To what extent does the pre-trial phase of the
To what extent does the pre-trial stage of the condemnable justness procedure consequence in ‘justice without test ‘ ?
Puting a instance together
Disclosure of fresh information
Prosecutor appraisal of Credibility and Reliability of Witness
New system of pre-trial justness
The Criminal Justice System in the United Kingdom is a system that ensures legal justness throughout the tribunal services for all citizens and users of the tribunal system. The UK authorities has put assorted procedures in topographic point to let smooth running of tribunal hearings. The pre-trial stage of the Criminal Justice System is the phase that deals with the mechanics of seting a instance together, every bit good as covering with witness statements and revelation of fresh stuff ( under the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act and associated affairs ) . At the pre-trial stage, preliminary probe has been completed. As portion of the probe, informants were interviewed, the offense scene was visited and grounds gathered.
However, justness without test is the consequence of premature completion of a instance as a consequence of deficiency of equal grounds, instance mistake and backdown of witness statements. Harmonizing to the Home Office ( 2006 ) , “The constabulary may make up one’s mind to abandon an probe if there isn’t adequate grounds to turn up or bear down a suspect. The instance may be reopened at a ulterior day of the month if more grounds comes to visible radiation.”
This phase involves the readying of the instance for hearing. There is the drafting of general information, the choice of appropriate charge for the alleged offense, reexamining legal mentions associating to the alleged offense and bring forthing sample information.
The condemnable justness system requires the filing of standard certification by the Police to let equal visibleness and better instance direction before existent tribunal hearing. The offense allegation for the instance will be determined and documented in item for prosecution and defense mechanism attorneies. This will enable the attorneies to fix their instance for tribunal hearing. The needed and applicable legal mentions are documented with the general information to assistance prosecution and defense mechanism attorneies in make up one’s minding on instance way. The Police must guarantee the information documented is relevant and useable in the tribunal of jurisprudence otherwise the Police could be charged individually for professional misconduct, abortion of justness, and unjust test and human rights misdemeanors as provided on the Human Rights Act 1998 with associated amendments.
The burden is on the Police to reexamine the instance as it is being put together to find if the instance is suited for a hearing in tribunal. The Police must guarantee the affair of professional behavior is purely respected because the information submitted to the attorneies by the Police will find, to some extent, instance way. Therefore, the Police must concentrate their attempt and professionalism on facts instead than bias. If the Police think the instance is non suited for hearing in tribunal, they will shut the instance without come oning. This will be described as ‘justice without trial’ because the accused would hold been saved the problem of tribunal hearing and visual aspect. Besides, any issue that could ensue in abortion of justness would hold been averted.
The Police are able to cut down on procedure holds at the Police station to let equal clip for tribunal procedure. Harmonizing to the Crown Prosecution Service ( 2005 ) , “There is a wide consensus that the length of fraud and tests of other complex offenses must be controlled within proper bounds in order: ( I ) to let jury to retain and measure the grounds they have heard …” and“ ( two ) to do proper usage of limited public resources…” This will cut down on wastage of public resources. When the Police address the issue of unneeded hold at the Police station, they are able to do a determination on a instance in good clip before test. If the instance is non suited for promotion to test, they are removed and closed rapidly to salvage resources taking to ‘justice without trial’ . However, if the instance is suited for tribunal, all the necessary certifications are passed to the tribunal, prosecution and defense mechanism.
The informants that will give grounds at the test must hold their statements taken by the Police. The Police guarantee the informant statements are decently and lawfully documented and signed by the informant, ready when required by the attorneies for the hearing. The witness statements must be existent witness statements punctually signed and authorised by the informant.
The Police have to guarantee that the informant, apart from subjecting signed witness statement, is available for tribunal hearing. In most condemnable instances, the defense mechanism attorneies would desire to traverse analyze the statements of the informant to set up legal facts and clear up any misinterpretation. If the informant is non available to stand cross scrutiny, the informant statement will be withdrawn. If retreating the informant statement means that there is no other informant to confirm grounds in tribunal, the Police will shut the instance for deficiency of grounds.
The Police have the option to oblige the informant to go to tribunal utilizing the powers from the tribunal but this is frequently unproductive and frequently makes the Police expression urgently in demand of a test. This will besides ensue in ‘justice without trial’ because if the informant is unwilling to go to tribunal for cross scrutiny, the instance is most likely to be dismissed by the test justice for deficiency of grounds. Therefore, the Police have to salvage clip and resources by shuting the instance before it reaches test in tribunal.
The procedure of garnering grounds from informants has revealed some anomalousnesss in recent times. In an effort to decide the job of witness bullying and fright, the Crown Prosecution Service ( 2006 ) introduced guidelines that, “It is our peculiar hope that the usage of this counsel in questioning vulnerable or intimidated informants will assist to better entree to justice so that vulnerable and intimidated informants are better able to give their best grounds to the tribunal, where antecedently such entree to justness would non hold been possible.”
Fresh information varies from one instance to another. The regulations on fresh information changed on 5ThursdayApril 2005. The probe of an offense involves many procedures aimed at garnering information to enable sensible appraisal of the viability of the instance. Prosecutors and defense mechanism attorneies may desire entree to fresh information to enable them to measure the credibleness of the instance and impending test. The prosecuting officer and defense mechanism attorneies will be able to do a better appraisal than Police Officers. This can take to ‘justice without trial’ if the prosecuting officers or defense mechanism find legal defects that put the instance in hazard.
The Crown Prosecution Service ( 2003 ) produced a audience paper leting for treatment. Harmonizing to the paper, “This paper considers the desirableness of leting prosecuting officers direct entree to informants in order for their dependability and credibleness to be accessed and seeks positions on the issues likely to originate from direct contact between prosecuting officer and witness pre-trial.” This procedure will further increase the possibility of ‘justice without trial’ because more inside informations of the instance will be revealed to the prosecuting officers. However, other issues sing contact with the informant by the prosecuting officer will hold to be resolved.
The prosecuting officer and defense mechanism can non be trusted to continue the criterions of the jurisprudence without bias because they will be contending for the involvement of their ain topic. The defense mechanism attorneies would desire to supply the best representation for clients. As a consequence, they can non be trusted to hold a echt pre-trial meeting with the informant. Alternatively of assisting to supply ‘justice without trial’ , this will take to injustice and abortion of justness.
Bailin ( 2006 ) responded to the petition by the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of LIBERTY, an International Human Rights administration. In his response, he argued that the system of leting prosecutor pre-trial interview will give no touchable “benefit” , “potency for maltreatment” , “significant cost deductions” and “limited suited instances”
Harmonizing to Ford ( 2006 ) , “A secret French-style system of justness is being planned by the Government in a command to do it easier to convict terrorist suspects.” If the program is implemented, the Gallic inquisitorial system would so replace the adversarial system of English legal system. The adversarial system allows prosecution and defense mechanism attorneies to convincingly argue to carry a jury of artlessness or guilt of the accused. The new Gallic manner system would use to pre-trial hearings in terrorist instances. It will let more secret intelligence gathered against suspects to be used in legal grounds.
The impact this would hold on the Criminal Justice System is still being assessed. Although this will besides convey about ‘justice without trial’ , it has to be decently assessed and regulated to guarantee there is no abortion of justness. If this is non assessed before widespread execution, it would take to injustice as the terrorist instances would be pre-determined before existent tribunal hearing. Therefore, this will non give the jury equal place in doing a conclusive determination of guilt or artlessness.
Harmonizing to politics.co.uk, Adfero ( 2006 ) , “Reacting to suggestion of secret pre-trial hearings for panic suspects, manager Roger Smith told politics.co.uk that any statute law on terrorist act should reflect the basic rules of the condemnable justness system” This shows that the new procedure of secret pre-trial will run into legion resistance as the system has non been by and large accepted and used before in the United Kingdom.
Harmonizing to Amnesty International UK, “A US federal territory tribunal in Alexandria, Virginia, will hear a defense mechanism gesture to stamp down ( exclude from his forthcoming test ) statements Lindh made while in US detention in Afghanistan on the evidences that they were non voluntary because of the “ agonizing conditions ” under which he was being held. These reportedly include being held blindfolded, bare and shackled in a metal transportation container while being interrogated at a US base near Kandahar last December. At no clip during his question in Afghanistan did he hold entree to a attorney.” This is an illustration of the utility of pre-trial hearing but it could take to unanticipated state of affairss where the accused may get down superficial detainment before test.
Harmonizing to Bailin ( 2003 ) , “prosecuting officer pre-trial interviews will raise more concerns than possible benefit.”
The pre-trial stage of the condemnable justness system would ensue in ‘justice without trial’ if there is no bias in the procedure of assemblage and presenting of grounds. The grounds collected must be suited for the instance to be presented in the tribunal of jurisprudence. Witness statements must be used without doctoring and use as this can ensue in abortion of justness. Leting the prosecuting officer entree to a informant could ensue in coaching and use of grounds to accommodate the prosecution. However, this could be resolved by supplying the full picture tape entering to the defense mechanism attorney and the jury in tribunal during test. This will let a balanced position of the pre-trial interview.
The cost of the pre-trial interview procedure has non been punctually assessed over a period of clip. It should be noted that the cost of pre-trial procedure will non merely impact the prosecution. The defense mechanism may bespeak more clip to measure the picture taped recording of the pre-trial interview. This will therefore consequence in hold and gyrating cost on both sides in the instance test. The benefit of prosecutors’ pre-trial informant interview is still capable to argument.
Avail Consulting ( 2004 ) advocates the attention of victims and informants in the tribunal procedure as a manner to contract the justness spread.
Adfero. ( 2005 ) . Justice: Execution non statute law needed. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.politics.co.uk/issueoftheday/justice-implementation-not-legislation-needed- $ 15019331.htm
Ainsworth, P. ( 2001 ) .Offender Profiling and Crime Analysis. England: Willan Publishing.
Amnesty International UK. ( 2002 ) . USA: Amnesty International sends observer to pre-trial hearing of American Taleban soldier. Retrieved April 25, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14116.shtml
Ashworth, A. & A ; Redmayne, M. ( 2004 ) . The Criminal Process. England: Oxford University Press.
Avail Consulting. ( 2004 ) . No Witness, No Justice ( NWNJ ) . Pilot Evaluation. Retrieved April 25, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/nwnj_executive_summary_291004.pdf
Bailin, A. ( 2003 ) . Liberty’s response to the CPS audience on pre-trial informant interview by prosecuting officers. LIBERTY. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/policy-papers-2003/pdf-documents/pre-trial-witness-interviews-july-2003.pdf
Carrabine, E. , Cox, P. , Lee, M. & A ; South N. ( 2002 ) . Crime in Modern Britain. England: Oxford University Press.
Criminal Justice Service. ( 2005 ) . Condemnable Case Management Framework. Retrieved April 23, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cjsonline.gov.uk/framework/ccmf/downloads/Criminal_Case_Management_Framework-web_version_for_printing.pdf
Crown Prosecution Service. ( 2003 ) . A Consultation Paper: Pre-trial Witness Interviews by Prosecutors. CPS Communications Branch. Retrieved April 24, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/pre-trial-wit-consult.pdf
Crown Prosecution Service. ( 2006 ) . Achieving Best Evidence in Condemnable Proceedings: Volume 1. Retrieved April 26, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/bestevidencevol1.html
Crown Prosecution Service. ( 2005 ) . Control and Management of Heavy Fraud and other Complex Criminal Cases. Retrieved April 25, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/control_protocol.pdf
Davies, M. , Croall, H. & A ; Tyrer, J. ( 2005 ) . Condemnable Justice. England: Pearson Education Ltd.
Ford, R. ( 2006 ) . Plans for secret pre-trial hearings for panic suspects. TIMES Online. Retrieved April 25, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ,22989-1727864,00.html
Health & A ; Safety Executive. ( 2005 ) . Enforcement Guide: Pre-Trial. Retrieved April 23, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/pretrial/index.htm
Home Office. ( 2006 ) . Investigating the offense. Retrieved April 24, 2006 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/investigating-the-crime/ ? view=Standard
Lee, M. ( 1998 ) . Youth, Crime and Police Work. England: Palgrave Macmillan.
McConville M, Wilson G. ( Eds ) . ( 2002 )The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process.London. Oxford University Press.
Sprack, J. ( 2000 ) . Emmins on Condemnable Procedure. England: Blackstone Press Ltd.
Tanford, A. J. ( 2003 ) The Pretrial Process. England: Lexis Nexis
United Nations. ( 1994 ) . Human Rights and Pre-Trial Detention: A Handbook of International Standards Associating to Pre-Trial Detention ( Professional Training Series )
White, R. ( 2002 ) .Structure and Organisation of Criminal Justice in England and Wales.In McConville M, Wilson G. ( Eds ) ( 2002 )The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process.( p5-20 ) England: Oxford University Press.