Securing Defence Rights in Transnational Proceedings

in European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This paper identifies and analyses problems and weaknesses standing in the way of the provision of an effective defence in transnational criminal proceedings. Drawing upon some key findings of the Euroneeds study, it extrapolates results from that examination of eu criminal justice as valid for all transnational justice settings. It is argued that the failure to recognise legally the difference between national and transnational proceedings leads to a lacuna. Transnational criminal law and justice mechanisms are recognised as developed, above all, as tools of repressive criminal procedure leaving individuals facing them stripped of their constitutional identities and corresponding protective rights. It is argued that those creating transnational criminal law and justice mechanisms must recognise and provide for a more balanced system to avoid such contexts acting as constitutional loop-holes and to ensure the provision of defence rights and procedural safeguards in such proceedings.

Sections

References

10

 See M. Wade, Developing a Criminal Justice System within the European Union (Brussels: European Parliament, 2014); K. Ligeti Toward a Prosecutor for the European Union. Volume 1 (Oxford: Hart, 2012).

18

 See A. Klip, European Criminal Law (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2012); H. Satzger, International and European Criminal Law (Munich: Beck, 2012).

22

 See Wade (2015), op. cit.

23

 See Albers et al. (2013), op. cit.

26

 See, e.g., J. McBride, Human Rights and Criminal Procedure (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2009), p. 243.

27

 See Mole and Harby, op cit., p. 46 et seq.

35

D. Boffey, ‘Theresa May faces Tory backlash over retaining European arrest warrant’, The Observer (11 May 2013).

42

 See Klip (2012), op. cit., p. 464.

43

Europol, e.g., te-sat 2012: Europol eu Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (The Hague: Europol, 2012) available online at https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/europoltsat.pdf and Europol Trafficking Human Beings in the European Union (The Hague: Europol, 2011), available online at https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/trafficking-in-human-beings-in-the-european-union-2011.pdf. For olaf, e.g., olafThe olaf Report 2011 (Brussels: European Commission, 2012) p. 27 et seq., available online at http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/documents/reports-olaf/2011/olaf_report_2011.pdf.

60

 See, e.g., S. Trechsel, Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) pp. 36 et seq. and pp. 94 et seq.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 10 10 2
Full Text Views 6 6 6
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0