DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the HIGH COURT of JUSTICE QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the HIGH COURT of JUSTICE QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 CO/2857/2004 Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC 2779 (Admin) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Wednesday, 17 November 2004 B E F O R E: MR JUSTICE COLLINS and MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON - - - - - - - MARY WESTLAKE (CLAIMANT) -v- CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION (DEFENDANT) - - - - - - - Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Reporting Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - - MR EDWARD FITZGERALD QC AND MISS H WILLIAMS (instructed by Messrs Wansbroughs, Wiltshire) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT MISS BEVERLEY LAING QC (instructed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT - - - - - - - J U D G M E N T (As Approved by the Court) - - - - - - - Crown copyright© 1. MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON: Introduction 2. In these proceedings Mary Westlake, the half sister of Timothy Evans, seeks judicial review of the refusal of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer his conviction for the murder of his daughter Geraldine to the Court of Appeal pursuant to its powers under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. History. 3. Timothy Evans was convicted of the murder of his daughter and sentenced to death on 13th January 1950. A count relating to the murder of his wife Beryl was ordered to lie on the file. His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed and he was executed on 9th March 1950. 4. The conviction of Timothy Evans is now recognised to have been one of the most notorious, if not the most notorious, miscarriages of justice. He lived at 10 Rillington Place. His downstairs neighbour was John Reginald Christie, who was the central prosecution witness at the trial of Timothy Evans. Christie was a serial killer who later confessed to killing Mr Evans' wife, Beryl. The bodies of six women whom Christie murdered were later found at 10 Rillington Place. The manner in which he murdered other women and concealed their bodies fitted the murder of Beryl Evans. 5. The prosecution case against Timothy Evans was that the murder of his daughter and that of his wife must have been committed by the same person as part of a single transaction or series of events. The case was put by Mr Christmas Humphreys QC on behalf of the Crown at the beginning of the trial of Timothy Evans, in the absence of the jury, as follows: "My Lord, there are two indictments in this case against this man, one for murdering his wife and the other for murdering his child two days later in exactly the same circumstances by strangulation, and putting the bodies in the same place. There is one set of depositions, and those depositions include the facts which concern the wife and the facts concerning the child. I have chosen to proceed upon the second and later indictment for the murder of the child, and, in my submission, all the evidence concerning the murder of the wife is admissible on the one ground that it is part of the same transaction." On that basis, although the count of murdering Beryl was not before the jury in accordance with the then criminal practice, evidence relating to her murder was put before them with the leave of the judge as a result of the submissions to which I have just referred, it being alleged that Evans committed both murders. 6. The discovery of Christie's serial murders so similar to the murder of Beryl Evans of itself removed the foundation from the conviction of Timothy Evans for the murder of his daughter. 7. Mr Evans had confessed to the murder of his wife and his child. He was an impressionable man of below normal intelligence. His second confession, on which the prosecution at his trial relied, was subsequently retracted. The police had taken statements from workmen who had carried out work on the wash house at 10 Rillington Place in which the bodies of Beryl and Geraldine had been found. Those statements, if accurate, showed that Mr Evans could not have hidden the bodies of his wife and daughter on the dates stated in his confession. They therefore cast considerable doubt on the reliability of his confession. Nonetheless, the statements of those workmen were not disclosed to the defence or placed before the jury at the trial. Instead, two at least of the workmen were persuaded by the police to make new statements which were not expressly inconsistent with Mr Evans' confession. The new statements were not disclosed either. 8. The discovery that Christie was a serial murderer and his admissions that he had killed Beryl Evans led, following his conviction in 1953, to an enquiry by Mr Scott-Henderson QC into the reliability of Mr Evans' conviction. Mr Scott-Henderson QC concluded that there had been no miscarriage of justice in relation to the conviction and execution of Timothy Evans. His report did not allay public concerns as to the justice of the conviction. Sir Ludovic Kennedy's book "10 Rillington Place" published in 1961 was a convincing destruction of the case against Timothy Evans and of the conclusions of the Scott-Henderson report. 9. There was continuing public agitation in relation to the Timothy Evans' case. As a result, between November 1965 and January 1966, Mr Justice Brabin conducted a fresh enquiry into the murders of Beryl and Geraldine Evans. His report was published on 12th October 1966. He concluded that on the balance of probabilities Timothy Evans did not kill his daughter, of whose murder he had been convicted, but that he probably did kill his wife, of whose murder he had not been convicted. The Brabin report was inconsistent with the Scott-Henderson report. Its conclusion was inconsistent with the prosecution case that both murders had been committed by the same person. 10. It was then the general rule that the Home Secretary would not recommend the grant of a free pardon unless he was satisfied that the person concerned had "clean hands", that is that not only was he innocent of the offence of which he was convicted, but also that he did not in fact commit any other offence or have any intention of doing so. I refer to paragraph 197 of the Home Office memorandum on the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. It was similarly accepted that the Home Secretary would not recommend the grant of a free pardon unless he was satisfied of the innocence of the applicant: see paragraph 176. On the basis of the Brabin report, it might have been said that neither of these conditions was satisfied in the case of Timothy Evans. 11. Nonetheless, on 18th October 1966 a free pardon was granted in respect of Timothy Evans' conviction for the murder of his daughter. The Home Secretary, Mr Roy Jenkins, announcing the pardon in the House of Commons, said this: "I am sure the House would wish me to express our thanks to Mr Justice Brabin for the painstaking and thorough way in which he conducted the inquiry into this case and for the comprehensive nature of his Report. Mr Justice Brabin's conclusion, as the House will be aware, is that it is now impossible to establish the truth beyond doubt but that it is more probable than not that Evans did not kill his daughter, for whose murder he was tried, convicted and executed. In all the circumstances, I do not think it would be right to allow Evans's conviction to stand. I have, therefore, decided that the proper course is to recommend to Her Majesty that She should grant a Free Pardon, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Queen has approved my recommendation and that the Free Pardon was signed this morning. This case has no precedent and will, I hope and believe, have no successor." There was a question from Mr John Hall MP: "Is it not a fact that although the Report indicates that in all probability Evans was not responsible for his daughter's death, it is nevertheless probable that he was responsible for his wife's death?" The extract from Hansard shows that that question was met by Honorary members shouting "No". Mr Jenkins replied: "Yes, but I am also aware that Mr Justice Brabin said that there were certain circumstances which, in his view, would have meant that a jury could not have regarded this as beyond reasonable doubt, and, furthermore, I have to deal with the case in which Evans was tried, convicted and executed." 12. Paragraph 168 of the Home Office memorandum, to which I have referred, says this: "There is no doubt that for practical purposes a grant of a free pardon is quite sufficient both to relieve the individual who receives it from the practical consequences of conviction and to establish his innocence and therefore restore his reputation." 13. By letter dated 3rd August 2000 the Home Office informed the solicitors acting for Mr Evans' personal representatives that the Home Secretary had decided to make, without admission of liability, an ex-gratia payment of compensation to them. The amount of compensation to be paid was assessed by Lord Brennan QC, as independent assessor. On the basis of Mr Fitzgerald's cogent written submissions dated 27th January 2003, Lord Brennan concluded as follows: "i. The conviction and execution of Timothy Evans for the murder of his child was wrongful and a miscarriage of justice. ii. There is no evidence to implicate Timothy Evans in the murder of his wife.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Veritable Revolution: the Court of Criminal Appeal in English
    A VERITABLE REVOLUTION: THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL IN ENGLISH CRIMINAL HISTORY 1908-1958 A THESIS IN History Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by CECILE ARDEN PHILLIPS B.A. University of Missouri-Kansas City, 1986 Kansas City, Missouri 2012 © 2012 CECILE ARDEN PHILLIPS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A VERITABLE REVOLUTION: THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL IN ENGLISH CRIMINAL HISTORY 1908-1958 Cecile Arden Phillips, Candidate for the Masters of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2012 ABSTRACT In a historic speech to the House of Commons on April 17, 1907, British Attorney General, John Lawson Walton, proposed the formation of what was to be the first court of criminal appeal in English history. Such a court had been debated, but ultimately rejected, by successive governments for over half a century. In each debate, members of the judiciary declared that a court for appeals in criminal cases held the potential of destroying the world-respected English judicial system. The 1907 debates were no less contentious, but the newly elected Liberal government saw social reform, including judicial reform, as their highest priority. After much compromise and some of the most overwrought speeches in the history of Parliament, the Court of Criminal Appeal was created in August 1907 and began hearing cases in May 1908. A Veritable Revolution is a social history of the Court’s first fifty years. There is no doubt, that John Walton and the other founders of the Court of Criminal Appeal intended it to provide protection from the miscarriage of justice for English citizens convicted of criminal offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment at Home and Abroad: A
    Eastern Kentucky University Encompass Honors Theses Student Scholarship Fall 2015 Capital Punishment at Home and Abroad: A Comparative Study on the Evolution of the Use of the Death Penalty in the United States and the United Kingdom Rachel Gaines Eastern Kentucky University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://encompass.eku.edu/honors_theses Recommended Citation Gaines, Rachel, "Capital Punishment at Home and Abroad: A Comparative Study on the Evolution of the Use of the Death Penalty in the United States and the United Kingdom" (2015). Honors Theses. 293. https://encompass.eku.edu/honors_theses/293 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Encompass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Encompass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY Capital Punishment at Home and Abroad: A Comparative Study on the Evolution of the Use of the Death Penalty in the United States and the United Kingdom Honors Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements of HON 420 Fall 2015 By Rachel Gaines Faculty Mentor Dr. Sucheta Mohanty Department of Government ii Capital Punishment at Home and Abroad: A Comparative Study on the Evolution of the Use of the Death Penalty in the United States and the United Kingdom Rachel Gaines Faculty Mentor Dr. Sucheta Mohanty, Department of Government Abstract: Capital punishment (sometimes referred to as the death penalty) is the carrying out of a legal sentence of death as punishment for crime. The United States Supreme Court has most recently ruled that capital punishment is not unconstitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • The Abolition of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom
    The Abolition of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom How it Happened and Why it Still Matters Julian B. Knowles QC Acknowledgements This monograph was made possible by grants awarded to The Death Penalty Project from the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Oak Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, Simons Muirhead & Burton and the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. Dedication The author would like to dedicate this monograph to Scott W. Braden, in respectful recognition of his life’s work on behalf of the condemned in the United States. © 2015 Julian B. Knowles QC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing from the author. Copies of this monograph may be obtained from: The Death Penalty Project 8/9 Frith Street Soho London W1D 3JB or via our website: www.deathpenaltyproject.org ISBN: 978-0-9576785-6-9 Cover image: Anti-death penalty demonstrators in the UK in 1959. MARY EVANS PICTURE LIBRARY 2 Contents Foreword .....................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................5 A brief
    [Show full text]
  • Convicting the Innocent: a Triple Failure of the Justice System
    Convicting the Innocent: A Triple Failure of the Justice System BRUCE MACFARLANE* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DEFINING THE ISSUE 405 II. INTERNATIONAL REVIEWS DURING THE PAST CENTURY 406 A. American Prison Congress Review (1912) 406 B. U.S. State Department Document (1912) 407 C. Borchard Study (1932) 408 D. Franks’ Study (1957) 409 E. Du Cann Study (1960) 411 F. Radin Study (1964) 412 G. Brandon and Davies Study (1973) 413 H. Royal Commissions in Australia and New Zealand During the 1980s 413 I. IRA Bombings in Britain (1980s) 417 1. Guildford Four 417 2. Birmingham Six 418 3. Maguire Seven 419 4. Judith Ward 419 * Bruce A. MacFarlane, Q.C., of the Manitoba and Alberta Bars, Professional Affiliate, Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba, formerly Deputy Attorney General of Manitoba (1993-2005). This essay is based on an earlier paper presented at the Heads of Prosecution Agencies in the Commonwealth Con- ference at Darwin, Australia on 7 May 2003, the Heads of Legal Aid Plans in Canada on 25 August 2003 and, once again, at the Heads of Prosecution Agencies in the Commonwealth Conference at Bel- fast, Northern Ireland and Dublin, Ireland during the week of 4 September 2005. Following these pres- entations, counsel from England, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Hong Kong and the United States, as well as Canadian provinces, provided me with a number of helpful comments. I have benefited greatly from this advice. I also wish to express my appreciation to Julia Gurr, for her assistance in updating the paper during the summer of 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Near Miss” of Liam Allan: Critical Problems in Police Disclosure, Investigation Culture, and the Resourcing of Criminal Justice
    The “near miss” of Liam Allan: Critical Problems in Police Disclosure, Investigation Culture, and the Resourcing of Criminal Justice Dr Tom Smith Lecturer in Law, University of the West of England, Bristol Miscarriages of justice have historically acted as catalysts for reform. It seems we only learn to fix the most serious problems – often obvious to those at the coal-face of practice – once the damage is done. Miscarriages include a failure to deliver justice for those victimised by crime, but as egregious is the conviction of the innocent, and the consequent punishment and social stigma attached to them.1 There are many examples, old and new. The secretive exploits of the Court of Star Chamber led to the abolition of investigative torture in the 1640s.2 Later in the same century, the ‘Popish Plot’ treason trials led to the lifting of the ban on defence lawyers.3 The cases of George Edalji and Adolf Beck led to the creation of the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1908.4 In the 1950s and 1960s, several high-profile executions (including Timothy Evans, James Hanratty, Ruth Ellis, and Derek Bentley) generated significant debate about and public opposition to the death penalty – which was abolished for murder in 1965 (and later for the two remaining eligible offences (piracy and treason) by the Human Rights Act 1998 and Crime and Disorder Act 1998).5 In the 1970s, the Maxwell Confait affair and the consequent Fisher Inquiry instigated the creation of the Philips Commission, and eventually the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)
    [Show full text]
  • Evan Whitton* Writes
    How to save the innocent from prison Evan Whitton* writes: In terms of human rights and civil liberties, legal functionaries, including lawyer- politicians, must have an obligation to try to minimise the risk of citizens going to prison for crimes they did not commit. It appears that functionaries in the lawyer-run adversary system in England and its former colonies feel no such obligation. At least 1% of people in prisons are innocent; in the US, 5% of prisoners, some on Death Row, are innocent, i.e. 50 in every thousand. For example: Timothy Evans, Mahmood Mattan, Derek Bentley (all hanged in England), the Birmingham Six, Max Stuart (who got within nine hours of the Adelaide gallows), Lindy Chamberlain, John Button, Andrew Mallard, etc, etc. Part of the problem is that functionaries Tind it hard to admit that the adversary system can get it wrong. That suggests they are in denial caused by self-deception. Bibi Sangha, Kent Roach and Robert Moles noted in Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice (Federation Press, 2010) that Australian High Court judges have endorsed the view that a convicted person who lost an appeal “has no legal right to a further appeal” even if new evidence is found. The functionaries have had no excuse since 1992, when oficial research generated by the Birmingham Six debacle showed how to protect the innocent. The Six were wrongly convicted of murder in 1975, partly on false confessions obtained by torture, partly on wrong forensic evidence, partly because the untrained judge, Nigel Cyprian Bridge, told the jurors the Six were guilty, and partly because the rule of law at the time was that suspects were presumed innocent until proved Irish.
    [Show full text]
  • Pxx SJ Miscarriages of Justice.Indd 61 3/6/2012 11:34:35 AM the IBA’S Human Rights Institute
    Wrongly accused: who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice? Edited by Jon Robins SOLICITORSJOURNAL Justice Gap series pxx_SJ_Miscarriages of Justice.indd 61 3/6/2012 11:34:35 AM The IBA’s Human Rights Institute The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), established in 1995, has become a leading global force in human rights, working to promote and protect the independence of the judiciary and the ability of lawyers to practice freely and without interference under a just rule of law. The IBAHRI runs training programmes and workshops, capacity building projects with bar associations, fact-fi nding missions, trial observations; issues regular reports and press releases disseminated widely to UN bodies, international governmental and non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders; and undertakes many other projects working towards its objectives. All our activities are funded by grants and individual donations. Become a member for just £35 a year – less than £3 a month – to help support our projects. Your contribution will have a tangible effect on the protection and promotion of human rights around the world. Visit www.ibanet.org/IBAHRI.aspx for more information, and click join to become a member. Alternatively, email us at [email protected]. Our work around the world Work carried out prior to 2010 Work carried out in 2010 IFC_SJ_Miscarriages of Justice.indd 1 3/6/2012 11:29:33 AM contents Wrongly accused: who is responsible for investigating miscarriages of justice? Contents Foreword by Mr
    [Show full text]
  • 0912-101 INUK Symposium on the CCRC 2012 Report4 Bwinside.Indd
    Innocence Network UK (INUK) Symposium on the Reform of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) Report Michael Naughton and Gabe Tan 0912-101 INUK Symposium on the CCRC 2012 Report4_BWinside.indd 1 20/11/2012 08:08 Please note that the points of view or opinions contained in this report are those of the contributors cited and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Innocence Network UK (INUK) 2 0912-101 INUK Symposium on the CCRC 2012 Report4_BWinside.indd 2 20/11/2012 08:08 Authors’ Note We would like to thank the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) for funding the Symposium and the writing of this Report. We are also grateful to LexisNexis for printing the report and, in particular, to Tom Laidlaw and Simon Goldie at LexisNexis for their support throughout the entire project. Thank you to Norton Rose LLP, in particular, Patrick Farrell and Miranda Joseph, Partner and Associate at Norton Rose LLP, respectively, for kindly hosting the Symposium. We are grateful to Chris Mullin for opening the Symposium. Thank you to the participants for taking time out of their busy schedules to contribute to this Symposium and for their generosity in sharing their experiences and knowledge. Without their willingness to participate, the Symposium simply could not have taken place. Finally, we wish to thank all who attended the Symposium for their enthusiasm, support and involvement. We invite you to play a part in this important conversation on how the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) could be reformed so that it can better assist innocent victims of wrongful conviction.
    [Show full text]
  • INUK Innocence Project First Steps
    Setting up an Innocence Project – First Steps The following outlines the ‘first steps’ in setting up a member innocence project and the things that students can do to put the foundations of their innocence projects in place in readiness for undertaking live client casework. Part One: Getting the foundations in place Basic Knowledge Ensure that the basic information about INUK is understood by student caseworkers. For instance, they need to know the details of the INUK caseworking protocols, the INUK Student Handbook and, crucially, the Client Care Letter (all available in the INUK Innocence Projects’ Starter Pack) so that they know the basics about what the INUK is, what an innocence project is and the operational practices for member innocence projects. All student caseworkers need to be familiar with the workings of the CCRC (or the SCCRC for member innocence projects in Scotland). A good starting point is the CCRC/SCCRC website, which links to the key statutes that govern its operations. Students may also want to read the critical analyses on the limitations of the CCRC contained in: Naughton, M. (2009) (Editor) The Criminal Cases Review Commission: Hope for the Innocent?, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. This book is the product of the Inaugural Innocence Network UK (INUK) Symposium that was held on the 10th Anniversary of the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), 31 March 2007, University of Bristol. It brings together critical perspectives on the operations of the CCRC from victim-support workers, practitioners and academics from the UK, the United States and Canada in terms of its limitations to deal with claims of innocence.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Rillington Place and the Changing Politics of Abortion in Modern Britain*
    The Historical Journal, , (), pp. – © Cambridge University Press This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/./), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:./SX TEN RILLINGTON PLACE AND THE CHANGING POLITICS OF ABORTION IN MODERN BRITAIN* E M M A L. J O N E S AND NEIL PEMBERTON University of Manchester ABSTRACT. This article addresses the social, cultural, and political history of backstreet abortion in post-war Britain, focusing on the murders of Beryl Evans and her daughter Geraldine, at Ten Rillington Place in . It shows how the commonplace connection of John Christie to abortion and Beryl Evan’s death was not a given in the wider public, legal, political, and forensic imagination of the time, reflecting the multi-layered and shifting meanings of abortion from the date of the original trials in the late s and s, through the subsequent judicial and literary reinvestigations of the case in the s, to its cinematic interpretation in the s. Exploring the language of abortion used in these different contexts, the article reveals changes in the gendering of abortionists, the increasing power and presence of abortion activists and other social reformers, the changing representation of working-class women and men, and the increasing critique of the practice of backstreet abortion. The case is also made for a kind of societal blind spot on abortion at the time of both the Evans and Christie trials; in particular, a reluctance to come to terms with the concept of the male abortionist, which distorted the criminal investigations and the trials themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Veering Off the Abolitionist Path in America: the Influence of the Ambiguously Written Constitution
    Veering Off the Abolitionist Path in America Veering Off the Abolitionist Path in America: The Influence of the Ambiguously Written Constitution Avinash Samarth Abstract In the 21st century, capital punishment in the United States stands as a peculiar institution. Despite widespread international movements for its abolition, and widespread expert agreement on its ills, the death penalty still persists in the United States. America remains the only country in the Western world to retain the death penalty today. We use it frequently, executing approximately 52 people per year, a rate comparable to both Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The question of why the United States still retains the death penalty has been the subject of debate for decades. Countless historical explanations have been posited, ranging from the religious to the political, from the racial, to the legal. The historical analysis of modern social institutions is important -- they help us understand why and how such institutions came to be normatively accepted and persistent in the world today. In this paper I will set out to examine why the United States retained the death penalty despite its initial suspension in 1972 by the Supreme Court under Furman v. Georgia. In doing so I will relate the narratives of two countries, the United States and the United Kingdom, and their experience with abolition in the post-World War II era. Introduction “For centuries the death penalty, often accompanied by barbarous refinements, has been trying to hold crime in check; yet crime persists.” Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death1 In the 21st century, capital punishment in the United States stands as a peculiar institution.
    [Show full text]
  • (And the Rest of the World) in Abandoning Capital Punishment?
    The University of New Hampshire Law Review Volume 6 Number 3 Pierce Law Review Article 11 March 2008 Will the United States Follow England (and the Rest of the World) in Abandoning Capital Punishment? Frederick C. Millett Franklin Pierce Law Center, Concord, NH Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Frederick C. Millett, Will the United States Follow England (and the Rest of the World) in Abandoning Capital Punishment?, 6 Pierce L. Rev. 547 (2008), available at http://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol6/iss3/11 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – Franklin Pierce School of Law at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The University of New Hampshire Law Review by an authorized editor of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. File: Millett - 6 Pierce L. Rev. 3 Created on: 3/5/2008 10:31:00 PM Last Printed: 3/5/2008 10:33:00 PM Will the United States Follow England (and the Rest of the World) in Abandoning Capital Punishment? FREDERICK C. MILLETT* The execution may have passed into British history, but it is an en- during if infrequent spectacle in the United States. The parallels between the British past and the American present are striking.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ..........................................................................................548 II. The Death Penalty in England.............................................................551 A. The Bloody Code and Early History............................................551 B.
    [Show full text]