Download file to see previous pages...
Prior to this law, the courts were following complex systems. The 2003 Act was aimed at supplanting these complex systems by establishing a new set of rules. Legislative reforms involve several lacunae, and the new Act is no exception2. It has been observed that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 lacks certainty in various aspects.
The chief drawback with this statute is the obscurity that plagues several of its more important principles. This Act states that evidence of reprehensible behaviour is bad character evidence, in the context of criminal proceedings. This definition has been criticised by several legal commentators, who contend that this definition is obscure and uncertain3.
The UK’s Parliament had initiated some changes to its criminal justice system. As part of this initiative, it enacted the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This Act was aimed at completely changing the systems established, in respect of criminal convictions4. It made vast and far reaching changes to the admissibility of prior convictions and bad behaviour, as evidence in criminal trials.
Before the enactment of the Act, the Courts were reluctant to admit evidence of a defendant’s previous convictions and reprehensible behaviour. This was beneficial to the criminal, whilst being prejudicial to the interests of the victim5. Consequently, Parliament made this legislation, in order to restore justice to the victims, while ensuring fair treatment of defendants.
This shift in policy had generated new problems, and there has been widespread criticism against the Act, by many legal scholars. They have contended that this Act reflected the intention of the government to systematically destroy the justice system in the country, in a step by step manner. These debates raise a number of questions, regarding the viability of this new Act, and whether it aims to drastically change the justice system6. Considerable apprehension has also been expressed, as to whether the Act
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Otherwise, this statement would be considered hearsay and inadmissible, if the statement is used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has essentially negated the hearsay rule because it has given discretion for judges to admit statements that are made by a witness who is available to testify, if admitting these statements “is in the interest of justice,” and has given too much of a leeway for a prosecutor to declare a witness unavailable.
However, before they stop and search they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find stolen goods, or drugs, or an offensive weapon, or any article made or adapted for use in certain offences, for example a burglary or theft, or knives, or items which could damage or destroy property.
The workplace remains the area with perhaps the most glaring inequality, as men regularly received higher wages than women. A variety of perspectives have been advanced to account for this disparity. Hakim (2006) argues that women’s position in the labor marker can largely be accounted for by Preference Theory.
According to the modern criminal systems was set up by the King Henry II between 1154 and 1189 with the establishment of 12 local knights to settle disputes over the ownership of land. The system later evolved with the established of the Magistrates’ court during the reign of Edward I, and the abolishment of the nearly 300-year-old assize courts in 1830.
Decisions taken prior to the sentencing process will impact upon the final outcome in any case. Determination of guilt is one of the most important of these, because a lea of guilty may mitigate the sentence. Additionally, since crimes have now become media highlighted subjects, there is often a great deal of publicity attached to the outcome of such cases, which has contributed to the political sensitivity now associated with the subject of crime, with political parties pitting themselves against each other, to be viewed as the protectors of law and order.
There are arguments which rightly proclaim that jurors are too ill-equipped to understand even the most ordinary of the court proceedings and most of them come from illiterate classes. They are too naïve to be said that they represent societal sections. Most of them cannot use computers and even computer feeding of case knowledge becomes impossible.
According to the IPPR's report, if the youth justice system was going to "prevent offending by children and young people," it was going to have to give consideration to "the home circumstances and the quality of life of young offenders (Arthur 2004)." In response, England and Wales undertook the task of redesigning the youth justice system in an effort to make it more responsive to young offenders' needs.
The core motivating principle of the juvenile system is rehabilitation. This is because juveniles are not fully mentally or physically developed; they cannot be accountable for their actions in the same way as adults. Additionally, many juvenile offenders
Prison sentence is also aimed at the six purposes of the Criminal Justice Act.
Prison sentences implement effects on the offender as well the person/s affected by the offence, as it should be according to the Act. When an offender has fear of