DOCSLIB.ORG

CCRC Criminal• Cases • Review• Commission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CCRC Criminal• Cases • Review• Commission CCRC Criminal• cases • Review• Commission JUSTICE COMMITTEE FOLLOW UP THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION * THE COMMISSION'S WORKING PRACTICES We Are Listening The Criminal Cases Review Commission is always listening to its stakeholders and critics. We are a constantly evolving organisation, still a mere teenager - born 1997 - in real terms, and sometimes we will make mistakes, but we are always willing to learn and are incessantly driven to improve. We are independent We are led by a body of Commissioners with several lifetimes' accumulated experience at the highest levels of criminal justice and beyond. They are the decision-makers in all our cases. They have been chosen for their independence and their rigour and they are no soft option for the Court of Appeal, the police, the CPS, the Ministry of Justice or anyone else. The Commissioners work closely with, amongst others, a team of well trained and highly experienced Case Review Managers. They are supported by two former senior police officers as Investigations Advisers and an Investigator. Together they bring commitment and dedication to our investigations and a passionate belief in our core values. We were set up to right wrongs and that is what they aim to do, without fear or favour. Every one of them has a desk and a mountain of papers, but they are not detained there, passing cases from the in tray to the out tray. We could not disagree more strongly with Mr Maddocks that we lack courage or forthrightness and do not dig deep enough. We have an idealistic belief in our independence but that does not blind us to the legal hurdles we have to overcome. They were not set by us. They were defined by Parliament and the courts. We are fulfilling our role as defined by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 We would argue that the 1995 Act does precisely what Dr Naughton says it doesn't when he questions whether we are carrying out the role that was envisaged by Parliament: an independent body to correct miscarriages of justice and restore confidence in the judicial system. The terms of the Act clearly assert Parliament's intention and enshrine our independence. 1 Nor is that just our own view. In a recent presentation to INUK itself, Professor Michael Zander, generally regarded as the doyenne of academic lawyers (and himself a member of the original (Runciman) Commission) told INUK that the statutory test we are required to operate is, indeed, in his viE)w the right test and that the CCRC is, indeed, independent of the Court of Appeal in the way that Runciman intended. The Act sets out the legal framework within which we operate. Of course there must be a framework for assessing the merits of cases, but that does not mean we are beholden to the Court of Appeal. We are circumscribed by the law, not by our anxiety to please the Court of Appeal. We make our own decisions, within the law, we refer cases where we think it is right to do so. We are an investigative body We go out and make inquiries. We question and challenge evidence and are determined in our pursuit of answers and explanations. We instruct experts, we interrogate the findings of forensic scientists, we send the police out on our behalf when we need their help. We track down old lawyers, witnesses, even sometimes jurors, and ask, what really happened? We are always asking that same question. Detailed, thorough, painstaking investigative work is not an occasional addition to paper-pushing, it is the essence of who we are and what we do. We never "rubber stamp" cases to the Court·of Appeal We always, without exception, conduct our own reviews and inquiries, sometimes directing the police to investigate on our behalf, under section 19 of the 1995 Act. There are numerous examples of cases we have referred to the Court of Appeal based on points not raised by our applicants that we ourselves uncovered. Recent examples would be: The case of V: Conviction for rape -We identified that the complainant's account to the police of events of the Monday morning had, at trial, been incorporated into her evidenpe of events of the Tuesday morning of the rape, giving the impression that she had been unable to prevent or properly recall the assault because of the mix of alcohol, cannabis and prescription medication she had taken. The jury had queried this aspect of the evidence, but had then been mis-directed by the judge. The case of P: Convictions for rape and other sexual offences-We identified that the medical findings did not in fact support the allegations and we also identified, from background checks, evidence relating to the complainant and her father that both undermined their credibilitY and supported the defence case. The case of B: Conviction for robbery- We identified that the police had not disclosed 5 photographs of B that demonstrated the consistency of his appearance and differences between him and the descriptions of the suspect and we also identified that the circumstances of a street identification (which 2 had a bearing on the reliability of the identification evidence) had not been fully recorded by the police or explored at trial. We are always active and engaged Just this past week we: • Had a six hour meeting with the family of an applicant to update them on our long running investigations in a high profile murder which many believe to be a travesty of justice. The case involves a complex re-examination of forensic evidence using the latest technology. • Met with Mark Ellison QC who has been looking into the actions of the Metropolitan Police Special Demonstrations Squad and the possibility that these may have caused miscarriages of justice, along with officials from the Attorney General's Office, the CPS, the Police and other agencies. One issue is the extent to which these cases are individual and historic or how far they may point to more widespread problem. • Attended prisons and police stations, talked to applicants, interviewed lawyers, met stakeholders, and referred at least one case to the Court of Appeal after many months of inquiries. · We interview applicants as often as we can This week, as in all weeks, we reviewed and closed many cases that were going nowhere, while planning and progressing inquiries in our more active investigations. We have a balanced caseload but too many cases - that is our burden, the price we have paid for being so accessible, for increased demand and an effectively reduced budget. Our queues are a major source of concern to us at present. We are determined to get them d9wn to acceptable levels and expect to make further progress in the next few months. Meanwhile, our caseload means we cannot meet face to face everyone who asks us for our help. We see applicants where we think that a face to face meeting will make a real difference. We are always ready to see vulnerable applicants or, indeed, any applicants who for whatever reason have real difficulty putting their case into words on the page. We use translators and/or interpreters, where appropriate, to help our applicants make their best case to us. We cannot ignore the value of the case papers as the core materials of our work and these often turn up in multiple volumes which need meticulous perusal- as we know the devil is in the detail- but that will often be merely the springboard to further investigations or inquiries. 3 We try not to keep our applicants waiting too long Respondents commenting on the time taken to process applications held different views, with one saying that the timescale was immaterial and others criticising the Commission for being too slow. · There are two distinct issues, in our view. The first is the time that applicants wait before we begin our review of their case, the second being how long we take to complete a review and make a decision once the review has begun. We are not in the least complacent about these aspects of our performance and are continually looking at ways to improve our efficiency, whilst maintaining high quality. In 2012, in line with our commitment to improve access to justice, we reviewed our application procedure and introduced EasyRead. Since then, we have experienced an unprecedented increase in the number of applications, which has significantly increased the length of time applicants have to wait before their cases can be reviewed. We are nevertheless seeking to reduce the waiting time for applicants. Over the last six months we have, due to the recent increase in our resources, been able to employ more staff who are now fully operational and carrying a full workload. We are also considering our approach to cases where applicants have not previously made representations to the appeal courts, with a view to dealing with these cases more expeditiously. The balance to be struck between speed and thoroughness is always a difficult one. A significant proportion of cases reviewed by the Commission are exceedingly complex and those cases require much painstaking work, often involving other agencies and possibly the instruction of experts. Often the cases are a number of years old before they reach us and sometimes we have difficulty in locating the necessary case materials. The work, if it is done properly, will always take time. Many of these cases have a long history and take time to unravel. Also, one of the most common causes of long-running reviews is applicants themselves requesting us to undertake more work, or telling us new things, often well after the review has begun.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Hearsay and Related Topics
    Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS A Consultation Paper LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 138 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 Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. This Consultation Paper, completed for publication on 11 May 1995, 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 October 1995. All correspondence should be addressed to: Ms C Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WClN 2BQ (Tel: 0171- 453 1232) (Fax: 0171- 453 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 Law Commission Consultation Paper No 138 Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS
    [Show full text]
  • Correcting Injustice: Studying How the United Kingdom and The
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2009 Correcting Injustice: Studying How the United Kingdom and the United States Review Claims of Innocence Lissa Griffin Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Lissa Griffin,or C recting Injustice: Studying How the United Kingdom and the United States Review Claims of Innocence, 41 U. Tol. L. Rev. 107 (2009), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/653/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CORRECTING INJUSTICE: STUDYING HOW THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES REVIEW CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE Lissa Griffin* ' "England and America are two countries [separated] by a common language." JN the United States, the problem of wrongful convictions continues to Lelude a solution.2 Many approaches to the problem have been suggested, and some have been tried. Legislators,3 professional organizations,4 and 5 scholars have suggested various systemic changes to improve the accuracy of6 the adjudication process and to correct wrongful convictions after they occur. Despite these efforts, the demanding standard of review used by U.S. courts, combined with strict retroactivity rules, a refusal to consider newly discovered * Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Faction 5.3 Final
    Innocent? Guilty? All the same to me Following mistakes surrounding Savile & Rotherham, CPS officials decide to widen their net to include the innocent " FACT Helpline: 0843 289 2016 Page 1 Autumn 2014 Autumn Edition 2014 Cover Photo: The Web Helpline & Contact Details - Page 2 new Research Projects - Page 3 FACTually Speaking - Page 4 Annual General Meeting Reports - Page 6 AGM Difficulties Faced by the Factually Innocent in Overturning their Convictions by Dr Stephanie Roberts - Page 13 The Challenge of Maintaining Innocence under Pressure by Alex Standish - Page 17 Diary Dates 2014-15 - Page 22 Justice: An Education Law by Arthur Clennam - Page 23 new Introducing the Members of FACT ‘s Advisory Group - Page 26 Better Together - Page 32 FACT Helpline: 0843 289 2016 Page 2 Autumn 2014 FACTion FACTion is published four times each year and is available free-of-charge to online readers. Paper copies are available to members/associates for which we request a contribution of £10 per annum to cover the cost of printing & postage. Hard copies are available free to serving and former falsely accused prisoners. Please contact the Secretary (address below) for full details. As well as those who have suffered miscarriages of justice, we welcome enquiries from anyone interested in and/or supportive of our work, including academics, lawyers, politicians, journalists, students and any professional in- volved in the care of children and vulnerable adults. We invite original articles, poetry, cartoons, letters, obituaries, &c. for publication. Items must be copyright-free or have the owner’s written permission to publish. Submissions are included at the sole discretion of the Editor.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Communications Office
    Judicial Communications Office 15 January 2021 COURT DISMISSES APPEAL BY CHRISTINE CONNOR AND INCREASES SENTENCE Summary of Judgment The Court of Appeal1 today dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence by Christine Connor in respect of the offences of attempted murder of a police officer and causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property. It also increased her sentence from 20 to 25 years imprisonment. Introduction On 29 July 2020, following a non-jury trial, Christine Connor (“the appellant”) was convicted of the following offences: • The preparation of terrorist acts between 1 February and 30 May 2013 contrary to section 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006; • Causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property on 16 May 2013 contrary to section 2 of the Explosives Substances Act 1883; • Causing an explosion on 28 May 2013 contrary to the same statutory provision; and • The attempted murder of a police officer on 28 May 2013 contrary to Article 3(1) of the Criminal Law Attempts and Conspiracy (NI Order 1983 and common law. On 20 August 2020 the appellant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment plus an extended period on licence of four years. She appealed against her convictions for the offences of attempted murder of a police officer and causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property. She also appealed against the sentence imposed. The Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) also referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal maintaining that it was unduly lenient.
    [Show full text]
  • Northumbria Research Link
    Northumbria Research Link Citation: Dargue, Paul (2019) The Safety of Convictions in the Court of Appeal: Fresh Evidence in the Criminal Division through an Empirical Lens. Journal of Criminal Law, 83 (6). pp. 433-449. ISSN 0022-0183 Published by: SAGE URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018319877982 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018319877982> This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/38385/ Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. Single copies of full items can be reproduced, displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder. The full policy is available online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/policies.html This document may differ from the final, published version of the research and has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies. To read and/or cite from the published version of the research, please visit the publisher’s website (a subscription may be required.) The Safety of Convictions in the Court of Appeal: Fresh Evidence in the Criminal Division through an Empirical Lens Paul Dargue Keywords: Court of Appeal; Criminal Appeals; Fresh Evidence; Empirical Legal Studies; Judicial Decision-Making.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMONWEALTH of the BAHAMAS in the COURT of APPEAL Sccrapp
    COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SCCrApp. No. 79 of 2015 B E T W E E N VALENTINO BETHEL Intended Appellant AND REGINA Intended Respondent BEFORE: The Honourable Dame Anita Allen, P The Honourable Mr. Justice Isaacs, JA The Honourable Ms. Justice Crane-Scott, JA APPEARANCES: Christina Galanos, Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Terry Archer, Counsel for the Respondent DATES: 29 October, 2015; 8 May 2016; 8 June 2016; 20 June 2016; 29 June 2016; 24 October 2017; 28 November 2017; 14 December 2017 *************************************** Criminal appeal – Extension of time – Length of delay – Reasons for delay – Prospects of success – Prejudice to the respondent - Murder – Armed robbery – Conspiracy to commit armed robbery – DNA – Lurking doubt The intended appellant was sentenced on 22 January 2015 to 40 years’ imprisonment on his conviction for murder; 25 years’ imprisonment for his conviction of armed robbery; and 15 years’ imprisonment for his conviction of conspiracy to commit armed robbery. He now applies for an extension of time within which to appeal those convictions. His application was filed on 1 April 2015 and supported by an affidavit filed over two years later on 21 November 2017. Held: application refused; convictions and sentences affirmed. When considering whether an extension of time ought to be granted four factors are to be considered; namely, the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the prospects of success of the appeal and any prejudice which the intended respondent may suffer. In the present case, more than two years elapsed before the intended appellant put himself in the position to move his application for leave; and no explanation is made for that period of delay.
    [Show full text]
  • Faulty Adversarial Performance by Criminal Defenders in the Crown Court
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2001 Faulty Adversarial Performance by Criminal Defenders in the Crown Court Peter W. Tague Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/241 12 King's C. L.J. 137-173 (2001) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons GEORGETOWN LAW Faculty Publications February 2010 Faulty Adversarial Performance by Criminal Defenders in the Crown Court 12 King’s C. L.J. 137-173 (2001) Peter W. Tague Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center [email protected] This paper can be downloaded without charge from: Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/241/ Posted with permission of the author (2001) 12 KCL] 137 PETER W. TAGUE* FAULTY ADVERSARlAL PERFORMANCE BY CRIMINAL DEFENDERS IN THE CROWN COURT " x THO IS the more able advocate, the lawyer in the United States or the barrister V V in England and Wales?! Answering that question is extremely difficult because of a multitude of differences in the procedural regimes in which each works and in the scope of each's responsibility.2 Yet, one facet stands out, like a full moon in a dark sky: The comparative number of defenders who on appeal have been accused ofhav­ ing provided inappropriate representation in the process leading to conviction.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Official Report
    Vol. 808 Tuesday No. 149 24 November 2020 PARLIAMENTARYDEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDEROFBUSINESS Questions Adult Learning: Union Learning Fund..........................................................................121 Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme: Spending .......................125 LGBT Community: Domestic Abuse .............................................................................128 Ministerial Code.............................................................................................................131 Tigray Conflict Private Notice Question ..................................................................................................134 Fixed-Term Parliaments Act Committee Membership Motion........................................................................................................139 Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Order 2020 Motion to Approve ..........................................................................................................140 Fire Safety Bill Third Reading .................................................................................................................140 Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill Committee (1st Day)......................................................................................................145 Covid-19: Winter Plan Statement .......................................................................................................................213
    [Show full text]
  • The Innocence Checklist
    THE INNOCENCE CHECKLIST Carrie Leonetti* ABSTRACT Because true innocence is unknowable, scholars who study wrongful convic- tions and advocates who seek to vindicate the innocent must use proxies for inno- cence. Court processes or of®cial recognition of innocence are the primary proxy for innocence in research databases of exonerees. This Article offers an innova- tive alternative to this process-based proxy: a substantive checklist of factors that indicates a likely wrongful conviction, derived from empirical and jurispru- dential sources. Notably, this checklist does not rely on of®cial recognition of innocence for its objectivity or validity. Instead the checklist aggregates myriad indicators of innocence: factors known to contribute to wrongful convictions; rules of professional conduct; innocence-project intake criteria; prosecutorial conviction-integrity standards; and jurisprudence governing when convictions must be overturned because of fresh evidence or constitutional violations. A checklist based on articulated, uniformly applicable criteria is preferable to the more subjective and less regulated decisionmaking of judges and prosecutors who determine innocence using an of®cial exoneration methodology. Only a con- ception of innocence independent of of®cial exoneration can provide the neces- sary support for reform of barriers to more fruitful postconviction review mechanisms. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 99 I. BACKGROUND: THE INNOCENCE MOVEMENT .................... 100 A. Known Causes of Wrongful
    [Show full text]
  • Building Institutions to Address Miscarriages of Justice in England and Wales: “Mission Accomplished?”
    University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume 80 Issue 4 Article 13 September 2013 Building Institutions to Address Miscarriages of Justice in England and Wales: “Mission Accomplished?” Carole McCartney Stephanie Roberts Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr Recommended Citation Carole McCartney and Stephanie Roberts, Building Institutions to Address Miscarriages of Justice in England and Wales: “Mission Accomplished?”, 80 U. Cin. L. Rev. (2013) Available at: https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/uclr/vol80/iss4/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Cincinnati Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Cincinnati College of Law Scholarship and Publications. For more information, please contact [email protected]. McCartney and Roberts: Building Institutions to Address Miscarriages of Justice in Engla BUILDING INSTITUTIONS TO ADDRESS MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES: ‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’? Carole McCartney* & Stephanie Roberts**† ABSTRACT The revelation of miscarriages of justice can lead a criminal justice system to a crisis point, which can be capitalized upon to engineer legal reforms. In England and Wales, these reforms have included the establishment of three bodies: the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the Forensic Regulator. With differing remits, these institutions are all intended to address miscarriages of justice. After outlining the genesis of these bodies, we question whether these three institutions are achieving their specific goals. This Article then outlines the benefits accrued from the establishment of these bodies and the controversies that surround their operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Correcting Injustice: Studying How the United Kingdom and the United States Review Claims of Innocence
    Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 2009 Correcting Injustice: Studying How the United Kingdom and the United States Review Claims of Innocence Lissa Griffin Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Criminal Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Lissa Griffin, Correcting Injustice: Studying How the United Kingdom and the United States Review Claims of Innocence, 41 U. Tol. L. Rev. 107 (2009), http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/653/. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CORRECTING INJUSTICE: STUDYING HOW THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES REVIEW CLAIMS OF INNOCENCE Lissa Griffin* ' "England and America are two countries [separated] by a common language." JN the United States, the problem of wrongful convictions continues to Lelude a solution.2 Many approaches to the problem have been suggested, and some have been tried. Legislators,3 professional organizations,4 and 5 scholars have suggested various systemic changes to improve the accuracy of6 the adjudication process and to correct wrongful convictions after they occur. Despite these efforts, the demanding standard of review used by U.S. courts, combined with strict retroactivity rules, a refusal to consider newly discovered * Professor of Law, Pace University School of Law. The author wishes to thank John Wagstaff, Legal Adviser to the Criminal Cases Review Commission; Laurie Elks, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in the United States of America and the United Kingdom
    TRULY INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE: A COMPARISON OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM I. INTRODUCTION Both the United States of America and the United Kingdom' have adopted standards to curb miscarriages of justice resulting from ineffective assistance of counsel.2 Yet, both countries' 3 efforts have fallen short of solving 1. See U.S. Department of State: Background Note: United Kingdom, available at http:llwww.state.govlrlpalei/bgn/3846.htm (last visited Aug. 11, 2002) [hereinafter United Kingdom]. Official name: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. See id. The United Kingdom consists of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. See, e.g., Sarah Carter, Update to A Guide of the UK Legal System, at http://www.llrx.comifeatures/uk2 .htm (last visited Aug. 11, 2002) [hereinafter Update]. The government is a constitutional monarchy. See United Kingdom. Originally, Scotland and Wales were independent kingdoms that resisted British rule. See i. Wales was conquered in 1282, but it was not until 1536 that an act completed its political and administrative union with England. See id. Beginning in 1603, England and Scotland were ruled under one crown, but kept separate parliaments. See id. It was not until 1707 that England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain. See id. A legislative union between Ireland and Great Britain was completed in 1801. See id. The union had been preceded by centuries of battles between England and the Irish for control of Ireland. See United Kingdom. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish Free State, in which part of Ireland left the United Kingdom and became a republic after World War II.
    [Show full text]