Law - new material (38)
01 May 2001
International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 1999, Gordon Barclay, Cynthia Tavares & Arsalaan Siddique. Statistical Bulletin Issue 6/01 (Home Office) May 2001, pp20.
This bulletin compares crime trends (as opposed to recorded crime levels) for 1995-1999 in 32 countries, including all European Union Member States.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (1): Big brother.gov.uk: state surveillance in the age of information and rights, Y Akdeniz et al. Criminal Law Review February 2001, pp73-90.
The RIP Act 2000 signals both the importance of forms of surveillance as techniques of policing and also the human rights apprehensions which those strategies engender. The Act is explained and analysed according to rights-based standards as well as its fit with the development of an "information society".
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (2): evidential aspects, P Mirfield. Criminal Law Review February 2001, pp250-255.
This article is concerned with evidential problems which may arise under the RIP Act 2000 and, in particular, in the light of the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998. First, the 2000 Act has its own regime of inadmissibility in relation to the interception of certain kinds of communication. Second the 1998 Act may be thought to have the effect of breathing new life into the discretionary inclusion of evidence, whether produced by other conduct in relation to communications or surveillance, under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Advance Disclosure: Reflections on the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, C Taylor. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice vol 40 no 1 (February) 2001, pp114?125.
The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 introduced a regime for advance disclosure which is at odds with the operational practices of police officers, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and defence solicitors. Discretion in matters of disclosure has largely been returned to police officers with evidence of flawed supervision of the process by both police and CPS. As a consequence errors, whether inadvertent or otherwise, may not be recognised and the result is a system which presents real risks of future miscarriages of justice.
Parliamentary debates
Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 Commons 23.1.01 cols 850-866
Criminal Justice Commons 26.2.01 cols 583-597
Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords] Commons 26.2.01 cols 635-667
Civil Legal Service Commons 8.3.01 cols 135WH-170WH
Marchioness Inquiries Commons 23.3.01 599-611
Internet (Criminal Offences) Commons 30.3.01 1269-1276
Criminal Defence Services (Advice and Assistance) Bill [Lords] Commons 2.4.01 cols 50-62
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] Commons 3.4.01 cols 214-279
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme) Commons 3.4.01 cols 280-294
Solicitors Commons 4.4.01 cols 84WH-104WH
GM Crop Trial (Low Burnham) Commons 1.5.01 cols 200WH-207WH
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No.2) Commons cols 305-319
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords] Commons 10.5.01 cols 320-352