DOCSLIB.ORG

EVIDENCE of BAD CHARACTER in CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Report on a Reference Under Section 3(1)(E) of the Law Commissions Act 1965

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EVIDENCE of BAD CHARACTER in CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Report on a Reference Under Section 3(1)(E) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 The Law Commission (LAW COM No 273) EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord High Chancellor by Command of Her Majesty October 2001 Cm 5257 The Law Commission was set up by 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 Professor Hugh Beale Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington Judge Alan Wilkie 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 WC1N 2BQ. The terms of this report were agreed on 8 August 2001. The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk ii THE LAW COMMISSION EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 The background to this report 1.1 1 The area of law covered in this report 1.3 1 Our approach 1.4 2 Our main recommendations 1.12 4 The structure of this report 1.24 6 PART II: THE PRESENT LAW 8 Exceptions to the rule of exclusion: (I): Adducing evidence of a defendant’s bad character in chief 2.3 8 “Similar fact” evidence 2.4 8 Res gestae and background evidence 2.9 10 Can evidence of propensity be admitted as similar fact evidence? 2.10 10 How can similar fact evidence be used to rebut a defence? 2.13 11 Does the prosecution have to wait and see what defence is to be relied upon before adducing similar fact evidence? 2.16 12 Is there a special rule for sexual offences against persons of the same sex, or children? 2.18 13 Is there a discretion to exclude similar fact evidence? 2.19 14 Supervening discretions: section 78, and the common law 2.20 14 Identity cases Striking similarity 2.23 15 How the evidence is to be approached 2.24 15 iii Paragraph Page Special cases where bad character evidence is admissible in chief Section 27(3) of the Theft Act 1968 2.27 16 The application of section 27(3) 2.29 17 Section 1(2) of the Official Secrets Act 1911 2.31 17 Special cases where bad character evidence is inadmissible in chief Spent convictions 2.33 18 (II): Evidence adduced by the defendant 2.39 20 Evidence adduced against a co-accused 2.40 20 Is there a discretion to exclude defence evidence? 2.41 21 (III): Adducing bad character evidence in cross-examination 2.43 21 The meaning of section 1(f) 2.45 22 The relationship between section 1(e) and section 1(f) 2.48 23 Section 1(f)(i) 2.50 23 The first limb of section 1(f)(ii): asserting good character 2.53 24 What is an assertion of good character? 2.55 25 Character is indivisible 2.59 25 The discretion to exclude 2.61 26 Common law rules 2.62 27 The second limb of section 1(f)(ii): casting imputations against prosecution witnesses 2.63 27 The pre-conditions 2.64 27 Sexual cases 2.68 29 The discretion to exclude 2.71 30 Similarity of offences 2.73 30 Where the convictions do not reveal dishonesty 2.74 31 Defence necessarily involving imputations 2.75 31 Section 1(f)(iii): attacking a co-defendant 2.77 32 “has given evidence” 2.78 33 “against any other person charged in the same proceedings” 2.80 33 When section 1(f)(iii) is invoked 2.85 35 iv Paragraph Page Severance of defendants 2.88 35 Section 1(f)(iii) and separate trials 2.89 36 Severance of counts/informations 2.91 36 PART III: THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 39 The structure of Article 6 3.2 39 Article 6 and rules of evidence 3.4 40 The fairness of the admission of previous convictions per se 3.7 41 Loss of shield by casting imputations 3.9 42 Victims of crime and the Convention 3.14 43 The effect of incorporation 3.21 45 The distinctive nature of Article 6 3.25 46 HRA, section 3 3.29 47 Reading down 3.32 48 Reading in 3.33 48 Conclusion 3.36 50 PART IV: DEFECTS OF THE PRESENT LAW 51 The principal defects 51 The problems in detail (I): Evidence in chief Lack of clarity in the “similar fact evidence” rules 4.2 52 Evidence of propensity admitted as similar fact evidence 4.7 53 Background evidence 4.11 54 Section 27(3) of the Theft Act 1968 The justification for section 27(3) 4.13 55 The defects of section 27(3) 4.17 56 The problems in detail (II): Cross-examination of the defendant 4.24 58 Section 1(f)(i) 4.25 58 The first limb of section 1(f)(ii): assertions of good character 4.26 59 (i) The doctrine that character is indivisible 4.27 59 (ii) The use that can be made of bad character evidence 4.28 60 (iii) It is unclear what kinds of assertions will trigger the loss of the shield 4.30 60 v Paragraph Page (iv) Previous convictions of other possible culprits 4.32 61 The second limb of section 1(f)(ii): imputations against prosecution witnesses and deceased victims Summary 4.33 61 (i) No exception for necessary imputations 4.34 62 (ii) Over-reliance on judicial discretion 4.44 65 (iii) The foundations for the second limb of section 1(f)(ii) are unsound 4.47 66 (a) Credibility 4.48 66 (b) Fairness 4.51 67 (c) Deterring attacks on prosecution witnesses 4.53 68 (iv) Non-testifying defendants 4.60 69 (v) A temptation to fabricate 4.66 71 (vi) Inconsistent prosecution practice 4.67 71 (vii) Lack of clarity 4.68 71 Section 1(f)(iii): cross-examination of a co-accused 4.70 72 (i) Lack of judicial discretion 4.71 73 (ii) Defendants may be inhibited in their defence or may be deterred from testifying 4.76 74 (iii) The court may be misled 4.78 75 The hearsay exception for reputation 4.79 75 The need for change 4.80 76 PART V: GENERAL PRINCIPLES 78 PART VI: THE GENERAL APPROACH: THE OPTIONS 81 Option 1: adduce the defendant’s criminal record at the start of every trial 6.3 81 Arguments in favour of option 1 6.4 81 Simplicity 6.5 82 Removal of injustices and anomalies in the current law 6.8 82 Avoiding the prejudicial effect of revealing the defendant’s record in cross-examination 6.9 82 vi Paragraph Page The relevance of the record 6.10 83 Relevance to the defendant’s propensity to act in the manner alleged 6.11 83 Relevance to the defendant’s propensity to lie 6.14 84 The fact-finders know anyway 6.18 85 Is this true? 6.20 86 Is option 1 the only solution? 6.23 87 Is option 1 the best solution? 6.27 88 Arguments against option 1 6.30 89 Irrelevance 6.31 89 The risk of prejudice 6.33 90 The research 6.37 91 Minimising the prejudicial effect of automatic disclosure 6.43 92 The perceived risk of prejudice 6.46 93 Longer trials 6.47 93 Distraction 6.49 94 The fairness of the criminal justice system 6.50 94 Conclusion 6.53 95 Option 1A: adduce the defendant’s record of similar offences at the start of every trial 6.54 95 Option 2: adduce the defendant’s record of sex offences in sex cases 6.57 96 Option 3: allow evidence of the defendant’s previous misconduct to be adduced only where it is an ingredient of the offence charged 6.62 98 Option 4: a single inclusionary rule with an exception for evidence whose likely prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value 6.64 98 Option 5: an exclusionary rule with a single exception for evidence whose probative value outweighs its likely prejudicial effect 6.66 99 Conclusion: the general approach we recommend 6.67 99 PART VII: OVERVIEW OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS 100 Inside or outside the central set of facts 7.4 100 “Substantial” probative value 7.8 102 Taking factors into account 7.18 105 vii Paragraph Page The purpose of the evidence 7.20 106 Who is adducing the evidence? 7.21 106 PART VIII: BAD CHARACTER AND THE LEAVE REQUIREMENT 107 Defining evidence of bad character The options considered in the consultation paper 8.4 108 Objections to our provisional proposal 8.9 109 Evidence of criminal offences 8.10 110 Evidence of bad character not amounting to an offence 8.12 110 Disposition 8.18 112 Our recommendation 8.19 112 Bad character evidence not subject to the exclusionary rule 8.20 113 The central set of facts 8.20 113 Evidence which all parties agree should be admitted 8.29 115 Evidence of a defendant’s bad character, adduced by that defendant 8.30 115 Our recommendations 8.31 115 PART IX: EXCEPTIONS APPLICABLE TO NON-DEFENDANTS 118 The current position 9.3 118 Judicial control 9.5 119 The option put forward in the consultation paper 9.8 119 The views of respondents 9.10 120 The dangers of bad character evidence Its irrelevance 9.14 122 Its prejudicial effect 9.16 123 The effect of a statutory test of enhanced relevance 9.24 126 Would a test of enhanced relevance prevent the defendant from having a fair trial? 9.28 127 Our conclusion 9.35 129 Formulating the test of enhanced relevance 9.36 129 The importance of the matter in issue 9.38 130 viii Paragraph Page Ensuring a fair trial 9.40 130 Our recommendations Exceptions: non-defendants: substantial probative value 9.41 131 Exceptions: non-defendants: substantial explanatory value 9.42 131 The consequences for the defendant 9.44 131 The relationship with section 41 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 9.45 131 PART X: THE EXPLANATORY EXCEPTION 133 The defects of the current law Res gestae and background evidence 10.1 133 Our analysis 10.3 134 Evidence which is part of the narrative of the offence 10.4 134 Explanatory evidence 10.7 135 PART XI: THE INCRIMINATORY EXCEPTION 138 Introduction 11.1 138 The options for reform and the response on consultation 11.3 138 Option 2: adducing bad character evidence to prove mens rea 11.4 138 Option 3: adducing bad character evidence to show disposition 11.8 139 Option 4: the Australian common law test, namely whether there is any reasonable
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Padfield Wonders Aloud (Do Contact Me on [email protected])
    University of Leeds Centre for Criminal Justice Studies Justice in the Criminal Courts in the 21st Century What are criminal courts for? Nicky Padfield wonders aloud (do contact me on [email protected]) VERY VERY DRAFT Introduction I am taking the opportunity as the first speaker at this conference to raise some big and/or broad questions. The paper is not as developed as I would like: I shall dig more into history, theory, law and practice in due course. But, in essence, my argument is that this big picture allows us to remember important principles. Many of the speakers who follow will focus on individual aspects of the trial process, often presenting original empirical research. Here I go back to basics. What is a trial? A public process which compels defendants to answer a charge of criminal wrongdoing. The outcome is often a serious sanction. Obviously, trials have to be fair. That does not simply mean they should not be unfair. Should we focus on ways in which public courts can promote fairness and justice, and indeed social cohesion? Swift justice has merits, but does not necessarily achieve just outcomes. Non-public ‗diversion‘ is equally dangerous. I will briefly raise some of the criminological literature on compliance, legitimacy and desistance – but speak up also for human rights and the rule of law - a big agenda! History For the purpose of this paper, I took as my starting point a series of riot trials, at three different moments in English history. Serendipitously, when the riots of 2011 were still recent, I happened upon a book called the Report of the Trials for Rioting at Ely and Littleport, 1816 (Warren, ed, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Jonathan Polnay
    Jonathan Polnay Call 2000 Tel +44 (0) 20 7353 5638 [email protected] 5kbw.co.uk Practice Profile Jonathan is widely regarded as one of the best juniors at the Criminal Bar. He is the “go-to junior” for legally and factually complex cases such as those involving offences of terrorism, homicide, serious organised crime, complex fraud and cyber-crime. He has been instructed in some of the most high-profile cases in the criminal courts, which include the recent prosecutions of John Worboys, the PC Harper trial and the trial concerning the manslaughter of 39 Vietnamese migrants. He brings to all cases his fierce intellect, unstinting hard work and dedication and an approachable and down-to-earth manner. He is much admired for his excellent and incisive judgment and legal knowledge as well as his ability to communicate complex evidence in a way that is clear and attractive to juries. Jonathan is ranked as a leading junior in Chambers & Partners UK Bar Guide 2021 (Band 1) and the Legal 500. He is Junior Treasury Counsel, based at the Central Criminal Court having been appointed by the Attorney- General in November 2017. Jonathan accepts instructions from all specialist divisions of the Crown Prosecution Service, Solicitors and when appropriate Direct Professional Access "DPA". Instructions in privately funded matters are accepted subject to The (New) Standard Contractual Terms for the Supply of Legal Services by Barristers to Authorized Persons 2012. Jonathan's Privacy Policy can be downloaded here. Areas of Practice Appellate Fraud & Financial Crime Homicide & Corporate Manslaughter Prosecution Road Traffic Serious & Organised Crime Sexual Offences General Crime Confiscation, Civil Recovery & Asset Forfeiture Cyber Crime Inquests Military Law Regulatory & Professional Discipline Terrorism Public Access What The Directories Say ‘He is highly intelligent; he is prolifically hard-working and has endless stamina and he is a great strategist and his judgment is pretty perfect.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 01 June 25.Indd
    ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED NEWSPAPER Al Sada holds Sri Lanka win high-level second Test, meeting in China series Business | 21 Sport | 28 Wednesday 25 June 2014 • 27 Sha’baan 1435 • Volume 19 Number 6107 www.thepeninsulaqatar.com [email protected] | [email protected] Editorial: 4455 7741 | Advertising: 4455 7837 / 4455 7780 Emir meets French National Assembly President US advisors Woqod to import begin ‘limited’ mission in Iraq WASHINGTON: The first of 300,000 Shafaf up to 300 US military advisers began their mission in Baghdad yesterday to help the Iraqi army, but the Pentagon said the cylinders: CEO American troops were not tak- ing on a combat role. The primary task of the advis- ers was to evaluate the state of Plans to manufacture cylinders locally the Iraqi forces and not to turn the tide against militants from DOHA: Some 300,000 trans- Norwegian and an Indian com- the Islamic State of Iraq and the parent (Shafaf) cooking gas pany that specialise in producing Levant (ISIL), which have swept cylinders are being imported to such devices. across western and northern Iraq, help ease their shortage ahead He said his corporation was the Pentagon’s press secretary said. of Ramadan. increasing the number of outlets “This isn’t about rushing to the Orders for the supply of the that were selling ‘Shafaf’ cylin- rescue,” Rear Admiral John Kirby cylinders have already been ders so as to make their access told reporters. “These teams will placed with the exporters, local to the people easier. assess the cohesiveness and readi- petroleum products distributor More supermarkets located in ness of Iraqi security forces ...and and cooking gas supplier, Woqod residential areas, as well as outlets examine the most effective and said yesterday.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Salaries
    MINISTRY0B OF JUSTICE JUDICIAL1B SALARIES FROM 1 APRIL 2013 Group Salaries w.e.f. Salaries w.e.f. Salaries w.e.f. 01/04/11 01/04/12 01/04/13 Group 1 239,845 239,845 242,243 Lord Chief Justice Group 1.1 214,165 214,165 216,307 Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland Lord President of the Court of Session Master of the Rolls President of the Supreme Court Group 2 206,857 206,857 208,926 Chancellor of the High Court Deputy President of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court Lord Justice Clerk President of the Family Division President of the Queen’s Bench Division Senior President of Tribunals (Transitional pay) (201,613) (203,643) (207,730) Group3B 3 196,707 196,707 198,674 Inner House Judges of the Court of Session Lords Justices of Appeal Lords Justices of Appeal (N I) Group4B 4 172,753 172,753 174,481 High Court Judges [Note A] Outer House Judges of the Court of Session Puisne Judges (N I) Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster Former Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator, Asylum 146,668 146,668 148,135 Support Tribunal (now judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Social Entitlement Chamber, and Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal) Group 5 138,548 138,548 139,933 Chairman, Scottish Land Court President of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal [Note L] Chief Social Security Commissioner (N I) 1 Group Salaries w.e.f. Salaries w.e.f. Salaries w.e.f.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Body on Senior Salaries Cm 8026
    Review Body on Senior Salaries Review Body on Senior Salaries – REPORT No. 77 2011 REPORT No. 77 Thirty-Third Report on Senior Salaries 2011 Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from: Online www.tsoshop.co.uk Mail, telephone, fax and email TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Telephone orders/general enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Chairman: Bill Cockburn, CBE TD Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-Call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 The Parliamentary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, London SW1A 2JX Telephone orders/general enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.bookshop.parliament.uk TSO@Blackwell and other accredited agents Cm 8026 £20.50 Customers can also order publications from: .. TSO Ireland 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD Telephone orders/general enquiries: 028 9023 8451 Fax orders: 028 9023 5401 RBSS_2011_cover.indd 1 10/03/2011 23:35 Review Body on Senior Salaries REPORT No. 77 Thirty-Third Report on Senior Salaries 2011 Chairman: Bill Cockburn, CBE TD Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty March 2011 Cm 8026 £20.50 RBSS_2011.indd 1 10/03/2011 23:35 © Crown copyright 2011 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government­ licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Committee on the Emoluments of Certain Public Servants First
    PP66/08 J o in t C o m m it t ee on th e E m o lu m en t s of C er t a in P u blic Ser v a n t s F ir st R epo r t fo r th e Se ssio n 2007-2008 FIRST REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE EMOLUMENTS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVANTS 2007/2008 Constituted 2nd and 30th March 1965 as a Standing Joint Committee to examine the amount of expenses paid to Members and the salaries of Senior Government Officials and Crown Officers. The Keys representatives are the members of the Consultative Committee of the House. By its First Report 1992/ 93 the terms of reference were revised as follows - (i) to consider and report to the Council and Keys on - (a) the emoluments of H E Lieutenant Governor, their Honours the First and Second Deemsters and the Judge of Appeal, H M Attorney General, the High Bailiff, the Deputy High Bailiff and the Clerk of Tynwald; (b) the Tynwald Membership Pension Scheme; and (c) in addition to its consultative functions set out in paragraph (i) and as it thinks fit, the emoluments of Members of Tynwald; (ii) to carry out its consultative functions under section 6(3) of the Payments of Members’ Expenses Act 1989, as the body designated by the Payment Of Members’ Expenses (Designation of Consultative Body) Order 1989. The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: Where Are We Going?
    Section title 1 Brexit: Where are we going? Recognition and enforcement during Risky Business Jersey Update 2018 transition and beyond Unpacking “pre-pack” Recent developments administrations Paul Heath QC Shut Up? New Associate Member Privilege and company dissolution A regular review of news, cases and www.southsquare.com articles from South Square barristers SOUTH SQUARE DIGEST June 2018 www.southsquare.com ‘The set is highly regarded internationally, with barristers regularly Company/Insolvency set of the year, winner 2017 appearing in courts CHAMBERS BAR AWARDS Insolvency set of the year, around the world.’ shortlisted 2017 CHAMBERS UK LEGAL 500 BAR AWARDS +44 (0)20 7696 9900 | [email protected] | www.southsquare.com In this issue 3 In this issue 06 22 44 Brexit: where are we going? Jersey Update 2018 Risky Business: unpacking “pre-packs” Mark Phillips QC on recognition and Ogier’s Nicola Roberts and Leon Hurd Andrew Shaw on the difficulties that enforcement during transition and on some recent developments in Jersey pre-pack administrations pose to beyond insolvency practitioners ARTICLES SOUTH SQUARE NEWS EVENTS ROUND UP Just and Equitable Winding Up 16 Paul Heath QC 28 Insolvency Lawyers’ 58 David Alexander QC on when the South Square is delighted to Association Annual court will and won’t make an order announce Paul Heath QC joins Conference 2018 under Section 122(1)(g) as an Associate Member Junior G36 Event 2018 59 BHS, Carillion and the Current REGULARS Government Consultation on Insolvency and Corporate 50
    [Show full text]
  • Michaelmas 2012
    The Middle Templar The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple Issue 52 Michaelmas 2012 Middle Temple Officers 2012 Introduction Treasurer The Rt Hon The Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony After a year in post as Under Treasurer, it strikes me that two of the key qualities that Deputy Treasurer characterise Middle Temple are its open- Christopher Symons QC mindedness and its adaptability. This issue of The Middle Templar demonstrates these Deputy Treasurer Elect qualities in abundance: in 2012, the Library The Rt Hon The Lord Judge, hosted a Victorian banquet; Hall became a Lord Chief Justice theatre in the round; and Fountain Court was transformed into a Belgian Cycling Lent Reader Paradise. Like other ancient organisations – and indeed the profession Marilynne Morgan CB we represent – we will survive and thrive if we are able to adapt to face new challenges, and we have certainly shown this year that we Autumn Reader can metamorphose with the requirements of the day. Michael Crystal QC The Inn's willingness to adapt has shown itself of late not only by the Director of transformation of its physical space, but also by its ability to be self- Middle Temple Advocacy critical and open to new ways of thinking. The current review of our Derek Wood CBE QC governance, with its proposals to sharpen our focus and put greater emphasis on our core purposes, effective decision-making and Master of the Archive planning for the future, provides a good example of this. Michael Ashe QC Another prompt for serious reflection has been the sweeping review Masters of the Garden of legal education and training, currently being carried out by the legal regulators of England and Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • INQ039377/18 INQ039377 0018 Sub-Contracted Staff) at the 02 Were Sufficiently Trained
    IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY ARISING FROM THE DEATHS IN THE MANCHESTER ARENA BOMBING CHAPTER 7 CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ON SHOWSEC'S BEHALF Introduction 1. The nature and the scale of the atrocity that took place on 22 May 2017 - the loss of so many lives and the grievous and permanent damage done to the lives of many, many others - along with the task that the Home Secretary has set for the Chair requires (as Showsec understands) that the company's policies, procedures and its approach to the management of the crowd attending the concert and others should be very carefully examined both to determine whether there was anything it could have done to prevent or mitigate what happened and to ensure that lessons are learned for the future. 2. Where criticism is merited, then those parts of the first report may make for uncomfortable reading for the company. But Showsec - as its behaviour throughout this inquisitorial process has already demonstrated - is determined to react in a positive way. Neither the company nor its workforce will ever forget that Salman Abedi's attack resulted in the murder of 22 innocent people. 3. During these proceedings, the company and its directors have acted with conspicuous candour and openness. Where honest reflection has revealed shortcomings (as will inevitably be the case for every state and corporate entity involved in this Inquiry) Showsec has been prepared to acknowledge those failings and to address them. Against this and along with this Inquiry's obligation to provide the families with the thorough and fearless investigation they have called for, Showsec is also entitled to fairness.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1. Guardian, 17 June 1999 – John Hutton, the health minister, was quoted as saying there should be ‘radical improvements in adoption services. We will not hesitate to take the necessary action in the future to ensure that looked-after children do not become the innocent victims of misplaced theory or ideology’. And a prospective adopter wrote to the Evening Standard, 4 September 2003: ‘No first-time natural parent on this planet is, or will ever be, examined and intrusively checked on their parenting capability, as adopters are.’ 2. Jenny Keating, ‘Struggle for Identity: Issues Underlying the Enactment of the 1926 Adoption of Children Act’, University of Sussex Journal of Contemporary History, issue 3 (2001), http://www.sussex.ac.uk/history/documents/3._ keating_struggle_for_identity.pdf. 3. They could apply to see their original birth certificate when they reached the age of majority but a court order was necessary. During this period very few legally adopted children would have reached the age of majority except for a few whose de facto adoptions were made official by the 1926 Adoption Act. 4. See Chapter 6. 5. Murray Ryburn, ‘Secrecy and Openness in Adoption: An Historical Perspective’, Social Policy and Administration, vol. 29, no. 2 (June 1995), pp. 151–68. 6. Ibid., op. cit., p. 166. 7. See Erica Haimes and Noel Timms, ‘Access to Birth Records and Counselling of Adopted Persons Under Section 26 of the Children Act, 1975’, Final Report to the DHSS (University of Newcastle upon Tyne, May 1983); John P. Triseliotis, ‘Obtaining Birth Certificates’, in Philip Bean (ed.), Adoption: Essays in Social Policy, Law and Sociology (London: Tavistock Publications, 1984).
    [Show full text]
  • The Senior Presiding Judge Has Published Guidance to the Judiciary
    THE RT HON LADY JUSTICE MACUR Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme Dispute NOTE FROM THE SENIOR PRESIDING JUDGE 1. This guidance is issued in respect of publicly funded defence cases where the representation order was granted on or after 1 April 2018. 2. This guidance only applies to cases sent to the Crown Court during the period of the dispute between the legal profession and the Lord Chancellor. It has no wider application. 3. The aim is to ensure uniformity of approach by all judges sitting at the Crown Court and to assist defendants who appear in the Crown Court unrepresented by either counsel or solicitors. 4. There must be no suggestion that the judiciary are anything other than neutral in this dispute between the profession and the government. This guidance seeks only to address practical issues in the management of cases in the Crown Court. 5. The work of the court must continue to be listed appropriately with the expectation that those instructed to attend will do so and fulfil their commitments to their clients and the court. Any application to vacate or adjourn a case should be decided on its merits and in the interests of justice. It is important to keep an accurate factual record of the impact on the working of the court of any action, including the name and details of any cases affected. Over Arching Principles 6. The following principles apply and must govern practical steps taken by the court: Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL Telephone 020 79477211 Email [email protected] Website www.judiciary.gov.uk (1) The duty of the judge is to secure a fair trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Salaries from 1 April 2012
    Judicial salaries from 1 April 2012 Group Salaries w.e.f. Salaries w.e.f. Salaries w.e.f. 01/04/10 01/04/11 01/04/12 Group 1 239,845 239,845 239,845 Lord Chief Justice Group 1.1 214,165 214,165 214,165 Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland Lord President of the Court of Session Master of the Rolls President of the Supreme Court Group 2 206,857 206,857 206,857 Chancellor of the High Court Deputy President of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court Lord Justice Clerk President of the Family Division President of the Queen’s Bench Division Senior President of Tribunals (Transitional pay) (199,583) (201,613) (203,643) Group 3 196,707 196,707 196,707 Inner House Judges of the Court of Session Lords Justices of Appeal Lords Justices of Appeal (N I) Group 4 172,753 172,753 172,753 High Court Judges [Note A] Outer House Judges of the Court of Session Puisne Judges (N I) Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster Former Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator, Asylum 146,668 146,668 146,668 Support Tribunal (now judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Social Entitlement Chamber, and Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal) Group 5 138,548 138,548 138,548 Chairman, Scottish Land Court Chief Social Security Commissioner (N I) Circuit Judges at the Central Criminal Court in London (Old Bailey Judges) Vice President of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) President of the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber; Social Entitlement Chamber; General Regulatory Chamber; and Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Former Deputy President, Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Former President, Care Standards Tribunal (now judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Health, Education and Social Care Chamber, and Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal) 1 Group Salaries w.e.f.
    [Show full text]