DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Similar Fact Evidence and the Moorov Doctrine (SLC 229)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Similar Fact Evidence and the Moorov Doctrine (SLC 229) (SCOT LAW COM No 229) Report on Similar Fact Evidence and the Moorov Doctrine report Report on Similar Fact Evidence and the Moorov Doctrine Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers May 2012 SCOT LAW COM No 229 SG/2012/81 EDINBURGH: The Stationery Office £38.50 © Crown copyright 2012 You may re-use this information (excluding 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 email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any copyright enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. ISBN: 978-0-10-888265-4 Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Queen’s Printer for Scotland. 05/12 Cover printed on 75% recycled paper Text printed on 100% recycled paper ii The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 19651 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners2 are: Laura J Dunlop, QC Patrick Layden, QC TD Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven. The Chief Executive of the Commission is Malcolm McMillan. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. Tel: 0131 668 2131 Fax: 0131 662 4900 Email: [email protected] Or via our website at http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/contact-us NOTES 1. For those wishing further copies of this paper it may be downloaded from our website or purchased from TSO (http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/). 2. Please note that all hyperlinks in this document were checked for accuracy at the time of final draft. 3. If you have any difficulty in reading this document, please contact us and we will do our best to assist. You may wish to note that the pdf version of this document available on our website has been tagged for accessibility. 1 Amended by the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No 2) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1820). 2 As at 16 April 2012. iii SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Report on Similar Fact Evidence and the Moorov Doctrine To: Kenny MacAskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice We have the honour to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Report on Similar Fact Evidence and the Moorov Doctrine (Signed) LAURA J DUNLOP PATRICK LAYDEN HECTOR L MACQUEEN ANDREW J M STEVEN Malcolm McMillan, Chief Executive 16 April 2012 iv Contents Paragraph Page Abbreviations x Chapter 1 Introduction Our Remit 1.1 1 The scope of the reference: definition of terms 1.4 2 "Evidence of bad character" 1.5 2 "Similar fact evidence" 1.6 2 The Moorov doctrine 1.7 2 The Howden doctrine 1.8 3 General Summary 1.9 3 The Structure of this Report 1.17 4 Corroboration and Lord Carloway's Report 1.24 5 Legislative Competence 1.27 6 Impact Assessment 1.33 6 Chapter 2 Need for Reform of the Law of Criminal Evidence Our guiding principles 2.2 8 The need for reform 2.4 9 Consultees' responses 2.6 9 Common law good, statute law bad? 2.12 11 The character of the restatement 2.29 14 Chapter 3 Preliminary matters Introduction 3.2 16 Relevance 3.3 16 Relevance is independent of procedural history 3.4 16 What is meant by "relevance"? 3.7 16 Relevance to what? 3.8 17 What is meant by "admissibility"? 3.16 19 Is irrelevant evidence ever admissible? 3.19 20 When is relevant evidence inadmissible? 3.21 20 The evidence of a spouse 3.23 21 Legal professional privilege 3.24 21 Hearsay 3.25 22 Statements made in precognition 3.26 22 Evidence unfairly obtained 3.27 23 What can evidence be used for? 3.28 23 Should the use of relevant evidence of a particular nature be restricted to particular issues and excluded from others? 3.29 23 v Contents (cont'd) Paragraph Page Chapter 3 Cont'd Can evidence admitted in relation to one charge be excluded from consideration in relation to another? 3.31 24 Evidence of co-accused 3.33 25 Can the jury be trusted? 3.34 25 Corroboration 3.44 27 General 3.44 27 If there were no requirement of corroboration, would it still be a relevant consideration for this Report? 3.46 27 The present law 3.48 28 All crucial facts must be corroborated 3.55 30 How does evidence corroborate other evidence? 3.57 31 Chapter 4 Comparative Law Introduction 4.2 33 The Common Background 4.6 34 Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence 4.9 35 Canada 4.9 35 Australia 4.14 37 Common law 4.15 37 Statute 4.21 38 New Zealand 4.28 40 England and Wales 4.34 41 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 4.37 42 "Gateway (c) – It is important explanatory evidence" 4.41 43 "Gateway (d) – Evidence relevant to 'an important matter between the defendant and the prosecution'" 4.42 44 "Gateway (e) – Evidence which has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant" 4.46 45 Bad Character Evidence in Practice 4.48 45 Previous Convictions 4.48 45 England and Wales 4.49 45 Canada 4.51 46 New Zealand 4.52 46 Australia 4.53 46 Previous acquittals 4.54 46 Previous extra-territorial convictions 4.57 47 Previous non-criminal misconduct 4.58 47 Raising the Character Issue 4.60 48 Separation of Charges 4.64 48 Cross-Admissibility 4.67 49 vi Contents (cont'd) Paragraph Page Chapter 4 Cont'd Purpose for Which Bad Character Evidence May Be Used 4.68 49 England and Wales 4.68 49 New Zealand 4.71 51 Canada 4.72 51 Australia 4.73 51 Satellite Trials and Rehearing Evidence 4.74 51 England and Wales 4.74 51 New Zealand 4.78 53 Canada 4.79 53 Australia 4.80 53 Conclusion 4.81 53 Chapter 5 Bad Character, Similar Fact Evidence and Propensity Bad Character 5.2 55 Similar Fact Evidence 5.5 56 What is "similar fact evidence"? 5.5 56 Similar fact evidence in civil cases 5.9 58 Relevance and collateral matters 5.19 62 Prejudicial effect versus probative value 5.28 64 Propensity 5.55 71 What inference can be drawn from similar fact evidence, or evidence of propensity? 5.63 74 Chapter 6 The Moorov and Howden doctrines Moorov 6.5 78 The development of Moorov 6.8 79 The need to show a "course of conduct" 6.10 79 The use of evidence relating to charges of which the accused has been acquitted 6.16 81 Statutory restatement of Moorov and Howden? 6.23 84 Limitations on Moorov 6.33 85 The "previous acquittal case" 6.35 86 Discussion 6.42 87 The "previous conviction case" 6.48 89 Discussion 6.55 91 The "no jurisdiction case" 6.56 91 Discussion 6.61 93 Further Limitations on Moorov 6.68 94 Time limits 6.68 94 vii Contents (cont'd) Paragraph Page Chapter 6 Cont'd The need to show a "course of conduct" 6.73 95 Corroboration between greater and lesser charges 6.82 98 Howden v HM Advocate 6.88 99 Conclusion 6.95 102 Chapter 7 Use of Previous Convictions Introduction 7.1 103 General 7.2 103 Background 7.3 103 Effect of the legislation – 1887-1898 7.4 106 1898-1995 7.6 106 1995-2002 7.8 106 2002-date 7.9 106 Summary 7.10 107 Cases where evidence of previous convictions is admissible in proof of current offence 7.11 107 Cases where accused has given evidence 7.12 107 Cases where the accused does not give evidence 7.22 110 Relevance and presumption in favour of disclosure 7.23 110 Issue 1 – General effect of a change on the right to a fair trial 7.31 111 Issue 2 – What would evidence of previous convictions prove? 7.41 114 What is the effect of the evidence? 7.46 115 Similar fact evidence generally 7.58 118 Other dicta as to corroborative value of evidence of previous convictions 7.59 118 Conclusion 7.64 120 Issue 3 – What practical difference would a change make? 7.65 120 Issue 4 – Which previous convictions would be relevant? 7.70 121 Issue 5 – What would be involved, in practical terms, in the proof of previous convictions 7.85 125 Should it be competent for the accused to challenge the validity of the conviction? 7.91 127 Issue 6 – Would it be necessary to balance probative value against prejudicial effect? 7.99 129 Procedure 7.103 129 Notice of intention to lead evidence as to previous convictions 7.104 130 Conclusion 7.110 131 viii Contents (cont'd) Paragraph Page Chapter 8 List of recommendations 132 Appendix A Draft Criminal Evidence (Scotland) Bill 136 Appendix B Extracts from legislation 148 Appendix C Advisory Group and Judicial Reference Group 161 Appendix D List of Respondents 162 ix Abbreviations 1887 Act Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 1898 Act Criminal Evidence Act 1898 1926 Act Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926 1975 Act Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 1995 Act Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 2002 Act Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) (Scotland) Act 2002 2003 Act Criminal Justice Act 2003 2010 Act Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 2011 Act Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Act 2011 The Convention The European Convention on Human Rights ECHR The Crown Office The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service The Faculty The Faculty of Advocates The judges The Senators of the College of Justice The Law Society The Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society of Scotland x Chapter 1 – Introduction OUR REMIT 1.1 On 20 November 2007 we received a reference1 from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr Kenny MacAskill MSP, asking us: "To consider the law relating to: • judicial rulings that can bring a solemn case to an end without the verdict of a jury, and rights of appeal against such; • the principle of double jeopardy, and whether there should be exceptions to it; • admissibility of evidence of bad character or of previous convictions, and of similar fact evidence; and • the Moorov doctrine2; and to make any appropriate recommendations for reform." We published a Discussion Paper3 and Report4 on Crown Appeals in 2008, which dealt with the first part of the reference.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use of Similar Fact in Criminal Proceedings: an Updated Framework
    Published on 11 December 2020 THE USE OF SIMILAR FACT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: AN UPDATED FRAMEWORK [2020] SAL Prac 25 CHEN Siyuan LLB (National University of Singapore); LLM (Harvard). CHANG Wen Yee LLB candidate (Singapore Management University). I. Introduction 1 When confronted with the question of whether to admit similar fact for criminal cases, courts in Singapore are often faced with balancing potentially competing norms in the form of evidential expediency and fairness to the accused. Specifically, although similar fact may help establish the ingredients of an offence, there exists a real risk that any resulting conviction will be based heavily on the past behaviour or disposition of the accused and this potential weakness in inferential reasoning through indirect proof will – to use the word in its broadest sense – prejudice the accused.1 2 The 1996 Court of Appeal decision in Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor2 (“Tan Meng Jee”) tried to address these concerns in detail. But even after almost 25 years, this case remains the only modern apex court decision on how the similar fact rule is to be 1 Taking a step back, one must bear in mind too features of the Singapore criminal justice process. As a matter of criminal procedure, the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) is generally considered to tilt more in favour of crime control. As a matter of substantive criminal law, potentially severe sanctions could follow upon conviction. As a matter of standard of proof, a strict insistence on corroboration is generally not required, and any proving of a defence must be done on a balance of probabilities, which is a higher standard than casting reasonable doubt.
    [Show full text]
  • Similar Fact Evidence - Catchwords and Cartwheels Ronald B
    Similar Fact Evidence - Catchwords and Cartwheels Ronald B. Sldar* Wigmore once called it a "vast morass of authority".' "It is hopeless to attempt to reconcile the precedents" was his judgment in 1940.2 In 1972 England's Criminal Law Revision Committee said it "proved far the most difficult of all the [evidence] topics" they had to consider3 Each was referring to the question of the ad- missibility of evidence that the accused on one or more other occasions engaged in misconduct similar to that presently charged against him: the admissibility of so-called "similar fact" evidence, To this vexing subject have been added two further precedents: D.P.P.v. Boardman4 and LeBlanc v. The Queen.6 Both are significant, if for very different reasons. Boardman may be, as one writer has called it, "an intellectual breakthrough". 6 LeBlanc may be, for those of us who take the exclusionary side of the rule seriously, most ominous. The admissibility of an item of similar fact evidence is a question of law for the trial judge. Its ultimate weight is a question of fact for the trier of fact. When faced with the prosecution's offer of similar fact evidence7 the trial judge has three distinct questions *Associate Professor of Law, McGill University. 1 This phrase is attributed to Wigmore by Cowen and Carter in their essay, "The Admissibility of Evidence of Similar Facts: A Re-Examination", Essays on the Law of Evidence (1956), 107, though I have not been able to locate the phrase in any of the three editions of Wigmore's treatise.' 2Wigmore, Evidence 3d ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Factum
    Court File No. 33694 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (On appeal from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia) BETWEEN: LARRY WAYNE JESSE Appellant AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent An Order has been made in this case directing that the identity of the complainant(s) and any information that could disclose their identity not be published in any document or broadcast in any way pursuant to Section 486.4 (1) of the Criminal Code APPELLANT'S FACTUM Gil D. McKinnon, Q.C. Gowling Lafleur Henderson #I500 - 701 West Georgia Street 26'h Floor,lGO Elgin Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4H1 Ottawa, ON KIP 1C3 Telephone: (604) 601-561 6 Telephone: (613) 233-1781 Facsimile: (604) 601-561 7 Facsimile: (613) 563-9869 E: [email protected] E: henrv.brown@~owlinas.com Counsel for the Appellant Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Ottawa Agents for the Appellant Jennifer Duncan Burke-Robertson Elizabeth Campbell Barristers and Solicitors Attorney General of British Columbia 70 Gloucester Street Criminal Appeals & Special Prosecutions Ottawa, ON K2P OA2 6th Floor, 865 Hornby Street Telephone: (613) 236-9665 Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2G3 Facsimile:(613) 235-4430 Telephone: (604) 660-1 126 E: [email protected] Facsimile: (604) 660-1 133 E: Jennier.Duncan@,qov.bc.ca Counsel for the Respondent Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Ottawa Agents for the Respondent INDEX Page Part l Statement of Facts A. Overview B. Appellant's Record C. Similar Fact Voir Dire D. Appellant Testified on Trial E. B.C. Supreme Court's Reasons for Judgment F. B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Publishers and Authors Be More Responsible? Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(5) 314-322
    Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol.7, No.5 Publication Date: May 25, 2020 D OI:10.14738/assrj.75.8174. Berry, M. J. (2020) Should Publishers and Authors be more responsible? Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 7(5) 314-322. Should Publishers and Authors be more responsible? M. J. Berry Consultant Clinical Forensic Psychologist, Department of Applied Criminology, Birmingham City University, England ABSTRACT Should publishers adopt a more responsible role when publishing books that name individuals as Killers in major unsolved murder cases? This paper explores what could be described as “trial by authors” and the implications this has for victims; and their families; the alleged offenders and their families and the wider Society. It will use the case of the Hammersmith Nude Murders of six female prostitutes, where six booKs written by six authors identified five different Killers and the implications of their naming potential Killers. The sexual murders occurred in and around London’s Hammersmith during 1964 to 1965. Nobody was ever convicted. This writer argues that publishers should exercise some control over publishing what would be libellous if the identified individual was still alive. Keywords: publishers’ responsibilities; sex workers murders; false allegations; trial by authors; the killer known as ‘Jack the Stripper’. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE HAMMERSMITH NUDE MURDERS Six female prostitutes (sex workers) working the West of London in England during 1964/1965 were murdered by what the police, the mass media and most experts recognise as a serial killer (see British newspapers at the time; for example Daily Mirror [1-2]; and later an article in the Sun Newspaper [3]).
    [Show full text]
  • Approved Judgment
    Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA Civ 1088 Case No: B4/2020/1196 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT Her Honour Judge Jacklin QC ZE17P01593 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 18 August 2020 Before : LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS LORD JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM and LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON --------------------- R v P (Children: Similar Fact Evidence) --------------------- Maggie Jones (instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors) for the Appellant Mother Tom Wilson (instructed by Freemans Solicitors) for the Respondent Father Hearing date: 6 August 2020 --------------------- Approved Judgment Covid-19 Protocol: This judgment was handed down remotely by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email, release to BAILII and publication on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be at 10:30am on Tuesday, 18 August 2020. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. R-P (Children) Lord Justice Peter Jackson: Introduction 1. This is an appeal from a case management decision to exclude evidence in family proceedings. The proceedings are a father's application for contact with children now aged 5 and 2. The mother opposes contact on the basis that the father had subjected her to extreme coercive and controlling behaviour and to sexual abuse, including rape. In support of her case, she wants to rely on evidence of what she argues is strikingly similar coercive and controlling behaviour by the father towards another woman, with whom he began a relationship shortly after her relationship with him ended. It was that evidence that was excluded.
    [Show full text]
  • Of 5 in the THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR
    IN THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA Criminal Justice and Trial Division STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO: 17-CF-017252 v. HOWELL DONALDSON, DIVISION: TR-3 Defendant. ________________________/ ORDER ON THE NOTICE OF THE STATE’S INTENT TO INTRODUCE SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES, PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES, EVIDENCE CODE RULE 90.404(2) IN EACH SEPARATE TRIAL OF ALL COUNTS THIS MATTER is before the Court on the “Notice of the State’s Intent to Introduce Similar Fact Evidence of Other Crimes, Pursuant to Florida Statutes, Evidence Code Rule 90.404(2), in Each Separate Trial of All Counts,” filed on October 9, 2020; the “State’s Memorandum of Law in Support of the Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence of Other Crimes (Williams Rule Evidence) and Factual Proffer of Such,” filed on November 13, 2020; and “Defendant’s Response to State’s Request to Admit Williams Rule Evidence,” filed on January 20, 2021. The Court held a hearing on the State’s notice on March 19, 2021. After reviewing the State’s notice and memorandum, Defendant’s response, the argument presented at the March 19, 2021, hearing, the court file, and the record, the Court finds as follows: Previously, the defense filed a motion to sever the four charged offenses in the instant case number. The Court orally granted Defendant’s request on October 7, 2020, and provided a written order on January 12, 2021, in which it found the instant case consisted of “similar but separate episodes that must be tried separately.” Following the Court’s oral ruling, the State filed the instant notice in which it seeks the admission of evidence of all four murders in the separate trials for each individual murder.
    [Show full text]
  • The Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee Recommends for Adoption of the Following Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code
    The Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee recommends for adoption of the following amendments to the Florida Evidence Code: CHAPTER 2000-316 Senate Bill No. 794 An act relating to witnesses; amending s. 90.502, F.S.; providing that a discussion or activity that is not a meeting for purposes of s. 286.011, F.S., does not waive the attorney-client privilege; amending s. 90.612, F.S.; requiring a judge to protect a witness under a specific age during interrogation and to restrict unnecessary repetition of questions; requiring that questions be stated in a form appropriate to the age and understanding of the witness; providing an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Subsection (6) is added to section 90.502, Florida Statutes, to read: 90.502 Lawyer-client privilege.— (6) A discussion or activity that is not a meeting for purposes of s. 286.011 shall not be construed to waive the attorney-client privilege established in this section. This shall not be construed to constitute an exemption to either s. 119.07 or s. 286.011. Section 2. Section 90.612, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 90.612 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.— (1) The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence, so as to: (a) Facilitate, through effective interrogation and presentation, the discovery of the truth. (b) Avoid needless consumption of time. (c) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
    [Show full text]
  • Similar Fact Evidence in Civil Proceedings: Proof Or Policy
    SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: PROOF OR POLICY * ** BERNARD ROBERTSON AND AMELIA WHEATLEY Professor William Twining was fond of quoting the story of Judge Bridlegoose from Gargantua and Pantagruel.1 Judge Bridlegoose was summoned before the Cour de Cassation to explain a strange decision he had made and he pleaded that failing eyesight must have caused him to misread the dice. This caused the court to ask him to explain his whole process. Judge Bridlegoose explained that he listened to the parties with care and attention, then put all the papers in a bag for three weeks, then rolled dice to decide the case. When asked why he did not just roll dice straight away and spent so much time on listening to and reading the submissions, he said that this was for the sake of formality which lent validity to the proceedings and that in this way the losing party accepted the decision gracefully. The point of the story of course is that there is more to litigation than accurate fact-finding. We hope that litigation will prevent people resorting to force and that losing parties will usually be satisfied that they have had a fair hearing. We would also like the system to be reasonably speedy, affordable and predictable and we criticise when it when it is not. The question then arises whether accuracy of decision-making should be sacrificed to any extent in pursuit of these other policy objectives. On the one hand it can be argued that a pre-requisite for a just outcome is an accurate assessment of the facts; on the other hand it is clear that too much investigation of the facts can lengthen and complicate proceedings and the risk of unwelcome publicity can even deter people from resorting to litigation to protect their rights.
    [Show full text]
  • BRUNSWICK and ADELAIDE BH2007/04325 24 Palmeira Square Hove BRUNSWICK TOWN Installation of Security Light Above Front Door (Retrospective)
    BRIGHTON AND HOVE CITY COUNCIL WEEKLY LIST OF APPLICATIONS BRIGHTON AND HOVE CITY COUNCIL TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS & CONSERVATION AREAS) REGULATIONS 1990 TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 1995 PLEASE NOTE that the following planning applications were registered by the City Council during w/e 21/12/2007: (Notice under Article 8 and accompanied by an Environmental Statement where appropriate) a) Involving Listed Buildings or within a Conservation Area: BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE BH2007/04325 24 Palmeira Square Hove BRUNSWICK TOWN Installation of security light above front door (retrospective). Officer: Wayne Nee 292132 Applicant: 24 Palmeira Square Ltd Agent: Mrs S Hunter 24 Palmeira Sq Hove BN3 2JN 24 Palmeira Sq Hove BN3 2JN BH2007/04520 Flat 5 30 Brunswick Terrace Hove BRUNSWICK TOWN Internal and external alterations. Officer: Stephen Ssejjemba 292336 Applicant: Location Property Invest. Ltd Agent: Mel Humphrey MRICS MBEng 58-59 Boundary Rd Hove 39 Northease Drive Hove BN3 8PQ CENTRAL HOVE BH2007/04489 Flat 2 Courtenay Towers Courtenay Terrace Hove CLIFTONVILLE Reinstating original lead/glass features within the front arched window Officer: Stephen Ssejjemba 292336 Applicant: Eva Burek & Peter Tobin 2 Courtenay Towers Courtenay Terrace Hove BN3 2WF HANOVER & ELM GROVE BH2007/04093 3 Royal Spa Nursery School Park Hill Brighton QUEEN'S PARK To remove a 3 metre wide section of existing rendered boundary wall to provide temporary access to the site. To be reinstated on completion of works where permission was granted (BH2006/03630). Officer: Jason Kaye 293990 Applicant: Brighton & Hove City Council Agent: Brighton & Hove City Council Edward Hse Grand Parade Brighton Kings Hse Grand Ave Hove BN3 2SR HOLLINGBURY & STANMER BH2007/03722 University of Sussex Arts B Lewes Road Brighton OUTSIDE CONSERVATION AREA Listed building consent for external stair lift for disabled access.
    [Show full text]
  • Serial Murderers: a Global Perspective
    Instituto Universitario de Investigación en Estudios Norteamericanos “Benjamin Franklin” Serial Murderers: A Global Perspective SPRING 2022 PROFESSOR Dr. Mike Hulderman EMAIL [email protected] TIME 9:00-12:00 CLASSROOM TBA COURSE DESCRIPTION This course provides students with an in-depth understanding of theoretical explanations for the phenomenon of serial murder. The course includes a historical and contemporary examination of serial murder typologies, taking into account motives, methods, victims, personal history, and crime scene characteristics of selected serial murderers around the world, including Spain’s most notorious. Special emphasis is on developing critical thinking skills that are essential to serial murder investigations. LEARNING OBJECTIVES The teaching approach is student-centered and competency-based. This allows communication with students on what is taught, how it will be done, what should be learned, what activities are completed, what resources are used and how to evaluate learning. The course will aim to develop the following competences: Competence 1. Define and distinguish serial, mass, and spree murders Competence 2. Identify the myths and facts of serial murder. Competence 3. Identify and differentiate serial murder typologies. Página 1 Competence 4. Evaluate serial murderers and their victims within a criminological framework. Competence 5. Cultivate serial murder suspect(s) using offender methods, motives, victim selection, personal history, and crime scene characteristics. Competence 6. Synthesize historical
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence in Legal Profession Disciplinary Hearings: Changing the Lawyers Paradigm
    225 EVIDENCE IN LEGAL PROFESSION DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS: CHANGING THE LAWYERS PARADIGM * SCOTT MCLEAN I INTRODUCTION From 1 December 2009 the discipline of legal practitioners in Queensland will be governed by two pieces of legislation – the Legal Profession Act 2007 1 (LPA) and the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).2 The importance of the new legislation to lawyer regulation in this State is twofold. Firstly, the Legal Practice Tribunal (LPT) will be abolished and its functions replaced by the newly created Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT or Tribunal).3 Secondly, new procedural provisions will apply to disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal. In particular, section 28(3) of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inquire into and inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit, subject to the rules of natural justice.4 Importantly, the QCAT Act expressly provides that the Tribunal must ensure, as far as practicable, that all relevant material is disclosed to it so that it can decide the matter with all relevant facts. This provision suggests that, as noted by the Attorney General in his second reading speech, QCAT is meant to provide for ‘more flexible procedures than are used in courts and will have a more inquisitorial approach compared with the traditional court based processes’.5 Though these are provisions are not novel, it will be interesting to observe the approach of the Tribunal in exercising its inquisitorial procedures in proceedings under the LPA. There is an inherent risk that the Tribunal, like many tribunals before it, may fall into the ‘trappings of judicial decision-making’6 with both lawyers and decision makers reverting to formal practices and procedures more appropriate to the traditional adversarial systems common with criminal and civil proceedings – the adversarial paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • A Statutory Formula for the Admission of Similar Fact Evidence Against a Criminal Accused
    Bond University DOCTORAL THESIS A Statutory Formula for the Admission of Similar Fact Evidence Against a Criminal Accused Field, David Award date: 2014 Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. +` A STATUTORY FORMULA FOR THE ADMISSION OF SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE AGAINST A CRIMINAL ACCUSED DAVID J FIELD A thesis submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy FACULTY OF LAW, BOND UNIVERSITY © DAVID FIELD, MARCH 2013 i ABSTRACT The law governing the admission, against a criminal accused, of what is referred to – sometimes inaccurately - as “similar fact evidence” has been allowed to acquire a complexity which is not wholly justified. This complexity has arisen as the result of two errors which have operated in tandem for the best part of two centuries. The first is to regard all instances in which a criminal accused’s additional (usually prior) misdeeds are disclosed to a court as “similar fact evidence”, when in fact many such disclosures involve facts which are far from similar.
    [Show full text]