Criminal Procedure. Secrecy of Grand Jury Proceedings. Accessibility of Grand Jury Minutes

1937 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 315 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Baker

This chapter traces the history of criminal procedure. The early ‘appeal’ of felony gave way to the indictment, a written presentment approved by a grand jury. Until Georgian times there were few safeguards for the accused other than whatever care was taken by judge and jury. Counsel were rarely involved, except in treason cases; trials were brief; and there were no appeals. The capital punishment imposed on all convicted felons was adjusted in practice by the mechanisms of sanctuary, benefit of clergy, ‘pious perjury’ by jurors, and pardons. Benefit of clergy was originally a privilege of ordained clergy, but the judges contrived to extend it to any man who could read, and Parliament perfected the fiction by extending it to women and the illiterate. Pardons were widely available underlay both the system of transportation and a form of criminal appeal.


1936 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 1134-1143
Author(s):  
Fritz Morstein Marx

Inquiries are ventures into the unknown. As instrumentalities of government, officially organized investigations are a relatively recent addition to the mechanism of politics. Leaving aside regular agencies of criminal procedure such as the grand jury, one may say that the emergence of investigating committees is closely connected with the growth of representative government. Parliamentary inquiries have come to be regarded as essential implements of legislative control over the executive branch. The present brief survey of German experience undertakes to show the potentialities and limitations of a different type of officially organized investigation: the executive inquiry.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-201
Author(s):  
Elspeth Reid

Infringement of liberty has long been regarded as a delict which requires to be compensated, but public officers may in some circumstances be protected against liability where freedom has been “lawfully abridged” in conformity with the rules of criminal procedure. However, the boundaries of this form of privilege have not always been delineated with clarity. This article will argue that they remain unclear following the Outer House decision in Whitehouse v Gormley. In particular it questions the basis for requiring the pursuer to prove malice where a claim is made against police officers for unlawful detention or arrest.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document