-24 Repealed 82 89 129 136 83 90 130 137 84 91 131 138 85 92 132 139 86 93 133 140 87 94 134 141 88 95 135 142 89 96 136 143 90 97 137 144 91 98 138 145 92 99 139 146 93 100 140 147 94 101 141 148 95 102 142 149 96 103 143 150 97 104 144 151 98 105 145 152 99 106 146 153 100 107 147 154 101 108 148 155 102 109 149 156 103 110 150 157 104 111 151 158 105 112 152 159 106 113 153 160 107 114 154 161 108 115 155 162 109 116 156 163 110 117 157 164 111 118 157A 165 112 119 158 Repealed 113 120 159 Repealed 114 121 160 Repealed 115 122 161 Repealed 116 123 162 Repealed 117 124 163 171 118 125 164 172 119 126 165 173 120 127 166 174 121 128 167 175 122 129 168 176 123 130 169 177 124 131 170 178 125 132 171 179 126 133 171A 180 127 134 172 181 128 135 173 182 © Government of Gibraltar (www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi) 1961-24 Criminal Procedure Repealed 174 183 220 230 175 184 221 231 176 185 222 232 177 186 223 233 178 187 224 234 179 188 225 235 179A 189 226 236 180 190 227 237 181 191 227A 238 182 192 227B 239 183 193 227C 240 184 194 228 241 185 195 229 242 186 196 230 243 187 197 231 244 188 198 232 245 189 199 232A 246 190 200 233 247 191 201 233A 248 192 202 234 249 193 203 235 250 194 204 236 251 195 205 237 252 196 206 238 253 197 207 239 254 198 208 240 255 199 209 241 256 200 210 242 257 201 211 243 258 202 212 244 259 203 213 245 260 204 214 246 261 205 215 247 262 206 216 248 263 207 217 249 264 208 218 250 265 209 219 251 266 210 220 252 267 211 221 253 268 212 222 254 269 213 223 255 270 214 224 256 271 215 225 257 272 216 226 258 273 217 227 259 274 218 228 260 275 219 229 261 276 © Government of Gibraltar (www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi) Criminal Procedure 1961-24 Repealed 262 277 283 298 263 278 284 299 264 279 285 300 265 280 286 301 266 281 287 302 267 282 288 303 268 283 289 304 269 284 290 305 270 285 291 306 271 286 292 307 272 287 293 308 273 288 294 309 274 289 295 310 275 290 296 311 276 291 297 312 277 292 298 313 278 293 299 314 279 294 300 315 280 295 301 316 281 296 302 317 282 297 © Government of Gibraltar (www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi) 1961-24 Criminal Procedure Repealed DERIVATION OF SECTIONS * 52 “ “ s.102 2 Act 1961-24 ss 2, 72 and 126 53 “ “ s.26D 3 “ “ s.175 55 “ “ s.26E 4 Act 1961-23 s.6 56 Act 1961-24 s.165 Act 1961-24 ss.135 and 153 57 “ “ s.170 5 Act 1961-24 s.9A 58 “ “ s.170A 6 “ “ s.3 59 “ “ s.170B 7 “ “ s.5 64 “ “ s.26 8 “ “ s.14 65 “ “ s.27 9 “ “ s.8 66 “ “ s.28 10 Act 1961-23 s.110 67 “ “ s.30 11 “ “ s.26F 68 “ “ s.31 12 Act 1960-17 s.225 69 “ “ s.29 13 “ “ s.177(1) 70 “ “ s.38 14 Act 1961-24 s.4 71 “ “ s.36 15 “ “ s.9 72 “ “ s.37 16 “ “ s.12 73 “ “ s.32 17 “ “ s.6 74 “ “ s.35 18 “ “ s.15 76 “ “ s.33 19 “ “ s.19A 77 “ “ s.34 20 Act 1961-23 s.114 78 Act 1961-23 s.25B 21 Act 1961-24 s.7 79 “ “ s.34 22 “ “ s.11 80 “ “ s.93 23 “ “ s.18 81 “ “ s.54 24 “ “ s.13 82 “ “ s.25F 25 “ “ s.22 83 “ “ s.41 26 “ “ s.23 84 Act 1961-24 s.148 27 “ “ s.10 85 “ “ s.149 28 Act 1960-17 s.58 86 “ “ s.150 29 Act 1961-24 s.110 87 “ “ s.147 30 Act 1960-17 s.101 88 “ “ s.146 31 “ “ s.140 89 “ “ s.43A 32 “ “ s.188 90 Act 1961-23 s.31A 33 “ “ s.192 91 “ “ s.31B 34 Act 1961-24 s.16 92 “ “ s.31C 35 “ “ s.17 93 Act 1961-24 s.43 36 Act 1960-17 ss.163 and 164 94 “ “ s.32A 37 “ “ s.177(2)-(5) 95 “ “ s.39 38 Act 1961-24 s.24 96 “ “ s.40 39 “ “ s.25 97 “ “ s.41 40 Act 1961-23 s.53 98 Act 1961-23 s.35 42 Act 1961-24 s.19 99 Act 1961-24 s.42 43 “ “ s.20 100 Act 1961-23 s.8 44 Act 1961-23 s.106 101 “ “ s.104 45 Act 1961-24 s.104 102 Act 1961-23 s.105 46 “ “ s.21 103 “ “ s.107 47 Act 1961-23 s.26 104 “ “ s.108 48 “ “ s.116 105 “ “ s.109 49 “ “ s.26A 106 “ “ s.18 50 “ “ s.26C 107 “ “ s.19 51 “ “ s.117 108 “ “ s.51 * Re-numbered as a result of the re-numbering of the Ordinance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Criminal Law Reform with the Hon Jarrod Bleijie
    The Great Leap Backward: Criminal Law Reform with the Hon Jarrod Bleijie Andrew Trotter∗ and Harry Hobbs† Abstract On 3 April 2012, the Honourable Member for Kawana, Jarrod Bleijie MP, was sworn in as Attorney-General for Queensland and Minister for Justice. In the period that followed, Queensland’s youngest Attorney-General since Sir Samuel Griffith in 1874 has implemented substantial reforms to the criminal law as part of a campaign to ‘get tough on crime’. Those reforms have been heavily and almost uniformly criticised by the profession, the judiciary and the academy. This article places the reforms in their historical context to illustrate that together they constitute a great leap backward that unravels centuries of gradual reform calculated to improve the state of human rights in criminal justice. I Introduction Human rights in the criminal law were in a fairly dire state in the Middle Ages.1 Offenders were branded with the letters of their crime to announce it to the public, until that practice was replaced in part by the large scarlet letters worn by some criminals by 1364.2 The presumption of innocence, although developed in its earliest forms in Ancient Rome, does not appear to have crystallised into a recognisable form until 1470.3 During the 16th and 17th centuries, it was common to charge the families of a prisoner sentenced to death a fee for their execution, but ∗ BA LLB (Hons) QUT; Solicitor, Doogue O’Brien George. † BA LLB (Hons) ANU; Human Rights Legal and Policy Adviser, ACT Human Rights Commission. The authors thank Professor the Hon William Gummow AC for his helpful comments on earlier drafts and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their assistance in the final stages.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconciling Ireland's Bail Laws with Traditional Irish Constitutional Values
    Reconciling Ireland's Bail Laws with Traditional Irish Constitutional Values Kate Doran Thesis Offered for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Law Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences University of Limerick Supervisor: Prof. Paul McCutcheon Submitted to the University of Limerick, November 2014 Abstract Title: Reconciling Ireland’s Bail Laws with Traditional Irish Constitutional Values Author: Kate Doran Bail is a device which provides for the pre-trial release of a criminal defendant after security has been taken for the defendant’s future appearance at trial. Ireland has traditionally adopted a liberal approach to bail. For example, in The People (Attorney General) v O’Callaghan (1966), the Supreme Court declared that the sole purpose of bail was to secure the attendance of the accused at trial and that the refusal of bail on preventative detention grounds amounted to a denial of the presumption of innocence. Accordingly, it would be unconstitutional to deny bail to an accused person as a means of preventing him from committing further offences while awaiting trial. This purist approach to the right to bail came under severe pressure in the mid-1990s from police, prosecutorial and political forces which, in turn, was a response to a media generated panic over the perceived increase over the threat posed by organised crime and an associated growth in ‘bail banditry’. A constitutional amendment effectively neutralising the effects of the O'Callaghan jurisprudence was adopted in 1996. This was swiftly followed by the Bail Act 1997 which introduced the concept of preventative detention (in the bail context) into Irish law.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Jeopardy
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 156 DOUBLE JEOPARDY A Consultation Paper The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Carnwath CVO, Chairman Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC When this consultation paper was completed on 6 September 1999, Professor Andrew Burrows was also a Commissioner. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This consultation paper is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on this consultation paper before 31 January 2000. All correspondence should be addressed to: Mr R Percival Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: (020) 7453-1232 Fax: (020) 7453-1297 It may be helpful for the Law Commission, either in discussion with others concerned or in any subsequent recommendations, to be able to refer to and attribute comments submitted in response to this consultation paper. Any request to treat all, or part, of a response in confidence will, of course, be respected, but if no such request is made the Law Commission will assume that the response is not intended to be confidential. The text of this consultation paper is available on the Internet at: http://www.open.gov.uk/lawcomm/ Comments can be sent by e-mail to: [email protected] 17-24-01 THE LAW COMMISSION DOUBLE JEOPARDY CONTENTS [PLEASE NOTE: The pagination in this Internet version varies slightly from the hard copy published version.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the United Kingdom's
    A REVIEW OF THE UNITED KINGDOM’S EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS (Following Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 8 September 2010) Presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September 2011 This report is also available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ ~ 2 ~ The Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker was called to the Bar in 1961, and practised in a range of legal areas, including criminal law and professional negligence. He became a Recorder in 1976 and was appointed as a High Court judge in 1988. In 1999, he presided over the trial of Great Western Trains following the Southall rail crash in 1997 and in the same year was the judge who tried Jonathan Aitken. He was the lead judge of the Administrative Court between 2000 and 2002 when he was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal, presiding over the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed. He also sat regularly in the Divisional Court hearing appeals and judicial reviews in extradition cases. He retired in 2010 and is currently a Surveillance Commissioner, a member of the Bermuda Court of Appeal and a member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. David Perry QC is a barrister and joint head of chambers at 6 King’s Bench Walk, Temple. From 1991 to 1997, Mr Perry was one of the Standing Counsel to the Department of Trade and Industry. From 1997 to 2001, he was Junior Treasury Counsel to the Crown at the Central Criminal Court and Senior Treasury Counsel from 2001 until 2006, when he took silk.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF the Whole
    Status: Point in time view as at 01/02/1991. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Indictments Act 1915. (See end of Document for details) Indictments Act 1915 1915 CHAPTER 90 5 and 6 Geo 5 An Act to amend the Law relating to Indictments in Criminal Cases, and matters incidental or similar thereto. [23rd December 1915] 1 Rules as to indictments. The rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act with respect to indictments shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, but those rules may be added to, varied, or annulled by further rules made . F1 under this Act. Textual Amendments F1 Words repealed by Criminal Justice Administration Act 1956 (c. 34), s. 19(4)(b) 2 Powers of rule committee. (1) . F2 (2) The [F3Crown Court rule committee] shall have power from time to time, . F4 to make rules varying or annulling the rules contained in the First Schedule to this Act and to make further rules with respect to the matters dealt with in those rules, and those rules shall have effect subject to any modifications or additions so made. (3) . F5 (4) . F6 Textual Amendments F2 S. 2(1) repealed by Criminal Justice Administration Act 1956 (c. 34), s. 19(4)(b) F3 Words substituted by virtue of Courts Act 1971 (c. 23), Sch. 8 para. 17(1) but not so as to invalidate any rules previously made F4 Words repealed by Criminal Justice Administration Act 1956 (c. 34), s. 19(4)(b) F5 S. 2(3) repealed by Courts Act 1971 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • Indictments Act, 1915. [55& 6 GEO
    Indictments Act, 1915. [55& 6 GEO. 5. CH. 90.] SOUT PLI- FOR THE , ) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. A.D. 1915. Section. 1. Rules as to indictments. 2. Powers of rule committee. 3. General provisions as to indictments. 4. Joinder of charges in the same indictment. 5. Orders for amendment of indictment, separate trial, and postponement of trial. 6. Costs of defective or redundant indictments. 7. Provision as to Vexatious Indictments Acts. 8. Savings and interpretation. 9. Repeal, extent, short title, and commencement. SCHEDULES. [5 & 6 GEO. 5.] Indictments Act, 1915. [CH. 90.] CHAPTER 90. An' Act to amend the Law relating to Indictments in A.D. 1915. Criminal Cases, and matters incidental or similar thereto. - [23rd December 1915.1 it enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and BEwith the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows : 1. The rules contained in the First Schedule to. this Act With Rules as to respect to indictments shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, indictments. but those rules may be added to, varied, or annulled by further rules made by the rule committee under this Act. 2.-(1) There shall be established for the purposes of this Powers of rule Act a rule committee consisting of the Lord Chief Justice of committee. England for the time being, and of a judge of the High Court, a chairman of quarter sessions, a recorder, a clerk of assize, a clerk of the peace, and another person having experience in criminal procedure, appointed in each case by the Lord Chief Justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrangement of Sections
    Criminal Law Act 1967 CHAPTER 58 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR Section 1. Abolition of distinction between felony and misdemeanour. 2. Arrest without warrant. 3. Use of force in making arrest, etc. 4. Penalties for assisting offenders. 5. Penalties for concealing offences or giving false information. 6. Trial of offences. 7. Powers of dealing with offenders. 8. Jurisdiction of quarter sessions. 9. Pardon. 10. Amendments of particular enactments, and repeals. 11. Extent of Part I, and provision for Northern Ireland. 12. Commencement, savings, and other general provisions. PART 11 OBSOLETE CRIMES 13. Abolition of certain offences, and consequential repeals. PART III SUPPLEMENTARY 14. Civil rights in respect of maintenance and champerty. 15. Short title. SCHEDULES: Schedule 1-Lists of offences falling, or not falling, within jurisdiction of quarter sessions. Schedule 2-Supplementary amendments. Schedule 3-Repeals (general). Schedule 4--Repeals (obsolete crimes). A Criminal Law Act 1967 CH. 58 1 ELIZABETH n , 1967 CHAPTER 58 An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes connected therewith. [21st July 1967] E IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and BTemporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:- PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR 1.-(1) All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are J\b<?liti?n of hereby abolished.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prematurity Doctrine in Habeas Corpus—A Critique
    Washington University Law Review Volume 1966 Issue 3 January 1966 The Prematurity Doctrine in Habeas Corpus—A Critique Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Recommended Citation The Prematurity Doctrine in Habeas Corpus—A Critique, 1966 WASH. U. L. Q. 345 (1966). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol1966/iss3/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PREMATURITY DOCTRINE IN HABEAS CORPUS- A CRITIQUE While the constitutional rights of persons charged with criminal offenses have been strengthened and expanded by recent Supreme Court decisions,' in some situations federal post-conviction remedies have not kept pace with this trend. This incongruity is most pronounced when a state or federal prisoner challenges a sentence which he has not commenced to serve, basing his challenge on an alleged violation of these rights.' If federal habeas cor- pus is the remedy utilized, and if the prisoner is currently serving a valid sentence, relief is denied because the request is "premature."'3 In this situa- tion, where the challenged sentence commences in futuro, other federal post- conviction remedies have been equally unsuccessful.4 While this note will deal primarily with the prematurity doctrine of federal habeas corpus, a re- view of these other remedies is necessary to demonstrate their inadequacy and the subsequent need for an abolition of the prematurity doctrine estab- lished by McNally v.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Act 1967
    Status: This version of this Act contains provisions that are prospective. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Criminal Law Act 1967. (See end of Document for details) Criminal Law Act 1967 1967 CHAPTER 58 An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes connected therewith. [21st July 1967] PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR Annotations: Extent Information E1 Subject to s. 11(2)-(4) this Part shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland see s. 11(1) 1 Abolition of distinction between felony and misdemeanour. (1) All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are hereby abolished. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, on all matters on which a distinction has previously been made between felony and misdemeanour, including mode of trial, the law and practice in relation to all offences cognisable under the law of England and Wales (including piracy) shall be the law and practice applicable at the commencement of this Act in relation to misdemeanour. [F12 Arrest without warrant. (1) The powers of summary arrest conferred by the following subsections shall apply to offences for which the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person (not previously convicted) may under or by virtue of any enactment be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years [F2(or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by 2 Criminal Law Act 1967 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution on Trial: Article III's Jury Trial Provision, Originalism, and the Problem of Motivated Reasoning, 52 Santa Clara L
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 52 | Number 2 Article 2 1-1-2012 The onsC titution on Trial: Article III's Jury Trial Provision, Originalism, and the Problem of Motivated Reasoning Stephen A. Siegel Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen A. Siegel, The Constitution on Trial: Article III's Jury Trial Provision, Originalism, and the Problem of Motivated Reasoning, 52 Santa Clara L. Rev. 373 (2012). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol52/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 31550_scl_52-2 Sheet No. 48 Side A 04/16/2012 17:10:32 2_SIEGEL FINAL.DOC 3/14/2012 2:57:38 PM THE CONSTITUTION ON TRIAL: ARTICLE III’S JURY TRIAL PROVISION, ORIGINALISM, AND THE PROBLEM OF MOTIVATED REASONING Stephen A. Siegel* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction I. Article III’s Jury Trial Mandate from the Founding to 1900: The No-Waiver Rule Established and Respected A. The Constitution’s Text B. Common Law Tradition C. Federal Practice and Supreme Court Precedent D. Nineteenth-Century Constitutional Theory: Jury Trial as a Public Right II. Dissenting Voices in the Early-Twentieth Century III. The Overthrow of Article III’s Jury Trial Mandate and the No-Waiver Rule in 1930 A. The Patton Decision 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Act 1826
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Criminal Law Act 1826. (See end of Document for details) Criminal Law Act 1826 1826 CHAPTER 64 7 Geo 4 An Act for improving the Administration of Criminal Justice in England. [26th May 1826] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Short title given by Short Titles Act 1896 (c. 14) C2 Preamble omitted under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1890 (c. 33) 1 . F1 Textual Amendments F1 S. 1 repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1950 (c. 6), Sch. 1 2, 3. F2 Textual Amendments F2 Ss. 2, 3 repealed by Indictable Offences Act 1848 (c. 42), s. 34 4 . F3 Textual Amendments F3 S. 4 repealed by Coroners Act 1887 (c. 71), Sch. 3 2 Criminal Law Act 1826 (c. 64) Document Generated: 2021-07-21 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Criminal Law Act 1826. (See end of Document for details) 5, 6. F4 Textual Amendments F4 Ss. 5, 6 repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1950 (c. 6), Sch. 1 7, 8. F5 Textual Amendments F5 Ss. 7, 8 repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1873 (c. 91) 9—11. F6 Textual Amendments F6 Ss. 9-11 repealed by The Act 24 and 25 Vict. c. 95, Sch. 12, 13. F7 Textual Amendments F7 Ss. 12, 13 repealed by Courts Act 1971 (c. 23), Sch. 11 Pt. IV 14— . F8 16. Textual Amendments F8 Ss. 14-16 repealed by Indictments Act 1915 (c. 90), Sch. 2 17 . F9 Textual Amendments F9 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 96) CRIMINAL LAW OFFENCES RELATING TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF JUSTICE Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to heprinted 7th November 1979 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE 213 24.50 net k The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are- The Honourable Mr. Justice Kerr, Chairman. Mr. Stephen M. Cretney. Mr. Stephen Edell. Mr. W. A. B. Forbes, Q.C. Dr. Peter M. North. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr. J. C. R. Fieldsend and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 11 THE LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LAW CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION .......... 1.1-1.9 1 PART 11: PERJURY A . PRESENT LAW AND WORKING PAPER PROPOSALS ............. 2.1-2.7 4 1. Thelaw .............. 2.1-2.3 4 2 . The incidence of offences under the Perjury Act 1911 .............. 2.4-2.5 5 3. Working paper proposals ........ 2.6-2.7 7 B . RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO PERJURY IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ........ 2.8-2.93 8 1. The problem of false evidence not given on oath and the meaning of “judicial proceedings” ............ 2.8-2.43 8 (a) Working paperproposals ...... 2.9-2.10 8 (b) The present law .......... 2.1 1-2.25 10 (i) The Evidence Act 1851. section 16 2.12-2.16 10 (ii) Express statutory powers of tribunals .........
    [Show full text]