DOCSLIB.ORG

Criminal Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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 .......... 2.17-2.22 13 (iii) Other criminal offences ..... 2.23 15 (iv) Conclusions ......... 2.24-2.25 16 (c) Possible liability for false evidence not given on oath ........... 2.26-2.29 17 (d) Definition of judicial proceedings ... 2.30-2.42 19 (e) Summary ............ 2.43 24 2 . The meaning of evidence ........ 2.44-2.47 24 (a) Oral evidence .......... 2.44 24 (6) Documentary evidence ....... 2.45-2.46 25 (c) Recommendations ......... 2.47 26 3 . Competence of the court ........ 2.48 26 4 . The nature of the statement ....... 2.49-2.63 26 (a) Materiality ........... 2.50-2.53 26 (6) Perjury by true statements ...... 2.54-2.5 6 27 (c) Contradictory statements by persons giving evidence on oath ....... 2.57-2.61 28 (d) Corroboration .......... 2.62-2.63 30 5 . Mental element ........... 2.64-2.67 31 (a) The present law and working paper proposals ............ 2.64-2.65 31 ... 111 Paragraph Page (b) Recommendations ......... 2.66-2.6 7 31 6 . Extraterritorial considerations ...... 2.68-2,82 32 (a) Evidence taken in England and Wales for judicialproceedingsabroad ..... 2.69-2.73 32 (b) Evidence taken abroad for judicial pro- CeedingsinEnglandand Wales .... 2.74-2.76 34 (c) Evidence given in other parts of the United Kingdom ......... 2.77 35 (d) Other provisions ......... 2.78-2.82 .36 7 . Miscellaneous provisions ........ 2.83-2.89 38 (a) Interpreters ........... 2.84 38 (b) Power of the court to order prosecutions 2.85 38 (e) Form and substance of indictments for perjury ............. 2.86 39 (d) Certificateofproceedings ...... 2.87 39 (e) Children ............ 2.88-2.89 40 8. Repeals and abolitions ......... 2.90-2.93 41 C . SUMMARY OF KECOMMENDATIONS . 2.94 42 PART 111: OTHER OFFENCES I A . THE PRESENT LAW .......... 3.1-3.18 43 1. Introduction ............ 3.1-3.2 43 2 . Common Law offences ........ 3.3-3.10 44 (a) Perverting the course ofjustice .... 3.3-3.5 44 (b) Other commonlaw offences ..... 3.6-3.7 45 (c) Contempt of court ......... 3.8-3.10 46 3 . Statutory offences .......... 3.1 1-3.17 47 (a) False formal statements ....... 3.12 47 (b) Criminal Law Act 1967 ....... 3.13-3.16 47 (c) Other statutoryoffences ...... 3.17 481 4 . Statistics .............. 3.18 49 B . CODIFICATIONANDREFORM ..... 3.19-3.138 52 I 1. General .............. 3.19-3.28 52 (a) The scope of judicial proceedings ... 3.22-3.27 53 (i) Application to proceedings other thancourtproceedings ..... 3.23 53 (ii) Consideration of the scope of judicialproceedings ...... 3.24-3.26 53 (iii) Recommendation ....... 3.27 54 (6) The mental element ........ 3.28 55 2 . Offences relating to civil and criminal proceedings ............. 3.29-3.79 55 (a) Fabricating or tampering with evidence . 3.29-3.33 55 iv Pa ragrap h Page (b) Preventing evidence or proceedings . 3.34-3.48 56 (i) Preventing the giving of evidence . 3.36-3.4 1 57 (ii) Blackmail to prevent proceedings . 3.42-3.4 7 60 (c) Offences in relation to members of a court . 3.49-3.5 7 62 (i) Influencing the decision in judicial proceedings . 3.50-3.5 2 62 (2) Misconduct as a member of a jury or tribunal . 3.53-3.5 5 64 (iii) Impersonating a member of a jury . 3.5 6-3.5 7 64 (d) Offences recommended by the Phitlimore Committee . 3.5 8-3.75 65 (i) Taking reprisals . 3.5 8-3.63 65 (ii) Publishing false allegations as to corrupt judicial conduct . 3.64-3.70 67 (iii) Supplementary offences . 3.7 1-3.75 68 (e) Publishing matter with intent to pervert justice . 3.76-3.79 71 3. Offences relating to criminal proceedings and investigation . 3.80-3.122 72 (a) Introduction . 3.80-3.83 72 (b) General considerations . ; . 3.84-3.90 73 (c) False statements to the police . 3.9 1-3.102 76 (i) False information in a formal writ- ten statement . 3.94-3.96 77 (ii) Falsely implicating an innocent person . 3.97 78 (iii) False admission of an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1972 . 3.98-3.101 79 (d) Other conduct interfering with investigations , . 3.103-3.114 80 (i) Threats and bribes to induce the withholding of information . 3.104-3.107 81 (ii) Threats and bribes to secure the giving of false information . 3.108 82 (iii) Other ways of impeding investigations . 3.109-3.113 82 (e) Impersonating adefendant . 3.115 85 v) Inducing a plea of guilty or not guilty by threat or payment . 3.116-3.119 85 (g> Avoiding trial . 3.120-3.122 87 4. Corroboration . 3.123-3.124 88 5. Terrritorial jurisdiction . 3.125-3.13 1 88 6. Abolitions, repeals and amendments . 3.132-3.138 91 (a) Common law offences . 3.13 2-3.13 7 91 (b) Statutory offences . 3.138 92 C. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS . 3.139-3.143 93 V Paragraph Page PART IV: PROCEDURE AND PENALTIES A. CONSENT REQUIRED FOR PROSECUTION 4.1-4.5 97 B. CONVICTION OF ALTERNATIVE OFFENCE . , 4.6-4.7 98. C. THE EFFECT OF AN OFFENCE UPON OTHER PROCEEDINGS . 4.8-4.10 99 D. PENALTIESANDMODEOFTRIAL . 4.1 1-4.25 99 1. Penalties . 4.1 1-4.2 1 99 (a) Perjuryandalliedoffences. 4.12 100 (b) Other offences . 4.13-4.21 100 (i) Imprisonment . , . 4.14-4.16 100 (ii) Monetary penalties . 4.17-4.20 102 (iii) Professional or other disqualification . 4.21 103 2. _Modeof trial . 4.22-4.24 103 (a) Perjuryandalliedoffences. 4.22 103 (b) The other offences . , . 4.23-4.24 104 E. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS . 4.25 104 PART V: CUMULATIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS . 5.1-5.5 106 APPENDIXA Draft Administration of Justice (Of- fences) Bill with Explanatory Notes 116 APPENDIXB Organisations and individuals who com- mented on the Law Commission’s Work- ing Paper No. 33, “Perjury and Kindred Offences”. 204 APPENDIXC Organisations and Individuals who com- mented on the Law Commission’s Work- ing Paper No. 62, “Offences relating to the Administration of Justice”. 205 vi THE LAW COMMISSION Item XVIII of the Second Programme CRIMINAL LAW OFFENCES RELATING TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE COURSE OF JUSTICE To the Right Honourable the Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, C.H., Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report deals with offences relating to interference with the course of justice including perjury and makes recommendations for the reform and codification of the law in this field. A draft Bill, which would give effect to those recommendations which require legislation, is attached’. 1.2 In our Second Programme of Law Reform2 we recommended a comprehensive examination of the criminal law with a view to its codification. Our Report on Conspiracy and Criminal Law Ref~rm,~which was a part of that examination, recommended that for the future the crime of conspiracy should, with some temporary exceptions, be limited to agreements to commit a crime, and this recommendation has become law.4 That recommendation made it necessary to examine certain areas of the law where gaps would be left by the limitation of conspiracy to conspiracy to commit an offence; where such gaps were revealed, it became necessary to consider whether and if so what new substantive offences were required. 1.3 ,One of these areas was that’relating to the administration of justice. In Workikg Paper No. 625 we examined offences relating to interference with the course of justice and reached the conclusion that there was a common law offence of perverting the course of justice which was of wide and uncertain ambit, and which could be committed by one person without any requirement of conspiracy.6 Consultation confirmed our conclusion. We were therefore able to say in our -Report on Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform’ that the restriction of conspiracy to conspiracy to commit an offence would not result in any narrowing of the law relating to interference with the course of justice.
Recommended publications
  • British Deficiencies in Relation to American Clarity in International Anti-Corruption Law

    British Deficiencies in Relation to American Clarity in International Anti-Corruption Law

    GREASING THE WHEELS: BRITISH DEFICIENCIES IN RELATION TO AMERICAN CLARITY IN INTERNATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION LAW Todd Swanson* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. CORRUPTION: A ROUTINE PRACTICE, BUT NOT FOR LONG ...... 399 II. AMERICA'S CORRUPTION LEGACY: FROM NIXON'S SHAME TO CLINTON'S TRIUMPH ................................... 402 A. Watergate: Tricky Dick Opens America's Eyes and Congress Reacts .................................... 402 B. Clinton 's Less Noted, but ImportantLegacy: Making InternationalAnti-Corruption Law a Priority ............. 403 C. Building InternationalConsensus: Other International OrganizationsBegin to Make Law ...................... 405 D. The Capstone of the InternationalAnti-Bribery Movement: The OECD Convention ............................... 406 E. Making Sure States Keep Their Promises: The OECD Working Group on Anti-Bribery in International Business Transactions ............................... 407 III. AGREE TO DISAGREE: AMERICAN AND BRITISH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OECD CONVENTION .............. 408 A. The United States' FightAgainst Corruption: The Foreign CorruptPractices Act and American Implementation of the OECD Convention ................ 408 1. Who Cannot Offer Bribes Under FCPA? .............. 408 2. Who Must One Bribe to Be Convicted Under the F CPA ? ......................................... 409 3. What Acts Constitute Bribes Under the FCPA? ......... 410 * J.D., University of Georgia School of Law, 2007; Certificate of European Law Studies from the Universit6 Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium, 2005; B.S., Psychology, B.A., Political Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 2004. To my parents-thank you for all the love and support. GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. [Vol. 35:397 4. What Level of Intent Is Required by the FCPA? ......... 411 5. Affirmative Defenses Under the FCPA ................ 412 6. Complicity in Bribery as Covered Under U.S. Law ...... 413 7. What Sanctions Do Violators of the FCPA Face? ......
  • PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (C

    PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (C

    PUBLIC RECORDS ACT 1958 (c. 51)i, ii An Act to make new provision with respect to public records and the Public Record Office, and for connected purposes. [23rd July 1958] General responsibility of the Lord Chancellor for public records. 1. - (1) The direction of the Public Record Office shall be transferred from the Master of the Rolls to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor shall be generally responsible for the execution of this Act and shall supervise the care and preservation of public records. (2) There shall be an Advisory Council on Public Records to advise the Lord Chancellor on matters concerning public records in general and, in particular, on those aspects of the work of the Public Record Office which affect members of the public who make use of the facilities provided by the Public Record Office. The Master of the Rolls shall be chairman of the said Council and the remaining members of the Council shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on such terms as he may specify. [(2A) The matters on which the Advisory Council on Public Records may advise the Lord Chancellor include matters relating to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information contained in public records which are historical records within the meaning of Part VI of that Act.iii] (3) The Lord Chancellor shall in every year lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the work of the Public Record Office, which shall include any report made to him by the Advisory Council on Public Records.
  • Imagereal Capture

    Imagereal Capture

    Some Aspects of Theft of Computer Software by M. Dunning I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to test the capability of New Zealand law to adequately deal with the impact that computers have on current notions of crimes relating to property. Has the criminal law kept pace with technology and continued to protect property interests or is our law flexible enough to be applied to new situations anyway? The increase of the moneyless society may mean a decrease in money motivated crimes of violence such as robbery, and an increase in white collar crime. Every aspect of life is being computerised-even our per­ sonality is on character files, with the attendant )ossibility of criminal breach of privacy. The problems confronted in this area are mostly definitional. While it may be easy to recognise morally opprobrious conduct, the object of such conduct may not be so easily categorised as criminal. A factor of this is a general lack of understanding of the computer process, so this would seem an appropriate place to begin the inquiry. II. THE COMPUTER Whiteside I identifies five key elements in a computer system. (1) Translation of data into a form readable by the computer, called input; and subject to manipulation by the introduction of false data. Remote terminals can be situated anywhere outside the cen­ tral processing unit (CPU), connected by (usually) telephone wires over which data may be transmitted, e.g. New Zealand banks on­ line to Databank. Outside users are given a site code number (identifying them) and an access code number (enabling entry to the CPU) which "plug" their remote terminal in.
  • Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner

    Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner

    FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years).
  • South Australia Law Reform Institute

    South Australia Law Reform Institute

    Issues Paper 3 October 2013 South Australian Law Reform Institute Nothing but the truth Witness oaths and affirmations The South Australian Law Reform Institute was established in December 2010 by agreement between the Attorney-General of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and the Law Society of South Australia. It is based at the Adelaide University Law School. Postal address: SA Law Reform Institute Adelaide Law School University of Adelaide North Terrace Adelaide SA 5005 Contact details: (08) 8313 5582 [email protected] www.law.adelaide.edu.au/reform/ Publications All SALRI publications, including this one, are available to download free of charge from www.law.adelaide.edu.au/reform/publications/ If you are sending a submission to SALRI on this Issues Paper, please note: the closing date for submissions is Friday 17 January 2014; there is a questionnaire in downloadable form at www.law.adelaide.edu.au/reform/publications/ we would prefer you to send your submission by email; we may publish responses to this paper on our webpage with the Final Report. If you do not wish your submission to be published in this way, or if you wish it to be published anonymously, please let us know in writing with your submission. The cover illustration is from The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Magic Pudding by Norman Lindsay. The eBook may be read or downloaded from <http://www.gutenberg.org/files/23625/23625- h/23625-h.htm> Contents ABBREVIATIONS 2 PARTICIPANTS 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE 4 OVERVIEW 4 1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
  • THE ARMY LAWYER Headquarters, Department of the Army

    THE ARMY LAWYER Headquarters, Department of the Army

    THE ARMY LAWYER Headquarters, Department of the Army February 2012 ARTICLES Rethinking Voir Dire Lieutenant Colonel Eric R. Carpenter Follow the Money: Obtaining and Using Financial Informati on in Military Criminal Investi gati ons and Prosecuti ons Major Scott A. McDonald Infl uencing the Center of Gravity in Counterinsurgency Operati ons: Conti ngency Leasing in Afghanistan Major Michael C. Evans TJAGLCS FEATURES Lore of the Corps The Trial by Military Commission of “Mother Jones” BOOK REVIEWS Lincoln and the Court Reviewed by Captain Brett A. Farmer Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief Reviewed by Major Luke Tillman CLE NEWS CURRENT MATERIALS OF INTERESTS Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-50-465 Editor, Captain Joseph D. Wilkinson II Technical Editor, Charles J. Strong The Army Lawyer (ISSN 0364-1287, USPS 490-330) is published monthly The Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S. Army. The Army Lawyer by The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, welcomes articles from all military and civilian authors on topics of interest to Virginia, for the official use of Army lawyers in the performance of their military lawyers. Articles should be submitted via electronic mail to legal responsibilities. Individual paid subscriptions to The Army Lawyer are [email protected]. Articles should follow The available for $45.00 each ($63.00 foreign) per year, periodical postage paid at Bluebook, A Uniform System of Citation (19th ed. 2010) and the Military Charlottesville, Virginia, and additional mailing offices (see subscription form Citation Guide (TJAGLCS, 16th ed. 2011). No compensation can be paid for on the inside back cover).
  • Chapter 8 Criminal Conduct Offences

    Chapter 8 Criminal Conduct Offences

    Chapter 8 Criminal conduct offences Page Index 1-8-1 Introduction 1-8-2 Chapter structure 1-8-2 Transitional guidance 1-8-2 Criminal conduct - section 42 – Armed Forces Act 2006 1-8-5 Violence offences 1-8-6 Common assault and battery - section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988 1-8-6 Assault occasioning actual bodily harm - section 47 Offences against the Persons Act 1861 1-8-11 Possession in public place of offensive weapon - section 1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 1-8-15 Possession in public place of point or blade - section 139 Criminal Justice Act 1988 1-8-17 Dishonesty offences 1-8-20 Theft - section 1 Theft Act 1968 1-8-20 Taking a motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority - section 12 Theft Act 1968 1-8-25 Making off without payment - section 3 Theft Act 1978 1-8-29 Abstraction of electricity - section 13 Theft Act 1968 1-8-31 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services – section 125 Communications Act 2003 1-8-32 Possession or supply of apparatus which may be used for obtaining an electronic communications service - section 126 Communications Act 2003 1-8-34 Fraud - section 1 Fraud Act 2006 1-8-37 Dishonestly obtaining services - section 11 Fraud Act 2006 1-8-41 Miscellaneous offences 1-8-44 Unlawful possession of a controlled drug - section 5 Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 1-8-44 Criminal damage - section 1 Criminal Damage Act 1971 1-8-47 Interference with vehicles - section 9 Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1-8-51 Road traffic offences 1-8-53 Careless and inconsiderate driving - section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988 1-8-53 Driving
  • Double Jeopardy

    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.
  • V. Vera - Monroig , 204 F.3D 1 (1St Cir

    V. Vera - Monroig , 204 F.3D 1 (1St Cir

    I N THE U NITED S TATES C OURT OF A PPEALS F OR THE F IRST C IRCUIT _____________________________ Case No. 16 - 1186 _____________________________ V LADEK F ILLER , P LAINTIFF - A PPELLEE v . M ARY K ELLETT , D EFENDANT - A PPELLANT H ANCOCK C OUNTY ; W ILLIAM C LARK ; W ASHINGTON C OUNTY ; D ONNIE S MITH ; T RAVIS W ILLEY ; D AVID D ENBOW ; M ICHAEL C RABTREE ; T OWN OF G OULDSBORO , ME; T OWN OF E LLSWORTH , ME; J OHN D ELEO ; C HAD W ILMOT ; P AUL C AVANAUGH ; S TEPHEN M C F ARLAND ; M ICHAEL P OVICH ; C ARLETTA B ASSANO ; E STATE OF G UY W YCOFF ; L INDA G LEASON D EFENDANTS ___________________________________ B RIEF OF A MICI C URIAE A MERICAN C IVIL L IBERTIES U NION A MERICAN C IVIL L IBERTIES U NION OF M AINE F OUNDATION M AINE A SSOCIATION OF C RIMINAL D EFENSE L AWYERS I N SUPPORT OF P LAINTIFF - A PPELLEE F ILLER _____________________________________ Rory A. McNamara Ezekiel Edwards Jamesa J. Drake* #1158903 #1176027 American Civil Counsel of Record Drake Law, LLC Liberties Union Zachary L. Heiden #99242 P.O. B ox 811 125 Broad Street, American Civil Liberties Berwick, ME 03901 18 th Floor Union of Maine Foundation (207) 475 - 7810 New York, NY 121 Middle Street, Ste. 301 on behalf of Maine Assoc. of (212) 549 - 2500 Portland, ME 04101 Criminal Defense Lawyers (207) 774 - 5444 on behalf of ACLU and ACLU - Maine CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Neither the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine Foundation, n or the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has a parent corporation, and no publicly held corporation owns any stake in any of these organizations.
  • Biodefense and Constitutional Constraints

    Biodefense and Constitutional Constraints

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2011 Biodefense and Constitutional Constraints Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Georgetown Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 11-96 This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/677 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1882506 4 Nat'l Security & Armed Conflict L. Rev. 82-206 (2014) 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 Constitutional Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons BIODEFENSE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS Laura K. Donohue* I. INTRODUCTION"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" & II. STATE POLICE POWERS AND THE FEDERALIZATION OF U.S. QUARANTINE LAW """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 2 A. Early Colonial Quarantine Provisions""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 3 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 4 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""&)
  • Incest Statutes

    Incest Statutes

    Statutory Compilation Regarding Incest Statutes March 2013 Scope This document is a comprehensive compilation of incest statutes from U.S. state, territorial, and the federal jurisdictions. It is up-to-date as of March 2013. For further assistance, consult the National District Attorneys Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at 703.549.9222, or via the free online prosecution assistance service http://www.ndaa.org/ta_form.php. *The statutes in this compilation are current as of March 2013. Please be advised that these statutes are subject to change in forthcoming legislation and Shepardizing is recommended. 1 National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse National District Attorneys Association Table of Contents ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 ALA. CODE § 13A-13-3 (2013). INCEST .................................................................................................................... 8 ALA. CODE § 30-1-3 (2013). LEGITIMACY OF ISSUE OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES ...................................................... 8 ALASKA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 ALASKA STAT. § 11.41.450 (2013). INCEST .............................................................................................................. 8 ALASKA R. EVID. RULE 505 (2013)
  • Court Reform in England

    Court Reform in England

    Comments COURT REFORM IN ENGLAND A reading of the Beeching report' suggests that the English court reform which entered into force on 1 January 1972 was the result of purely domestic considerations. The members of the Commission make no reference to the civil law countries which Great Britain will join in an important economic and political regional arrangement. Yet even a cursory examination of the effects of the reform on the administration of justice in England and Wales suggests that English courts now resemble more closely their counterparts in Western Eu- rope. It should be stated at the outset that the new organization of Eng- lish courts is by no means the result of the 1971 Act alone. The Act crowned the work of various legislative measures which have brought gradual change for a period of well over a century, including the Judicature Acts 1873-75, the Interpretation Act 1889, the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, the Administration of Justice Act 1933, the County Courts Act 1934, the Criminal Appeal Act 1966 and the Criminal Law Act 1967. The reform culminates a prolonged process of response to social change affecting the legal structure in England. Its effect was to divorce the organization of the courts from tradition and history in order to achieve efficiency and to adapt the courts to new tasks and duties which they must meet in new social and economic conditions. While the earlier acts, including the 1966 Criminal Appeal Act, modernized the structure of the Supreme Court of Judicature, the 1971 Act extended modern court structure to the intermediate level, creating the new Crown Court, and provided for the regular admin- istration of justice in civil matters by the High Court in England and Wales, outside the Royal Courts in London.