• Fenella M. W. Billing


Is it fair to use international cooperation to obtain evidence of a confession or the suspect’s silence in one legal system and use it at trial in another? This is an important question that relates to the problem of maintaining a balance between the effectiveness of law enforcement, on the one hand, and effective defence rights, such as the right to silence, on the other, in transnational criminal proceedings. Procedural differences between legal systems may mean that the international cooperation process disrupts the continuity of law between the investigative and trial phases in a national criminal proceeding that relies on confession evidence or evidence of silence obtained abroad. The differences between legal systems may be more obvious and detrimental when cooperation in the gathering of evidence takes place between countries that are applying different minimum standards of human rights protection, where they come under different human rights frameworks. This chapter introduces these central ideas and concepts and explains how comparative law, primarily based on the functional method, will be used to examine them.


  1. Australasian Legal Information Institute (2015) Austlii. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  2. Bantekas I, Nash S (2003) International criminal law, 2nd edn. Cavendish, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell J (2011) Legal research and the distinctiveness of comparative law. In: Van Hoecke M (ed) Methodologies of legal research. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentley D (1998) English criminal justice in the nineteenth century. The Hambledon Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Blume P (2009) Juridisk Metodelære, 5th edn. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Breay C, Harrison J (2015) Magna Carta in context. In: Treasures in full, Magna Carta, articles. The British Library. Accessed 4 Jan 2015
  7. Brøbech B (2003) Ulovligt tilvejebragte beviser i straffeprocessen. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  8. Cape E, Namoradze Z, Smith R, Spronken T (2010) Effective criminal defence in Europe. Intersentia, AntwerpenGoogle Scholar
  9. Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public law, 8th edn. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dennis I (2011) The human rights act and the law of criminal evidence: ten years on. Syd Law Rev 33:333–357Google Scholar
  11. Dyevre A (2013) Outline of a legal realistic approach to legal integration. In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R (eds) European legal method. DJØF, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  12. Easton S (2014) Silence and confessions: the suspect as a source of evidence. Palgrave Macmillan, HampshireCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elo Rytter J (2013) Individets grundlæggende rettigheder. Karnov Group, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  14. Emmerson B, Ashworth A, Macdonald A (eds) (2012) Human rights and criminal justice, 3rd edn. London, Sweet & MaxwellGoogle Scholar
  15. European e-justice portal (2014) My rights during the enquiries and investigation and before the matter is referred to the court: arrest and questioning by the police. In: Rights of defendants in criminal proceedings, Belgium. Accessed 4 Jan 2014
  16. Gans J, Palmer A (2014) Uniform evidence. OUP, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  17. Glenn HP (2004) Legal cultures and legal traditions. In: Van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Glenn HP (2014) Legal traditions of the world. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris DJ, O’Boyle M, Bates EP, Buckley CM (eds) (2014) Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Helmholtz RH, Gray CM, Langbein JH, Moglen E, Smith HE, Alschuler AW (1997) The privilege against self-incrimination: its origins and developments. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  21. Howes T (2013) England. In: Ligeti K (ed) Toward a prosecutor for the European Union, vol 1, A comparative analysis. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson JD (2009) Re-conceptualizing the right to silence as an effective fair trial standard. Int Comp Law Q 58(4):835–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson JD, Summers SJ (2012) The internationalisation of criminal evidence: beyond the common law and civil law traditions. CUP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ladeur K (2004) Methodology and European law – can methodology change so as to cope with the multiplicity of law? In: Van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Langbein JH (2003) The origins of adversary criminal trial. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Legrand P (1996) European legal systems are not converging. Int Comp Law Q 45(1):52–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mattei U (1997) Three patterns of law: taxonomy and change in the world’s legal systems. Am J Comp Law 45:5–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moeckli D, Shah S, Sivakumaran S (2010) International human rights law. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Nielsen R (2013) New european legal realism – new problems, new solutions? In: Neergaard U, Nielsen R (eds) European legal method. DJØF, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  30. Rørdam T (1996) Bekæmpelse af den organiserede kriminalitet. Paper presented with Bay Larsen L, Thiesen H at Gruppdiskussion Bekämpandet av den organiserade brottsligheten, 34th Nordiske Juristmøde, Stockholm, 1996Google Scholar
  31. Samuel G (2014) An introduction to comparative law theory and method. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Siems M (2014) Comparative law. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith E (2013) Straffeprocess, 7th edn. Forlaget Thomson, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith E, Jochimsen J, Kistrup M, Poulsen JL (2008) Straffeprocessen, 2nd edn. Forlaget Thomsen, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  35. Smits JM (2004) The Europeanisation of national legal systems: some consequences for legal thinking in civil law countries. In: Van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Starmer K, Strange M, Whitaker Q (2001) Criminal justice, police powers and human rights. Blackstone Press Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Straffelovrådet (2002) Straffastsættelse og strafferammer I – Almindelig del. Betænkning nr. 1424/2002. Accessed 15 Oct 2015
  38. Summers S (2007) Fair trials. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Thunberg Schunke M (2004) Internationell Rättslig Hjälp I Brottmål Inom EU: Effektivitet v. Rättsäkerhet. Iustus Förlag, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  40. Trechsel S, Summers S (2006) Human rights in criminal proceedings. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Daele D (2010) Mutual assistance between Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands. A comparative analysis of possibilities and difficulties. In: Fijnaut C, Ouwerkerk J (eds) The future of police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Hoecke M (2004) Deep level comparative law. In: Van Hoecke M (ed) Epistemology and methodology of comparative law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Hoecke M, Warrington M (1998) Legal cultures, legal paradigms and legal culture: towards a new model for comparative law. Int Comp Law Q 47:495–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Victorian Law Reform Commission (2009) Jury directions: final report. ort.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2014
  45. Waaben K, Langsted LB (2011) Strafferettens almindelige del I – Ansvarslæren, 5th edn. Karnov Group, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  46. Wild C, Weinstein S (2013) Smith and Keenan’s English law, 17th edn. Pearson Education Ltd., United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu W (2011) European perspective and standards on interrogational fairness. In: Cools M, De Ruyver B, Easton M, Pauwels L, Ponsaers P, Vander Beken T, Vender Lænen F, Vande Valle F, Verhage A, Vermeulen G, Vynckier G (eds) EU Criminal justice, financial & economic crime: new perspectives. Governance of Security Research Paper Series, vol. 5. Maklu, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  48. Yale Law School (2015a) The declaration of the rights of man – 1789. In: The Avalon Project. Accessed on 15 Jan 2015
  49. Yale Law School (2015b) The English Bill of Rights – 1689. In: The Avalon Project. Accessed on 15 Jan 2015
  50. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 International License (, which permits any noncommercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fenella M. W. Billing
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LawAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations