Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Towards a System of European Criminal Justice: The Problem of Admissibility of Evidence [Kõva köide]

  • Formaat: Hardback, 296 pages, kõrgus x laius: 234x156 mm, kaal: 710 g
  • Sari: Routledge Research in EU Law
  • Ilmumisaeg: 19-Jun-2014
  • Kirjastus: Routledge
  • ISBN-10: 1138780774
  • ISBN-13: 9781138780774
  • Kõva köide
  • Hind: 164,25 €*
  • * hind on lõplik, st. muud allahindlused enam ei rakendu
  • Tavahind: 219,00 €
  • Säästad 25%
  • Raamatu kohalejõudmiseks kirjastusest kulub orienteeruvalt 3-4 nädalat
  • Kogus:
  • Lisa ostukorvi
  • Tasuta tarne
  • Tellimisaeg 2-4 nädalat
  • Lisa soovinimekirja
  • Formaat: Hardback, 296 pages, kõrgus x laius: 234x156 mm, kaal: 710 g
  • Sari: Routledge Research in EU Law
  • Ilmumisaeg: 19-Jun-2014
  • Kirjastus: Routledge
  • ISBN-10: 1138780774
  • ISBN-13: 9781138780774
With the developing landscape of a European criminal justice sphere comes an increasing imperative for scholars and practitioners to gain some insight into the diversity that exists in the criminal justice systems of European Union Member States.

This book explores the mutual admissibility of evidence; a facet of EU criminal justice that is proving difficult to realise. While the Lisbon Treaty places the issue of mutual admissibility of evidence squarely on the agenda, the EU instruments to date have not succeeded in achieving this goal. Andrea Ryan argues that part of the reason for this failure is that while the mutual recognition instruments have focussed on the issue of gathering evidence and safeguarding suspects rights, they have not addressed how evidence is to be presented and contested at trial.

Drawing upon case studies from Ireland, France and Italy, and adopting a legal cultural perspective, and enriched by the authors observations of criminal trials, the book presents a detailed analysis of the developments to date in EU criminal justice and evidence law. By examining evidence practices the book asks whether the inquisitorial and accusatorial traditions within the EU systems are too irreconcilable to achieve a system of mutual admissibility of evidence.

The book will be of great interest and use to academics and practitioners with an interest in European and comparative criminal justice, criminal procedure, human rights and socio-legal studies.
Acknowledgments xii
Table of cases
xiii
Table of legislation
xix
Table of official publications
xxxii
1 Introduction
1(13)
1.1 General background
1(4)
1.2 Perceptions of difference and convergence
5(6)
1.2.1 Perceptions of difference
5(2)
1.2.2 Perceptions of truth
7(2)
1.2.3 Perceptions of convergence
9(2)
1.3 Structure of the book
11(3)
2 Aspiration to mutual admissibility of evidence in the European Union
14(35)
2.1 Introduction
14(2)
Part I
2.2 The development of cooperation in criminal matters on the basis of 'mutual recognition'
16(7)
2.2.1 From mutual legal assistance to mutual recognition
16(7)
Part II
2.3 Gathering and transfer of evidence
23(8)
2.3.1 The European Evidence Warrant and the European Investigation Order
24(2)
2.3.2 Admissibility of evidence
26(2)
2.3.3 Exchange of information regarding previous convictions
28(1)
2.3.4 Hearsay evidence
28(3)
Part III
2.4 Developing safeguards for suspects and defendants
31(15)
2.4.1 Safeguards contained in the evidence-gathering instruments
31(1)
2.4.2 Promoting 'mutual trust' -- development of minimum procedural safeguards
32(3)
2.4.3 Latest developments in providing common procedural rights
35(11)
2.5 Conclusion
46(3)
3 Theoretical approaches to the comparison of procedural systems
49(33)
3.1 Introduction
49(1)
Part I
3.2 The development of criminal procedural systems and approaches to proof -- a historical perspective
50(15)
3.2.1 Criminal procedure up to the thirteenth century in France and England: accusatory type procedure in common
51(2)
3.2.2 Beginnings of divergence -- the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries
53(4)
3.2.3 Pre-eighteenth-century approaches to proof
57(2)
3.2.4 Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England -- development of adversarial trial and the establishment of the law of evidence
59(2)
3.2.5 Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century France -- development of the principle of free proof and trial by jury
61(3)
3.2.6 Divergence of procedure in England and France
64(1)
Part II
3.3 Comparative approaches through use of models of criminal procedure
65(15)
3.3.1 Accusatorial and inquisitorial models
65(5)
3.3.2 Adversarial and non-adversarial procedure
70(2)
3.3.3 Approaches to proof in adversary and non-adversary procedure
72(2)
3.3.4 Hierarchical and coordinate models of authority
74(2)
3.3.5 The analytical value of the models
76(1)
3.3.6 Lost in translation: procedure contradictoire and adversarial procedure
77(3)
3.4 Conclusion
80(2)
4 Gathering, receiving and contesting evidence in Ireland
82(51)
4.1 Introduction
82(1)
Part I
4.2 Gathering evidence in the pre-trial phase
83(14)
4.2.1 Organisational structure of the pre-trial phase
83(2)
4.2.2 Means of evidence-gathering during investigation
85(1)
4.2.3 Search and seizure
85(1)
4.2.4 Surveillance
86(1)
4.2.5 Obtaining evidence from witnesses
87(1)
4.2.6 Obtaining evidence from the suspect during detention in police custody
87(10)
Part II
4.3 Rules of evidence
97(16)
4.3.1 Unlawfully obtained evidence
97(2)
4.3.2 Fruit of the poisoned tree -- causative link
99(9)
4.3.3 Confession evidence
108(1)
4.3.4 Potentially unreliable evidence -- hearsay evidence
109(2)
4.3.5 Potentially prejudicial evidence -- evidence of bad character
111(2)
Part III
4.4 Receiving, presenting and challenging evidence
113(16)
4.4.1 The presumption of innocence
114(1)
4.4.2 The trial setting
114(1)
4.4.3 The course of the trial
115(14)
4.5 Conclusion
129(4)
5 Gathering, receiving and contesting evidence in France
133(54)
5.1 Introduction
133(2)
Part I
5.2 Gathering evidence in the pre-trial phase
135(20)
5.2.1 Organisational structure of the pre-trial phase
135(2)
5.2.2 Enquete preliminaire procedure; instruction procedure
137(1)
5.2.3 Means of gathering evidence
138(17)
Part II
5.3 Approach to evidence law in France
155(4)
5.3.1 Principle of loyaute with respect to gathering evidence -- illegally obtained evidence
155(2)
5.3.2 Nullity system
157(2)
Part III
5.4 Receiving, presenting and challenging evidence
159(19)
5.4.1 The trial setting
160(1)
5.4.2 Parties to proceedings
161(1)
5.4.3 Jury selection
161(1)
5.4.4 Witnesses
162(1)
5.4.5 Course of the trial
162(16)
5.5 Verdict
178(3)
5.5.1 Reasons for decision
179(2)
5.6 Role of president of the court at trial
181(1)
5.7 Conclusion
182(5)
6 Gathering, receiving and contesting evidence in Italy
187(51)
6.1 Introduction
187(2)
Part I
6.2 Gathering evidence in the pre-trial phase
189(12)
6.2.1 Organisational structure of the pre-trial phase
189(1)
6.2.2 Means of evidence-gathering during investigation
190(1)
6.2.3 Search and seizure
191(1)
6.2.4 Intercept evidence
192(1)
6.2.5 Obtaining evidence from the suspect
193(8)
Part II
6.3 Rules of evidence
201(12)
6.3.1 Unlawfully obtained evidence -- nullity system
202(6)
6.3.2 Hearsay evidence
208(2)
6.3.3 Statements of the accused
210(1)
6.3.4 Documentary evidence
211(1)
6.3.5 Character evidence
212(1)
Part III
6.4 Receiving, presenting and challenging evidence
213(17)
6.4.1 The trial setting
213(1)
6.4.2 The course of the trial
214(3)
6.4.3 Presentation of evidence
217(2)
6.4.4 Witnesses
219(1)
6.4.5 Examining and cross-examining witnesses
220(2)
6.4.6 Questioning by the trial judge
222(1)
6.4.7 Evidence from the accused
223(1)
6.4.8 Power of trial judge to seek further evidence
224(6)
6.4.9 Use of evidence from the prosecutor's file through the 'readings' system
230(1)
6.5 Evaluation of evidence and judgment
230(3)
6.5.1 Search for truth
232(1)
6.6 Conclusion
233(5)
6.6.1 Adversarial trial?
235(3)
7 Prospects for realising a mutual admissibility system in light of the differences revealed
238(12)
7.1 Introduction
238(1)
Part I
7.2 Differences
238(7)
7.2.1 Theoretical considerations
238(1)
7.2.2 Differences in pre-trial investigation procedure
239(1)
7.2.3 Differences in right of access to a lawyer afforded to suspects
240(1)
7.2.4 Differences in approach to rules of evidence
241(1)
7.2.5 Differences in evidence procedure within trial structure
242(3)
Part II
7.3 Synthesis
245(5)
7.3.1 Adversarial and contradictoire types of procedure
245(2)
7.3.2 Prospects for a principle of mutual admissibility of evidence
247(3)
Bibliography 250(7)
Index 257
Andrea Ryan is a lecturer in the School of Law at the University of Limerick, Ireland.