DOCSLIB.ORG

The Carloway Review Report and Recommendations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Carloway Review Report and Recommendations The Carloway Review Report and Recommendations 17 November 2011 FOREWORD The decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Cadder v HM Advocate had a substantial and immediate impact on the criminal justice system. The Scottish Government felt obliged to introduce emergency legislation to correct the flaws identified in the system’s framework. The Crown Office abandoned hundreds of prosecutions, some of which were for very serious crimes. Significant uncertainty remained concerning the meaning of the decision. Several consequent subsidiary objections to evidence were taken in cases throughout the country, causing disruption and delay to court processes. Appeals and references to the High Court followed. This prompted the Lord Advocate to refer a selected group of these appeals and references directly to the United Kingdom Supreme Court in order to obtain clarity on key issues. Cadder and its consequences could be described simply as the necessary application of the law, deriving from the implied right of access to a lawyer identified by the European Court under Article 6 on the European Convention of Human Rights. As Lord Hope put it in his opinion: “…there is no room … for a decision that favours the status quo simply on grounds of expediency. The issue is one of law… It must be faced up to, whatever the consequences”. However, the sudden over-ruling of previously well-established and accepted law is not the best way to bring about change in any criminal justice system. It leads to instant reactions rather than measured and thought-through plans for reform. It is 1 highly disruptive to the system generally and has the potential to cause injustices in existing cases while attempting to redress perceived miscarriages in others. Cadder was a serious shock to the system. There is an acute need to ensure that, as far as possible, the system is not vulnerable to further upheaval as a result of a single court judgment. The underlying and long-lasting implication of Cadder is that the system must fully embrace and apply a human rights based approach. This is not to say that it must adhere to a standardised Convention compliant template and abandon all traditions that have developed over centuries. But in promoting further evolution of a system, which should remain specifically designed for Scottish society, a more conscious application of the express and implied rights of the Convention is required. The understanding of human rights should not be the sole preserve of lawyers. It is important, if the law is to be accessible, that society does not develop a system that buries human rights deep within legal architecture. The ability to apply basic human rights should not require a tortuous exploration of Strasbourg jurisprudence or an encyclopaedic knowledge of legal texts. If it does, the system will end up with Dickens’ vision in Bleak House of lawyers “mistily engaged in one of the ten thousand stages of an endless cause, tripping one another up on slippery precedents, groping knee-deep in technicalities, running their goat-hair and horse-hair warded heads against walls of words and making a pretence of equity with serious faces”. It is, of course, the state’s role to ensure, as far as it is practicable to do so, that its citizens enjoy the protections to which they are entitled under the Convention. But 2 this does not entail that the state should be bound to provide its citizens with universal, free and limitless access to lawyers. Nevertheless the system for which it is responsible must respect, promote and protect human rights in an effective manner. As well as ensuring the proper treatment of those suspected of having committed a crime, it must protect the rights of all those affected or potentially affected by crime. It is with these basic ideas in mind that the Review has addressed its task. That is why, as was promised in the consultation document, the opportunity has been taken to explore the possibility of introducing radical changes to some of the fundamental precepts and principles of the criminal justice system, rather than merely affirming or denying whether the emergency legislation was, and is, effective. A year-long review cannot address every issue in detail; but the Review has been able to cover much ground. In this context, I would like to thank the members of the Reference Group for their invaluable advice. In both the plenary sessions, and especially in the focused “mini-meetings”, the Review has been able to explore and test options for change in some detail. This has been a key part in the development of this report. I would also pay tribute to the efforts of the Review’s own small team in organising the process of review, considering the many papers involved in that task, assisting the research programmes and ultimately seeing that all of the Review’s ideas and conclusions are expressed in what is hopefully a readable and easily understood final report. I would also like to thank the many people who have given the Review the benefit of their expertise in, and experience of, other jurisdictions. This applies particularly to those who assisted the Review in Dublin, London, Manchester, Birmingham and Oxford, and those from Europe and the Commonwealth with whom the Review was 3 able to meet over the course of the year. Their willingness to help and their generosity in the giving of their time and insights have been a real highlight of the process. I am extremely grateful for the many responses to the consultation which institutions, groups and individuals took time to prepare and contribute. The breadth and quality of these contributions show how much can be achieved when participants are focused and well motivated. This Review has not been engaged in a theoretical and academic debate but in proposing practical measures that directly affect suspects, victims, law enforcement agencies, the legal profession, the courts and Scottish society as a whole. Almost all of those who had something of value to contribute have done so willingly, promptly and conscientiously. I am pleased to present my Report with its several recommendations. As with the consultation document, although I have been helped enormously by the many participants in the consultation and evidence gathering exercise, the final responsibility for its contents are mine alone. I hope and trust that it will make a significant contribution to the development of a modern, fair, effective and distinctly Scottish criminal justice system for the future. LORD CARLOWAY 4 CONTENTS List of Abbreviations 7 1.0 Introduction 11 2.0 Historical Background 23 3.0 Convention Considerations 49 4.0 The Proposed Changes – An Overview 61 5.0 Custody Overview 71 5.1 Arrest and Detention 75 5.2 Period of Custody 97 5.3 Liberation from Police Custody 123 6.0 Investigation Overview 135 6.1 Legal Advice 141 6.2 Questioning 169 6.3 Child Suspects 203 6.4 Vulnerable Adult Suspects 225 7.0 Evidence Overview 235 7.1 The Origins and Development of Corroboration 241 7.2 Corroboration 255 7.3 Sufficiency of Evidence 287 7.4 Exculpatory and Mixed Statements 301 7.5 Adverse Inference 315 8.0 Appeals Overview 329 8.1 Appeal Procedures 331 8.2 Finality and Certainty 355 Annexes Annex A – Research Report – The Impact of 371 Corroboration on Prosecution Annex B – Process Maps 379 Annex C - van Kalmthout et al: Pre Trial Detention in 385 the European Union: An analysis of Minimum Standards Annex D – Reference Group and Review team 387 Annex E – Visits and Meetings 389 Annex F – Consultees 399 Annex G - Materials Referred to in the Report 401 5 6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1995 Act The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 2010 Act The Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 2010 AC Appeal Cases Law Reports (England and Wales) ACPOS Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland ALR Australian Law Reports Ambrose Ambrose v Harris 2011 SLT 1005 Cadder Cadder v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 13 CCRC Criminal Cases Review Commission CDS Criminal Defence Services Chalmers Chalmers v HM Advocate 1954 JC 66 CJ Chief Justice CLR Commonwealth Law Reports (Australia) COM European Commission Convention The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms COPFS Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service CPS Crown Prosecution Service (England and Wales) CR Criminal Reports (Canada) Cr App R Criminal Appeal Reports (England and Wales) DPP Director of Public Prosecutions DR Decisions and Reports of the European Commission of Human Rights DTI Department for Trade and Industry Dayanan Dayanan v Turkey (no 7377/03), 13 October 2009 ECHR European Convention on Human Rights EHRR European Human Rights Reports Emergency The Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) legislation (Scotland) Act 2010 EWHC England and Wales High Court Gafgen Gafgen v Germany (2011) EHRR 1 7 HCJAC High Court of Justiciary, Appeal Court (Scotland) HRA Human Rights Act 1998 Hume Hume: Commentaries on the Law of Scotland Respecting Crimes (Bell ed, 1844) IECCA Court of Criminal Appeal (Ireland) IESC Irish Supreme Court ILRM Irish Law Reports Monthly IR Irish Reports JC Justiciary Cases (Scotland) LJ-C Lord Justice-Clerk LJG Lord Justice General Macdonald Macdonald: Practical Treaties on the Criminal Law (5th ed, 1948) McLean HM Advocate v McLean 2010 SCCR 59 MLR Modern Law Review Moorov Moorov v HM Advocate 1930 JC 68 NSWLR New South Wales Law Reports NT CCA Northern Territories Court of Criminal Appeal (Australia) NZSC New Zealand Supreme Court PACE Police and Criminal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vol-12-1.Pdf
    Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law Publication Copyright and open-access policy The Cambridge Journal of International The CJICL is an open-access publication gov- and Comparative Law is an open-access erned by our publishing and licensing agree- publication that is available online at ment. Any commercial use and any form of <http://www.cjicl.org.uk>. Hardcopies can republication of material in the Journal is sub- be ordered on request. Each volume consists of two or more main issues and a special is- ject to the express permission of the Editors sue examining the jurisprudence of the UK in Chief. Supreme Court. Contact information Editorial Policy Cambridge Journal of International and Com- All submissions are subject to a double-blind parative Law peer-review editorial process by our Aca- Faculty of Law, 10 West Road demic Review Board and/or our Editorial Team. CB3 9DZ, Cambridge United Kingdom Submissions The journal accepts the following types of E-mail: editors@cjicl.org.uk manuscript: Web: http://www.cjicl.org.uk (i) Long Articles between 6,000 and 10,000 words but not exceeding 10,000 words in- Typeset in Crimson and Gentium Book Basic, cluding footnotes; distributed under the terms of the SIL Open Font (ii) Short Articles not exceeding 5,000 words including footnotes; license, available at <http://scripts.sil.org/OFL>. (iii) Case Notes not exceeding 3000 words in- cluding footnotes; and (iv) Book Reviews not exceeding 2500 words including footnotes. Please visit our website for submission dead- lines. ISSN 2050-1706 (Print) ISSN 2050-1714 (Online) © 2012 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law and Contributors This volume should be cited as (2012) 1(2) C.J.I.C.L.
    [Show full text]
  • 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, lgriffin@law.pace.edu 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 cpittson@law.pace.edu. 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]
  • LG Seminar – Human Rights and the Supreme Court
    ILG Seminar – Human Rights and the Supreme Court John Scott will cover the Supreme Court and the human rights protections of the Scotland Act, including discussion of the recent controversy involving the First Minister. This seminar will benefit anyone with an interest in human rights, constitutional matters and criminal law. HUMAN RIGHTS IN SCOTLAND PRE-SCOTLAND ACT The good start for ECHR, which I will describe soon, was made much easier because of the extremely unreceptive attitude towards ECHR pre-Scotland Act. I am thinking, in particular, of what Lord Ross said in Kaur v Lord Advocate (1981 SLT 322)- that the Convention was irrelevant in legal proceedings unless and until its provisions had been incorporated or given effect to in legislation and therefore the court was not entitled to have regard to it either as an aid to construction or otherwise. It might be thought that there was more to the Scottish approach than just barely concealed hostility. I think it is possible over the passing years to detect an underlying superiority complex. As ever, it probably didn’t help that the Convention was explicitly a European treaty. The extreme view expressed in Kaur softened over time and, even before the Scotland Act, by 1999 the Convention was being expressly considered. On the civil side in 1996 we had T Petitioner 1997 SLT 724 (re gay adoption) and on the criminal we had McLeod Petitioner 1998 SCCR 77(a decision from late 1997 which is still the leading Scottish authority concerning disclosure). L J-G - In seeking to formulate the approach of our law we may, however, look at the decisions of the Strasbourg court just as we look at the decisions of any other court of authority to see what persuasive effect they may have.
    [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]
  • Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review Report of the Academic Expert Group. Project Report
    n Chalmers, J., Leverick, F., and Shaw, A. (2014) Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review Report of the Academic Expert Group. Project Report. Scottish Government, Edinburgh. Copyright © 2014 The Scottish Government A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge Content must not be changed in any way or reproduced in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder(s) http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/99080/ Deposited on: 07 November 2014 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review Report of the Academic Expert Group August 2014 1 Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review: Report of the Academic Expert Group Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review Report of the Academic Expert Group August 2014 Editors: James Chalmers, Fiona Leverick, Alasdair Shaw (University of Glasgow) Members of the Academic Expert Group: James Chalmers, Fraser Davidson (University of Stirling), Peter Duff (University of Aberdeen), Pamela R Ferguson (University of Dundee), Fiona Leverick, Findlay Stark (University of Cambridge) Additional Contributors: Ingeborg Braam (Utrecht University), Leonie van Lent (Utrecht University), Fiona Raitt (University of Dundee), S J Summers (University of Zurich) i Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review: Report of the Academic Expert Group Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review Report of the Academic Expert Group August 2014 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ____________________________________________________________ x 1. INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________________________ 1 PART A: BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT 2. CORROBORATION: CONSEQUENCES AND CRITICISM __________________________________ 5 3. THE EXISTING LAW OF CORROBORATION __________________________________________ 19 4. CAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTION _____________________________________________ 30 PART B: ANALYSIS 5. EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE __________________________________________ 44 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Summary
    23 November 2011 PRESS SUMMARY Jude (Respondent) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Appellant) (Scotland) Hodgson (Respondent) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Appellant) (Scotland) Birnie (Respondent) v Her Majesty’s Advocate (Appellant) (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 55 Appeals from the Appeal Court, High Court of Justiciary JUSTICES: Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson, Lord Hamilton (Scotland) BACKGROUND TO THE APPEALS The Respondents were each detained as suspects for questioning at a police station under sections 14 and 15 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Their detentions took place prior to the decision of this Court in Cadder v HM Advocate [2010] UKSC 43, and they did not have access to legal advice either before or during their police interviews. In the course of their interviews, they each made statements which were later relied on by the Crown at their trials. They were convicted and sentenced to various periods of imprisonment. They appealed, and their appeals were still current when the judgment in Cadder was delivered on 26 October 2010. The Respondents argued, on the basis of Cadder, that the leading of evidence of the statements they made during their police interviews was a breach of their rights under Articles 6(3)(c) and 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that, in terms of section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998, the Lord Advocate had no power to lead that evidence. For Birnie, it was also submitted that the reliance by the Crown upon his admissions in these circumstances deprived him of a fair trial, to which he was entitled under Article 6(1) and at common law.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom
    Copyright 2014 by Erin F. Delaney Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 108, No. 2 JUDICIARY RISING: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Erin F. Delaney ABSTRACT—Britain is experiencing a period of dramatic change that challenges centuries-old understandings of British constitutionalism. In the past fifteen years, the British Parliament enacted a quasi-constitutional bill of rights; devolved legislative power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and created a new Supreme Court. British academics debate how each element of this transformation can be best understood: is it consistent with political constitutionalism and historic notions of parliamentary sovereignty, or does it usher in a new regime that places external, rule-of- law-based limits on Parliament? Much of this commentary examines these changes in a piecemeal fashion, failing to account for the systemic factors at play in the British system. This Article assesses the cumulative force of the many recent constitutional changes, shedding new light on the changing nature of the British constitution. Drawing on the U.S. literature on federalism and judicial power, the Article illuminates the role of human rights and devolution in the growing influence of the U.K. Supreme Court. Whether a rising judiciary will truly challenge British notions of parliamentary sovereignty is as yet unknown, but scholars and politicians should pay close attention to the groundwork being laid. AUTHOR—Assistant Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. For helpful conversations during a transatlantic visit at a very early stage of this project, I am grateful to Trevor Allan, Lord Hope, Charlie Jeffery, Lord Collins, and Stephen Tierney.
    [Show full text]
  • The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Scottish Appeals: Human Rights, the Scotland Act 2012 and the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 1
    The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Scottish Appeals: Human rights, the Scotland Act 2012 and the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 1. Introduction The purpose of this document is to set out the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (‘the Supreme Court’) to hear appeals in Scottish cases, with a particular focus on two aspects of that jurisdiction: . The Supreme Court’s power to hear civil and criminal cases in which human rights issues under the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) arise. The Supreme Court serves as the final court of appeal in such matters (the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will only consider such cases when applicants have exhausted all domestic remedies in their own state). The changes to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, first, in Scottish criminal cases as a result of the Scotland Act 2012 (‘the 2012 Act’) which ensured that the High Court of Justiciary retained the power ultimately to resolve cases once the Supreme Court has determined the legal question at issue1and, second, by the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 which introduced a requirement to obtain permission to appeal in civil cases2. 2. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in civil appeals and criminal appeals The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal in relation to Scottish civil cases. Until 2015, civil appeals came to the Supreme Court as of right,3 subject to certification by two counsel that the notice of appeal is reasonable.4 Where the Court of Session pronounces judgment on or after 22 September 2015, an Appellant must obtain permission to appeal from that Court or in certain cases, if permission is refused, from the Supreme Court.
    [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]