Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:46 pm
Time: 10:46 pm
Results for criminal court
10 results foundAuthor: Weatherburn, Don Title: Trial court delay and the NSW District Criminal Court Summary: Aim: To describe the growth in trial court delay in the NSW District Criminal Court and the factors affecting it. Method: Descriptive analysis of court data. Results: Where the accused is on bail, the average time between committal for trial and case finalisation in the NSW District Criminal Court has grown by 34 per cent since 2007. Where the accused is in custody, the average time between committal for trial and case finalisation has grown by 44 per cent. The principal causes of the growth in delay are (1) a growth in persons arrested for serious (strictly indictable) offences, (2) an increase in the proportion of cases registered for trial that are actually proceeding to trial and (3) a growth in trial duration. Conclusion: Action needs to be taken to reduce court delay in the NSW District Criminal Court and to improve the indicators of trial case processing. Measures that expand the Court's capacity or improve its efficiency will have a more immediate (though not necessarily larger) effect than measures that reduce demand for trial court time. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 184: Accessed August 31, 2015 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report_2015_Court_Delay_cjb184.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/Report_2015_Court_Delay_cjb184.pdf Shelf Number: 136644 Keywords: Case ProcessingCourt DelayCriminal CourtGuilty Plea |
Author: Berry, Kate Title: How Judicial Elections Impact Criminal Cases Summary: Over the past 15 years, judicial races have become expensive affairs. Television advertising, much of it from outside interest groups that are more likely to run negative ads, plays a critical role in these high-cost contests. The pressures of upcoming re-election campaigns affect judicial decision-making in criminal cases, making judges more likely to impose longer sentences, affirm death sentences, and even override sentences of life imprisonment to impose the death penalty. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/How_Judicial_Elections_Impact_Criminal_Cases.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/How_Judicial_Elections_Impact_Criminal_Cases.pdf Shelf Number: 137808 Keywords: Criminal CourtJudges Judicial Decision-Making Politics |
Author: Zambia. Human Rights Commission Title: A Survey Report on the Application of Bond and Bail Legislation in Zambia Summary: This survey was conducted to collect information on factors affecting access and conditions regarding bail among people found to be in conflict with the law in Zambia. The survey was conducted for a period of six months in all ten provinces of the country. The findings of this study are meant to provide a basis for the review of current bail legislation relating to bail conditions in Zambia by promoting easy access for suspects or inmates to bail regardless of their social and economic conditions. The target respondents for the surveys were inmates in prisons, police officers in charge of a police station, magistrates and public prosecutors. The survey also examined the current committal process of matters to the High Court and the transfer process of matters to other courts so as to determine causes of delays in the two processes. A total of 2,168 respondents were interviewed in this survey. The findings reveal that on average suspects in Zambia are kept in police custody for fourteen days before they are made to appear before the court. The survey has shown that in Lusaka suspects were kept in police custody for about 22 days. Eastern province had the least detention days of 6 days. Another key finding is that about 30% of the remandees indicated that they have been awaiting judgment for a period of over one year. Two- thirds said they have been awaiting judgment for a period of less than one month. Nearly 6% have been waiting for judgment for at least 9 months. The survey also revealed several reasons explaining why few suspects attempted applying for bail. The reasons brought forward included suspects lack of knowledge that they can apply for police bond or bail and; suspects having no working sureties to sign police bond for them. The survey revealed that bail conditions in Zambia are stringent, requiring suspects to provide two working sureties as a condition for granting of bail. Findings also showed that time taken for cases to be committed to the High Court can be inordinately long as can be the rendering of judgments. The survey thus revealed that there were challenges at every stage of the criminal justice process that hindered accused persons' enjoyment of their due process rights. In this regard, the Commission found that the criminal justice system has more often than not failed in its function of ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected with the country falling short of the principles enunciated in the international standards to which it is a party. There is therefore need for a thorough review of the existing law regarding the bail and police bond conditions in Zambia as well as the law and processes that regulate the committal of cases to the High Court. In addition to this is the need for sensitisation of the citizenry on the rights to bond and bail in Zambia. Chapter 1 focuses on the problem statement and situational analysis. It further speaks to the survey objectives and methodology used. Chapter 2 focuses on the law relating to bail and committal in Zambia. It demonstrates the relationship between human rights and criminal justice; the law relating to bail and committal; preliminary inquires; survey procedures and committal sentencing. In Chapter 3 of the report, the findings of the survey are discussed. These relate to the demographic characteristics of the respondents, arbitrary and over detention of suspects, the issue of legal representation and judgement. The findings reveal the bail and bond conditions, bail during trial, reasons for the court not granting bail and the process of transfer of cases from the lower court for committal to the high court. Finally Chapter 4 concludes with recommendations from the Human Rights Commission regarding the need for reform in the legal and justice system and specifically regarding bail and police bond and the committal process. Details: Lusaka: Human Rights Commission, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://www.osisa.org/sites/default/files/survey_report_hrc_zambia_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Zambia URL: http://www.osisa.org/sites/default/files/survey_report_hrc_zambia_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 145587 Keywords: Bail BondsCriminal CourtCriminal Justice SystemCriminal ProcedureDue ProcessHuman RightsPretrial Release |
Author: Jacobson, Jessica Title: Joint Enterprise: Righting a Wrong Turn? Report of an exploratory study Summary: Joint enterprise is a doctrine of criminal law which permits two or more defendants to be convicted of the same criminal offence in relation to the same incident, even where they had different types or levels of involvement in the incident. For centuries, it has been an established and relatively uncontentious aspect of the criminal law of England and Wales that an individual who has intentionally assisted or encouraged another to commit an offence can be held liable for that offence; and that both individuals can be convicted even if it is not known which of them committed the essential act and which was the 'accessory'. In recent years, however, there has been growing controversy over the doctrine of joint enterprise. Strong criticisms of both principle and practice have been voiced by lawyers, members of the judiciary, academics, politicians and penal reformers, as well as by individuals prosecuted in joint enterprise cases and their supporters. These criticisms have focused on what is said to be the potential for individuals to be convicted and sentenced, under the doctrine of joint enterprise, for the most serious offences on the basis of highly peripheral involvement in the criminal acts. It is argued that in many such cases the level of participation in the offence was so slight, or the evidential threshold of conviction so low, that the conviction amounts to a substantial injustice. A related criticism is that young men from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups are disproportionately affected or are explicitly targeted by joint enterprise convictions in cases of presumed gang-related violence. It has been argued that joint enterprise operates as a kind of criminal justice 'drag-net', sweeping up large numbers of young people into criminal prosecutions on the basis of their social networks and associations rather than any active involvement in criminality. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2016 at: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Joint%20Enterprise%20Righting%20a%20Wrong%20Turn.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Joint%20Enterprise%20Righting%20a%20Wrong%20Turn.pdf Shelf Number: 146114 Keywords: Criminal CourtCriminal LawCriminal Prosecutions |
Author: U.S. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Title: Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods Summary: "Forensic science" refers to the application of scientific or technical practices to the recognition, collection, analysis, and interpretation of evidence for criminal and civil law or regulatory issues. Developments over the past two decades-including wrongful convictions in which forensic science has played a role and scientific studies of forensic science methods-have called increasing attention to the question of the scientific validity and reliability of some important forms of forensic evidence and of testimony based upon them. The study that led to the report was a response to the President's question to his PCAST in 2015, as to whether there are additional steps on the scientific side, beyond those already taken by the Administration in the aftermath of a highly critical 2009 National Research Council report on the state of the forensic sciences, that could help ensure the validity of forensic evidence used in the Nation's legal system. PCAST concluded that two important gaps warranted the group's attention: (1) the need for clarity about the scientific standards for the validity and reliability of forensic methods and (2) the need to evaluate specific forensic methods to determine whether they have been scientifically established to be valid and reliable. The study aimed to help close these gaps for a number of forensic "feature-comparison", methods-specifically, methods for comparing DNA samples, bitemarks, latent fingerprints, firearm marks, footwear, and hair. In the course of its year-long study, PCAST compiled and reviewed a set of more than 2,000 papers from various sources, educated itself on factual matters relating to the interaction between science and the law, and obtained input from forensic scientists and practitioners, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, academic researchers, criminal-justice-reform advocates, and representatives of Federal agencies. The report released today discusses the role of scientific validity within the legal system; explains the criteria by which the scientific validity of forensic methods can be judged; applies those criteria to the forensic feature-comparison methods mentioned above; and offers recommendations on Federal actions that could be taken to strengthen forensic science and promote its rigorous use in the courtroom. The recommendations-which are directed at the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Laboratory, the Attorney General, and the judiciary-include the following: NIST should perform evaluations, on an ongoing basis, of the scientific validity of current and newly developed forensic feature-matching technologies and should issue an annual public report on the results. NIST should take a leadership role in transforming three important feature-comparison methods - DNA analysis of complex mixtures, latent-fingerprint analysis, and firearms analysis - from currently subjective methods, with their heavy reliance on human judgement, into objective methods, in which standardized, quantifiable processes require little or no judgment. OSTP should coordinate the creation of a national forensic science research and development strategy. The FBI Laboratory should undertake a vigorous research program to improve forensic science, building on its recent important work on latent-fingerprint analysis. The Attorney General should direct attorneys appearing on behalf of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure expert testimony in court about forensic feature-comparison methods meets the standards of scientific validity. The Attorney General should revise and reissue for public comment the DOJ proposed "Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports" and supporting documents to bring them into alignment with standards for scientific validity. When deciding the admissibility of expert testimony, Federal judges should take into account the appropriate scientific criteria for assessing scientific validity. PCAST believes the findings and recommendations will be of use both to the judiciary and to those working to strengthen forensic science. Details: Washington, DC: The Council, 2016. 174p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2016 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 140456 Keywords: Criminal CourtCriminal EvidenceForensic EvidenceForensic ScienceForensic Science Evidence |
Author: Hunter, Gillian Title: Out of the Shadows: Victims' and witnesses' experiences of attending the Crown Court Summary: The criminal justice system depends on the cooperation of victims and witnesses in reporting crime, providing statements to police and, if the case progresses to a trial, giving evidence in court. How victims and witnesses are treated by the criminal justice system is likely to affect their confidence and trust in that system as well as the likelihood of their reporting crime or agreeing to attend court as a witness in the future. Over the past 15 years or so, various policies and protocols have been developed to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses during their contact with the criminal justice system. Developments include the provision of separate waiting areas in court, extra support for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to help them give evidence, and a dedicated point of contact for witnesses in the form of Witness Care Units. Yet victims and witnesses continue to be referred to as the ‘poor relation’ in a criminal justice system that is often seen as weighted in favour of the defendant or overly focused on 'cases' rather than individuals. Currently, the government is consulting on provision for victims and witnesses, with the stated aim of remedying weaknesses in the existing system of support and entitlements. Our study examined the experiences of 44 victims and witnesses from two Crown Courts in England. These were victims and prosecution witnesses in cases covering a range of crimes, including violent and sexual offences. All interviewees were asked to describe the experience of attending court, and for their views on the fairness or otherwise of the court process and outcomes. The study findings should help inform improvements to both policy and practice aimed at supporting victims and witnesses through the court process. Details: London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research, University of London, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 13, 2017 at: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/35740/Out%20of%20the%20shadows%20final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.icpr.org.uk/media/35740/Out%20of%20the%20shadows%20final.pdf Shelf Number: 144467 Keywords: Criminal CourtVictims of Crime Witnesses |
Author: Centre for Justice Innovation Title: Building Trust: How our courts can improve the criminal court experience for Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic defendants Summary: Widespread distrust among British-born Black, Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) people towards the British justice system is having a negative impact on the legitimacy of our criminal courts. Our report looks at the origins of the lack of trust in the system, why perceptions of fairness and trust in the justice system matter and what can be done to improve the experience of court for BAME defendants. Why trust matters Trust in the fairness of our courts is key to the legitimacy of the criminal justice system. Our courts are charged with guaranteeing our fair and equal treatment before the law.While the British judicial system has a reputation as one of the fairest in the world, our criminal justice system does not command the trust of our Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) citizens. A majority (51%) of British-born BAME people believe that the criminal justice system discriminates against particular groups and individuals, compared to only 35% of the British-born white population. This lack of trust has two specific negative consequences: It may be leading to BAME defendants receiving more severe sentences by making them less likely to plead guilty. Defendants who plead guilty at the first opportunity receive a one-third reduction in their sentence. But male BAME defendants are 52% more likely to plead not guilty in Crown Courts than similar white defendants. Perceptions of unfair treatment within the court process and lower levels of trust in the courts are likely to increase the chances that BAME offenders will go on to offend again. How to build trust We reviewed approaches to building trust and tackling racial disparity in four similar countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA. Having analysed the way other countries address this issue, our report recommends that our courts can improve the experience of court in the following ways: Ministry of Justice should work with Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service(HMCTS) can expand the existing data on racial disparity in the adult criminal court system. The Ministry of Justice should require each local justice area bring together agencies from across the criminal justice system to look at their local rates of racial disparity and produce action plans. HMCTS should ensure that making the court process feel fairer for all defendants is at the heart of its court reform programme by providing clearer explanations of the court process, training judges, magistrates and court staff in better courtroom engagement and introducing more local, pop-up courts in civic buildings in accessible locations. HMCTS court reform programme should ensure that the criminal court system engages and understands the communities within which it works by introducing ways of measuring the perceptions of fairness of victims, witnesses, and defendants in the court process. Details: London: Centre for Justice Innovation, 2017. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2017 at: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Building-Trust.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://justiceinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Building-Trust.pdf Shelf Number: 144733 Keywords: BiasCourt ReformCriminal CourtCriminal DefendantsMinority GroupsRacial DiscriminationRacial DisparitiesTrust |
Author: Poynton, Suzanne Title: The NSW Rolling List Court Evaluation: Preliminary Report Summary: Aim: To determine whether greater efficiency can be achieved through application of the Rolling List Court (RLC) model to NSW District Criminal Court matters. Method: A non-blinded randomised trial was initiated in which eligible District Criminal Court matters were randomly assigned, after committal, either to the RLC or to the general court list. Each matter had an equal chance of being assigned to the RLC. Between March 2015 and April 2016, 110 matters were entered into the ballot; 51 of these were assigned to the RLC and 59 were assigned to the general court list. Results: By the end of July 2016 a significantly higher proportion of matters balloted to the RLC had been finalised compared with matters dealt with in the general court list (65% vs. 37%). Further, a higher proportion of matters dealt with by the RLC resulted in a guilty plea than matters dealt with by the control courts (63% vs. 41%). A guilty plea was entered within 3 months of ballot for nearly one in five (18%) of all the RLC matters. This compares with just 5% of matters dealt with in the control courts. Conclusion: From these early results the success of the RLC to date is promising. Further analyses should be undertaken once all balloted matters have been finalised to confirm the interim findings presented here. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2016. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper no. 120: Accessed November 30, 2017 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report-2016-NSW-Rolling-List-Court-Evaluation-BB120.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/BB/Report-2016-NSW-Rolling-List-Court-Evaluation-BB120.pdf Shelf Number: 148594 Keywords: Court DelaysCriminal CourtGuilty Pleas |
Author: Rahman, Sara Title: The NSW Rolling List Court Evaluation: Final Report Summary: Aim: To assess whether the application of an alternative court model with fixed teams of lawyers operating on a rolling basis in the NSW District Criminal Court resulted in greater efficiency in the resolution of indictable criminal matters relative to the regular operation of the NSW District Court, and to identify the successful elements and mechanisms of the Rolling List Court (RLC) model. Method: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in the NSW District Criminal Court (NSW DCC), where eligible matters were balloted with 50:50 odds to the RLC or the general list of the NSW DCC. The proportion of early guilty pleas relative to late guilty pleas, trials reaching a verdict and no-bills were compared between the courts, and survival analysis was used to analyse the time taken to reach a guilty plea and to finalise matters in both courts. Stakeholder interviews were conducted to identify the key mechanisms behind the RLC, as well as any other benefits or drawbacks of the model. Results: More than half (58.0 %) of the matters balloted to the RLC resolved in a guilty plea before the trial date, compared to 22.0 per cent of the matters randomised to the general list of the NSW DCC. There were marked improvements in the average time taken to reach a guilty plea (t=-3.43; p-value<.001), to list matters for trial (t=-5.14; p-value<.001) and to finalise matters (t=-3.93; p-value<.001) in the RLC. Further evidence of faster resolution in the RLC was found through survival analyses of the time taken to reach a guilty plea (HR=1.73; 95% CI (1.08, 2.78); p-value=.023) and to finalise matters (HR=1.90; 95% CI (1.29, 2.79); p-value=.001). Stakeholders interviewed indicated that early briefing and negotiation was crucial to obtaining earlier guilty pleas, and further benefits to efficiency arose from the fixed-team composition of the court. Conclusion: The RLC proved effective at obtaining early guilty pleas and reducing delay in the processing of indictable criminal matters. The findings suggest that efforts to introduce some elements of the RLC, such as early briefing of practitioners and pre-trial negotiations, could have benefits for the NSW DCC's efficiency. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2017. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Contemporary Issues in crime and Justice, no. 208: Accessed February 5, 2018 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2018-Report-The-NSW-Rolling-List-Court-Evaluation-Fianl-Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Documents/CJB/2018-Report-The-NSW-Rolling-List-Court-Evaluation-Fianl-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 148989 Keywords: Court Delays Criminal Court Guilty Pleas |
Author: Gollwitzer, Anton Title: The Role of Age in Plea Bargain Decision Making Summary: Research has elucidated that defendants in criminal cases behave differently depending on their age. How age specifically affects plea bargain behavior, however, has only been sparsely investigated. In four studies, we observed that age influences whether lay individuals' plea bargain decision making is concordant (i.e., accept plea bargains if guilty and opt for trial if innocent) or discordant (i.e., accept a plea bargain if innocent and opt for a trial if guilty) in 'mock' criminal scenarios. In line with emerging adults' (18-28 years old) increased just-world beliefs and illusions of transparency, Study 1 provided indirect evidence that emerging adults' plea bargain decision making is more concordant than mature adults (29-40). Study 2, however, found that this effect is dependent on the defendant's likelihood of conviction. Studies 3 and 4 emulated Studies 1 and 2, however, they examined how parents of differently aged children advise their children regarding plea bargains decision making. Parents of younger children (8-11 years old) advised their child similarly to how they themselves would act. Parents of adolescents (12-18), on the other hand, adopted an entirely concordant approach, advising their adolescent child to behave according to their child's culpability. Overall, we find that individuals' approach to plea bargain decision making depends on their age group (or the age group of their children), culpability, and probability of conviction. Details: New haven, CT: Yale University, School of Law, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149960 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3149960 Shelf Number: 150111 Keywords: Criminal CourtCriminal TrialsDecision-MakingPlea Bargaining |