Advertisement

Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 15–32 | Cite as

Prosecuting criminal cases in England and Wales: Reflections of an inquisitorial adversary

  • M. McConville
Article

Keywords

Criminal Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

ReferencesReferences

  1. 1.
    J.L.L.J. Edwards,The Law Officers of the Crown, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1964, 338.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See generally J. Langbein, “The Origins of Public Prosecution at Common Law”, 17American Journal of Legal History (1973), 313.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Report, HMSO Cmd. 3297, at para. 15, approved by the Royal Commission on the Police, 1962, Cmnd. 1728.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Criminal Prosecution in England, London, Butterworths, 1960, 10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See, Select Committee on Public Prosecutors,Report (1856).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Royal Commission commented that there "is much to be said for the view that all criminal prosecutions should be undertaken by officials specially appointed for that purpose, as is the case in Scotland", op.cit. at para 223.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Report (1962) Cmnd. 1728, at para. 380.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    "The Prosecution Process in England and Wales" [1970]Criminal Law Review, 668–83.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See Prosecuting Solicitors' Society of England and Wales,Evidence to the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, Part II, Policy (1978) at para. 3.6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ibid. at para.2.2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid. at para 3.8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Weatheritt,The Prosecution System : Survey of Prosecuting Solicitors' Departments, Research Study No. II for the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (1981), HMSO.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    An Independent Prosecution Service for England and Wales, Cmnd. 9074, 1983. The Working Party's report is published as an annex to the White Paper.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Written Evidence of the Director of Public Prosecutions (1978) Mimeo, at para. 91.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Op.cit. at para 3.6.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    M. McConville and J. Baldwin,Courts, Prosecution and Conviction, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1981, chapter 3.Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Reported inReport by Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, op. cit. at 131.Google Scholar
  18. 19.
    R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn (No. 1), [1968] 2 Q.B. 118.Google Scholar
  19. 20.
    See Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure,The Investigation and Prosecution of Criminal Offences in England and Wales : The Law and Procedure (1981) Cmnd. 8092-1, Table 23.4 at 206.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Report, at para. 8.11.Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Turner (1970) 54 Cr.App.R. 352.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    See George F. Cole, "The Decision to Prosecute", 4Law and Society Review (1970), 331.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    M. Weatheritt, op. cit. at para. 2.47.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Report, op. cit. at para 7.3.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    This will remain true in substance even if the right to private prosecution is retained as is proposed in the White Paper, op. cit. at para. 11.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Lord Devlin,The Judge, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1979, 72.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    See L. Kennedy,Ten Rillington Place, London, Gollancz, 1961 andReport to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence on Identification in Criminal Cases (1976), HMSO. See also Sir Henry Fisher'sReport on the Confait Case (1977), HMSO and L. Kennedy, "The case for taking prosecution out of police hands",The Times, 12th July 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    S.R. Moody and J. Tombs,Prosecution in the Public Interest, Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Op. cit.. at 20.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editorial Board of the Liverpool Law Review 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. McConville
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations