DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED at STAGE 2]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2] CONTENTS Section PART 1 SENTENCING The Scottish Sentencing Council 3 The Scottish Sentencing Council 4 The Council’s objectives 5 Sentencing guidelines 6 Consultation on proposed sentencing guidelines 6A Approval of sentencing guidelines by High Court 7 Effect of sentencing guidelines 8 Ministers’ power to request that sentencing guidelines be prepared or reviewed 9 High Court’s power to require preparation or review of sentencing guidelines 9A Publication of High Court guideline judgements 10 Scottish Court Service to provide sentencing information to the Council 11 The Council’s power to provide information, advice etc. 12 Business plan 13 Annual report Community payback orders 14 Community payback orders Non-harassment orders 15 Non-harassment orders Short sentences 16 Short periods of detention 18 Amendments of Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007 19 Early removal of certain short-term prisoners from the United Kingdom Other sentencing measures 20 Reports about supervised persons 20A Pre-sentencing reports about organisations 21 Extended sentences for certain sexual offences 22 Effect of probation and absolute discharge 23 Offences aggravated by racial or religious prejudice 24A Mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions 24B Minimum sentence for having in a public place an article with a blade or point SP Bill 24A Session 3 (2010) ii Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill PART 2 CRIMINAL LAW Serious organised crime 25 Involvement in serious organised crime 26 Offences aggravated by connection with serious organised crime 27 Directing serious organised crime 28 Failure to report serious organised crime Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes 28A Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: UK residents 28B Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: retrospective application Articles banned in prison 29 Articles banned in prison Crossbows, knives etc. 30 Sale and hire of crossbows to persons under 18 31 Sale and hire of knives and certain other articles to persons under 18 Offensive weapons etc. 31A Offensive weapons etc. Stalking 31B Offence of stalking Sexual offences 32 Certain sexual offences by non-natural persons 33 Indecent images of children 34 Extreme pornography 34A Voyeurism: additional forms of conduct 34B Sexual offences: defences in relation to offences against older children 34C Penalties for offences of brothel-keeping and living on the earnings of prostitution People trafficking 35 People trafficking Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour 35A Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour Fraud and embezzlement 36 Alternative charges for fraud and embezzlement 36A Articles for use in fraud Conspiracy 37 Conspiracy to commit offences outwith Scotland Abolition of offences of sedition and leasing-making 37A Abolition of offences of sedition and leasing-making Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill iii PART 3 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Children 38 Prosecution of children Offences: liability of partners 39 Offences: liability of partners Witness statements 40 Witness statements Police liberation 41 Breach of undertaking Grant of warrants 41A Grant of warrants for execution by constables and police members of SCDEA Bail 42 Bail review applications 43 Bail condition for identification procedures etc. 43A Bail conditions: remote monitoring requirements Prosecution on indictment 44 Prosecution on indictment: Scottish Law Officers Transfer of justice of the peace court cases 45 Transfer of justice of the peace court cases Additions to complaint 46 Additional charge where bail etc. breached Dockets and charges in sex cases 46A Dockets and charges in sex cases Remand and committal of children 47 Remand and committal of children and young persons Prosecution of organisations 48 Meaning of “organisation” 49 Proceedings on indictment against organisations 50 Prosecution of organisations by summary procedure 51 Manner of citation of organisations in summary proceedings Personal conduct of case by accused 51A Prohibition of personal conduct of case by accused in certain proceedings Disclosure of convictions etc. 52 Disclosure of convictions and non-court disposals 52A Convictions by courts in other EU member States iv Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill Appeals: time limits 53 Time limits for lodging certain appeals Crown appeals 54 Submissions as to sufficiency of evidence 55 Prosecutor’s right of appeal 56 Power of High Court in appeal under section 107A of 1995 Act 57 Further amendment of 1995 Act Retention and use of samples etc. 58 Retention of samples etc. 58A Retention of samples etc. where offer under sections 302 to 303ZA accepted 58B Retention of samples etc. taken or provided in connection with certain fixed penalty offences 59 Retention of samples etc. from children referred to children’s hearings 59A Extension of section 19A of 1995 Act 60 Use of samples etc. Referrals from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission 61 Referrals from Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission: grounds for appeal PART 4 EVIDENCE 61A Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses: abolition of competence test 62 Witness statements: use during trial 63 Spouse or civil partner of accused a compellable witness 64 Special measures for child witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses 64A Child witnesses in proceedings for people trafficking offences 65 Amendment of Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 66 Witness anonymity orders 67 Television link evidence 67A European evidence warrants PART 5 CRIMINAL JUSTICE Jury service 67B Lists of jurors 68 Upper age limit for jurors 68A Excusal from jury service 69 Persons excusable from jury service Data matching for detection of fraud etc. 70 Data matching for detection of fraud etc. Sharing information with anti-fraud organisations 71 Sharing information with anti-fraud organisations Closure of premises associated with human exploitation etc. 72 Closure of premises associated with human exploitation etc. Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill v Sexual offences prevention orders 73 Sexual offences prevention orders Foreign travel orders 74 Foreign travel orders Sex offender notification requirements 74A Sex offender notification requirements Risk of sexual harm orders 75 Risk of sexual harm orders 75A Risk of sexual harm orders: spent convictions Obtaining information from outwith United Kingdom 76 Obtaining information from outwith United Kingdom Surveillance 77 Grant of authorisations for surveillance Interference with property 78 Authorisations to interfere with property etc. Amendments of Part 5 of Police Act 1997 79 Amendments of Part 5 of Police Act 1997 Rehabilitation of offenders 79A Spent alternatives to prosecution: Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Medical services in prisons 79B Medical services in prisons Miscellaneous 80 Assistance for victim support 81 Public defence solicitors 82 Compensation for miscarriages of justice 83 Financial reporting orders 84 Compensation orders PART 6 DISCLOSURE Meaning of “information” 85 Meaning of “information” Provision of information to prosecutor 86 Provision of information to prosecutor: solemn cases 87 Continuing duty to provide information: solemn cases 88A Provision of information to prosecutor: summary cases 88B Continuing duty of investigating agency: summary cases vi Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill Prosecutor’s duty to disclose information 89 Prosecutor’s duty to disclose information 89A Disclosure of other information: solemn cases 90 Continuing duty of prosecutor Defence statements 94 Defence statements: solemn proceedings 95 Defence statements: summary proceedings 95A Change in circumstances following lodging of defence statement: summary proceedings Court rulings on disclosure 95B Application by accused for ruling on disclosure 95C Review of ruling under section 95B 95D Appeals against rulings under section 95B Effect of guilty plea 96 Effect of guilty plea Disclosure after conclusion of proceedings at first instance 96A Sections 96B to 96I: interpretation 96B Duty to disclose after conclusion of proceedings at first instance 96C Continuing duty of prosecutor 96D Application to prosecutor for further disclosure 96E Further duty of prosecutor: conviction upheld on appeal 96F Further duty of prosecutor: convicted persons 96G Further duty of prosecutor: appeal against acquittal Court rulings on disclosure: appellate proceedings 96H Application by appellant for ruling on disclosure 96I Review of ruling under section 96H Redaction 92 Redaction of non-disclosable information by prosecutor Means of disclosure 97 Means of disclosure Confidentiality 98 Confidentiality of disclosed information 99 Contravention of section 98 Exemptions from disclosure 91 Exemptions from disclosure Applications to court: orders preventing or restricting disclosure 102 Application for section 106 order 103 Application for non-notification order or exclusion order 104 Application for non-notification order and exclusion order 105 Application for exclusion order 106 Application for section 106 order: determination Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Bill vii Orders preventing or restricting disclosure: Secretary of State 106A Order preventing or restricting disclosure: application by Secretary of State 106B Application for ancillary orders: Secretary of State 106C Application for restricted notification order and non-attendance order 106D Application for non-attendance order
Recommended publications
  • Internacional De Derechos Civiles Y Políticos

    Internacional De Derechos Civiles Y Políticos

    INTERNACIONAL Distr. DE DERECHOS GENERAL ~ CIVILES C OPR/C/l/Add.17 21 de septiembre de 1 9 7 7 Y POLÍTICOS ESPAÑOL Original: INGLES COMITE DE' DERECHOS HUMANOS Tercer período de sesiones EXAMEN DE LOS INFORMES PRESENTADOS POR LOS ESTADOS PARTES DE CONFORMIDAD CON EL ARTICULO 40 DEL PACTO Informes iniciales de los Estados Partes que deben presentarse en 1977 Adición REINO UNIDO DE GRAN BRETAÑA E IRLANDA DEL NORTE [.18 de agosto de 1 9 7 7 ] Introducción 1. El Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos no tiene por sí mismo fuerza de ley en el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte ni en los territorios dependientes de él. La obligación asumida en virtud del parrefo 2 del artículo 2, que deja a cada Parte Contratante la libertad de elegir la forma de hacer efectivos los derechos reconocidos en el Pacto, se cumple en el Reino Unido mediante salvaguardias ‘ de distintos tipos que se aplican en los varios sistemas jurídicos, independientemente: : del Pacto pero en plena concordancia con él. 2. ^ Las explicaciones que contiene el presente informe se limitan en general al sistema jurídico de Inglaterra y Gales. Las normas jurídicas de ese sistema corresponden a dos categorías principales : normas qtie figuran en la legislación y normas que se deducen de las decisiones de los tribunales con facultades decisorias. Las de esta última categoría se derivan, a su vez, de dos fuentes -en primer lugar, el "common law” propia­ mente dicho (es decir, las leyes y costumbres reconocidas judicialmente desde los primeros tiempos) y, en segundo lugar, la interpretación de las leyes.
  • Universal Jurisdiction

    Universal Jurisdiction

    UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF LEGISLATION AROUND THE WORLD – 2012 UPDATE Amnesty International Publications First published in October 2012 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2012 Index: IOR 53/019/2012 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 A. The two annexes...........................................................................................................6 B. Definitions...................................................................................................................7
  • Consents to Prosecution Consultation

    Consents to Prosecution Consultation

    PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 In this consultation paper we examine one of the procedural mechanisms used to control the prosecution process, namely the requirement in respect of certain offences of the consent of the Law Officers (the Attorney-General or the Solicitor- General) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”)1 as a condition precedent to the institution of criminal proceedings. In preparing this paper, we have borne in mind the constitutional gravity of consent provisions – not only do they fetter the right of private prosecution, but also, by their nature, they impose an administrative burden on senior officials and cause an additional administrative delay within the criminal justice system. THE NEED FOR REVIEW 1.2 Although the use of consent provisions is not a recent development, their proliferation is. As we shall see in Part IV,2 although the first example is thought to date back to the early nineteenth century, it was not until the Second World War that consent provisions became widely used. We believe that the consents regime is a pressing and important subject for review. We hold this belief for a number of reasons. 1.3 First, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (“the Philips Commission”), under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Philips, noted that the wide-ranging list of Acts which included a consent provision suggested that “some of the restrictions ha[d] been arbitrarily imposed”;3 and in formulating proposals which eventually led to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Commission took the view that the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) provided the apposite moment for reviewing the consents regime and, noting that the DPP had said in evidence to the Commission that “the time was ripe for some rationalisation of the restrictions”,4 recommended that rationalisation should not be delayed.5 1.4 Second, notable former Law Officers have criticised the consents system.
  • João Bertola Franco De Gouveia

    João Bertola Franco De Gouveia

    10 INTRODUÇÃO Historicamente, tratando-se dos Estados, a matéria das imunidades é regida por regras costumeiras de direito internacional. O direito das imunidades foi, em seguida, enriquecido por algumas convenções. A primeira foi a convenção de Bruxelas de 1926 sobre as imunidades dos navios de Estado. Depois, surgiu a convenção de Basiléia de 1972 sobre as imunidades dos Estados, negociada sob a égide do Conselho da Europa. Posteriormente, diferentes Estados da common law, como os Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Canadá, e, ainda, a África do Sul, adotaram legislação interna sobre as imunidades. Inicialmente, a imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados era absoluta, evoluindo mais tarde para uma imunidade relativa, havendo algumas exceções em que não se aplicava a imunidade de jurisdição. Assim, as leis internas desses Estados previram exceções nos casos de lides trabalhistas ou de acidentes automobilísticos. O direito brasileiro, seguindo a tendência mundial, também adotou a imunidade relativa, a partir da Magna Carta de 1988, com uma nova interpretação do art.114, I da mesma, no caso de questões trabalhistas. Atualmente, no entanto, o direito das imunidades de jurisdição continua a evoluir, havendo doutrina e jurisprudência que sustentam a sua ausência no caso de violação dos direitos humanos. Dessa forma, o leading case seria o caso Pinochet, no qual a Câmara dos Lordes entendeu que Pinochet não teria imunidade de jurisdição perante a corte inglesa em função de atos funcionais violadores dos direitos humanos praticados durante o tempo em que foi presidente do Chile. Dessa maneira, dentre as exceções à imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados, poder-se-ia acrescentar uma nova exceção no caso de violação dos direitos humanos.
  • Modernising English Criminal Legislation 1267-1970

    Modernising English Criminal Legislation 1267-1970

    Public Administration Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-517x E-ISSN 1927-5188 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Modernising English Criminal Legislation 1267-1970 Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: April 2, 2017 Accepted: April 19, 2017 Online Published: April 27, 2017 doi:10.5539/par.v6n1p53 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/par.v6n1p53 1. INTRODUCTION English criminal - and criminal procedure - legislation is in a parlous state. Presently, there are some 286 Acts covering criminal law and criminal procedure with the former comprising c.155 Acts. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Judge CJ, in his book, The Safest Shield (2015), described the current volume of criminal legislation as 'suffocating'. 1 If one considers all legislation extant from 1267 - 1925 (see Appendix A) a considerable quantity comprises criminal law and criminal procedure - most of which is (likely) obsolete.2 Given this, the purpose of this article is to look at criminal legislation in the period 1267-1970 as well as criminal procedure legislation in the period 1267-1925. Its conclusions are simple: (a) the Law Commission should review all criminal legislation pre-1890 as well as a few pieces thereafter (see Appendix B). It should also review (likely) obsolete common law crimes (see Appendix C); (b) at the same time, the Ministry of Justice (or Home Office) should consolidate all criminal legislation post-1890 into 4 Crime Acts.3 These should deal with: (a) Sex crimes; (b) Public order crimes; (c) Crimes against the person; (d) Property and financial crimes (see 7).
  • Legislation Title

    Legislation Title

    FALKLAND ISLANDS _____________ Crimes Ordinance 2014 (No: 13 of 2014) ARRANGEMENT OF PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1 – PRELIMINARY PART 1 – PRELIMINARY AND INTERPRETATION Section 1. Title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART 2 – GENERAL PRINCIPLES Criminal liability 3. Age of criminal responsibility 4. Inferences as to intent 5. Automatism Offences committed outside the Falkland Islands 6. Offences committed partly outside the Falkland Islands 7. Offences to which sections 8 to 13 apply 8. Jurisdiction in respect of Group A offences 9. Questions immaterial to jurisdiction in the case of certain offences 10. Rules relating to the location of events 11. Conspiracy and encouraging 12. Extended jurisdiction in relation to certain attempts 13. Relevance of external law Alternative verdicts 14. Conviction of offence other than that charged 1 15. Person tried for offence may be convicted of ancillary offence Miscellaneous 16. Proceedings by and against spouses 17. Application of Ordinance to corporations 18. No requirement for corroboration PART 3 – ANCILLARY OFFENCES Attempts 19. Attempts generally 20. Application of procedural and other provisions to offences of attempt 21. Procedural rules 22. Effect of sections 19 to 21 on common law Conspiracy 23. Conspiracy 24. Conspiracy to commit offences outside the Falkland Islands 25. Exemptions from liability 26. Penalties 27. Restrictions on the commencement of proceedings 28. Conspiracy under other enactments 29. Effect of acquittal of other defendant 30. Abolitions, savings, transitional provisions Encouragement of offences 31. Offence of encouragement 32. Proving an offence under section 31 33. Supplemental provisions 34. Defences 35. Jurisdiction 36. Extended jurisdiction in certain cases 37. Commencement of proceedings, etc. for an offence 38.
  • Separation of Powers Perspective on Pinochet, A

    Separation of Powers Perspective on Pinochet, A

    A SEPARATION OF POWERS PERSPECTIVE ON PINOCHET Frank Sullivan, Jr.*, INTRODUCTION On October 16, 1998, the former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, was in London undergoing medical treatment. He was arrested at the request of Spanish authorities who sought his extradition to Spain for trial on charges of human rights abuses (torture, murder, and hostage-taking) allegedly committed while he ruled Chile. Prior to any decision having been made by the U.K. government as to extradition, Pinochet himself sought a writ of habeas corpus from the U.K. courts. Pinochet, supported by Chile, argued in part that he was entitled to immunity as a former head of state under U.K. statutory law. Spain responded in part that under principles of international law, Pinochet was not entitled to the statutory immunity he claimed. On October 28, 1998, a three-judge divisional court held that he enjoyed immunity but refused to allow him to return to Chile pending appeal.' On November 25, 1998, the country's court of last resort, the Appellate Commit- tee of the House of Lords, reversed the divisional court and held that Pinochet was not immune.2 On December 17, 1998, however, the House of Lords reversed itself and vacated its first decision on grounds that one of the judges (Lord Hoffmann) who had participated in it had an impermissible conflict of * Justice, Indiana Supreme Court. LL.M., University of Virginia School of Law (2001); J.D., Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington (1982); A.B., Dartmouth College (1972). ** This article is based on a thesis submitted to fulfill a portion of the requirements of the University of Virginia Law School's LL.M.
  • UK Law on Genocide (And Related Crimes) and Redress for Torture Victims

    UK Law on Genocide (And Related Crimes) and Redress for Torture Victims

    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights Closing the Impunity Gap: UK law on genocide (and related crimes) and redress for torture victims Twenty–fourth Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes and oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 21 July 2009 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 July 2009 HL Paper 153 HC 553 Published on 11 August 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Bowness John Austin MP (Labour, Erith & Thamesmead) Lord Dubs Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) (Chairman) Lord Lester of Herne Hill Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Lord Morris of Handsworth OJ Abingdon) The Earl of Onslow Mr Virendra Sharma MP (Labour, Ealing, Southall) Baroness Prashar Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills) Mr Edward Timpson MP (Conservative, Crewe & Nantwich) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
  • Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

    Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]

    Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL] EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, are published separately as Bill 103—EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Mr Pat McFadden has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL] are compatible with the Convention rights. Bill 103 54/3 Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL] CONTENTS PART 1 THE LOCAL BETTER REGULATION OFFICE Establishment of LBRO 1 LBRO 2 Dissolution of the LBRO company Definitions 3 “Local authority” 4“Relevant function” General functions of LBRO 5 Objective relating to general functions 6 Guidance to local authorities 7 Guidance to local authorities: enforcement 8 Financial support and assistance to local authorities 9 Advice to Ministers of the Crown 10 Advice to Welsh Ministers Function relating to enforcement priorities 11 Enforcement priorities Matters relating to exercise of LBRO’s functions 12 Relationship with other regulators 13 Duty not to impose burdens etc 14 Ancillary powers Ministerial powers in relation to LBRO 15 Guidance or directions by the Secretary of State 16 Guidance or directions by Welsh Ministers Bill 103 54/3 ii Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL] Supplementary and general 17 Review of LBRO 18 Power to dissolve LBRO 19 Dissolution of LBRO: tax 20 Orders under Part 1 21 Interpretation of Part 1 PART 2 CO-ORDINATION OF REGULATORY
  • Liberty, Law and Justice

    Liberty, Law and Justice

    THE HAMLYN LECTURES Thirtieth Series LIBERTY, LAW AND JUSTICE Sir Norman Anderson I STEVENS 1 LIBERTY, LAW AND JUSTICE by SIR NORMAN ANDERSON O.B.E., Q.C., LL.D., F.B.A. formerly Professor of Oriental Laws and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London The concepts of liberty, law and justice, and the extent to which they serve to guarantee individual freedoms, form the central theme of the 1978 Hamlyn Lectures. Sir Norman Anderson examines the legal framework within which fundamental rights may be exercised in an important contribution to current discussion. Divided into four lectures, the work commences with an analysis of the relation of law to individual liberty today. In the second lecture, the author weighs up the prospect of incorporating a Bill of Rights into the Constitution of the United Kingdom. He looks at the American Constitution and considers the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention. Anti-discrimination legislation is explored next. Enactment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 aroused sharp controversy and the likely effectiveness of these measures remains problematic. In a detailed exposition of the back- ground to these statutes, comments of many leading authorities are reviewed. Limitation of human rights is dealt with in the final lecture. The degree of freedom enjoyed by Britain's Press is compared with that obtaining in the United States. There is a survey of the much-criticised Official Secrets Acts and forthright views are offered on a wide range of censorship questions.
  • Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät DNA-Datenbankgesetzgebung

    Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät DNA-Datenbankgesetzgebung

    Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät _____________________________________________________________________________________ DNA-Datenbankgesetzgebung - Eine rechtsvergleichende Analyse unter Berücksichtigung des Spannungsverhältnisses zwischen der Effizienz der Strafver- folgung und den Anforderungen an den Schutz der Pri- vatsphäre von Qin, Jing aus Linfen, Provinz Shanxi, China Freiburg, September 2012 1 Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde an der Rechtwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau Jing Qin, Freiburg Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 19.11.2012 Dekan: Prof. Dr. Alexander Bruns Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Thomas Würtenberger Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Silja Vöneky 2 Vorwort Die vorliegende Arbeit wurde im November des Wintersemesters 2012/13 von der juris- tischen Fakultät der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg als Dissertation ange-nommen. Gesetze, Rechtsprechung und Schrifttum befinden sich im Wesentlichen auf dem Stand vom Mai 2012. Danken möchte ich an erster Stelle meinem Doktorvater Prof. Dr. Thomas Wür- ten-berger, der die Entstehung der Arbeit durch wertvolle Anregungen sowie den nötigen Freiraum gefördert hat. Während meines LL.M-Studiums und meiner Promotion hat er stets mit Rat und Tat zur Seite gestanden und ich bin davon überzeugt, dass seine Be- rufseinstellung, Nettigkeit und Geduld mein zukünftiges Arbeitsleben tief und dauerhaft prägen werden. Für die zügige Entstehung des Zweitgutachtens danke ich Frau Professo- rin Dr. Vöneky. Besonderer Dank gilt meinen Mentor Richter
  • Ending Impunity in the United Kingdom for Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Torture and Other Crimes Under International Law

    Ending Impunity in the United Kingdom for Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Torture and Other Crimes Under International Law

    Ending Impunity in the United Kingdom for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and other crimes under international law The urgent need to strengthen universal jurisdiction legislation and to enforce it vigorously July 2008 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3 II. INCLUSION OF CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND DEFENCES IN NATIONAL LAW ..................................................................... 5 A. Universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes in a non-international conflict ........................6 B. Universal jurisdiction over genocide ...........................................................................................................................................8 C. The problem of command and superior responsibility for international crimes under international law ...............9 D. Universal jurisdiction over torture – impermissible defences.......................................................................................... 12 III. THE FAILURE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM TO DEFINE CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AS CRIMES FROM THE MOMENT THEY WERE RECOGNISED AS SUCH............................. 13 IV. THE FLAWED SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS................................................ 14 A. The need for an effective specialised investigation and prosecution unit .....................................................................