Marianne Wade

The Januses of Justice: How Prosecutors Define the Kind of Justice Done across Europe

The image of a prosecutor does not appear to excite a great deal of interest on the European research landscape. Even on a national level, empirical research in particular has been very limited. In stark contrast to their counterparts in some American states, European prosecution services were clearly perceived as an administrative organ1 which prepares cases for court: an institution filtering cases based on dry legal principles;2 prosecutors thus individuals deciding between options unworthy of closer observation. Accordingly little attention was paid to what public prosecution services actually do; certainly not by academics, and international organisations concerned themselves, if at all, with questions of political independence.3 The first edition of the European Sourcebook on Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics, however, also undertook to record the data

Genocide: The Criminal Law between Truth and Justice

This article explores the expectations placed on the law of genocide and the realities of what international criminal justice can provide in applying it. It traces a number of problems and identifies the law as inevitably falling short of the significant expectations placed on it. Although recognizing the political realities of the crime of genocide make this highly challenging, this article argues that definitional normative issues must be addressed. Above all the international community must achieve clarity as to what purpose it pursues using the law of genocide and must further reconsider how it does so. It is apparent that the law of genocide is applied in a variety of contexts for a number of purposes. This contribution ventures that each area should be treated individually without the expectation that a “one size fits all” solution exists. A failure to act accordingly will result in further disappointment with this highly symbolic norm and ultimately undermine international criminal law and justice ...This article explores the expectations placed on the law of genocide and the realities of what international criminal justice can provide in applying it. It traces a number of problems and identifies the law as inevitably falling short of the significant expectations placed on it. Although recognizing the political realities of the crime of genocide make this highly challenging, this article argues that definitional normative issues must be addressed. Above all the international community must achieve clarity as to what purpose it pursues using the law of genocide and must further reconsider how it does so. It is apparent that the law of genocide is applied in a variety of contexts for a number of purposes. This contribution ventures that each area should be treated individually without the expectation that a “one size fits all” solution exists. A failure to act accordingly will result in further disappointment with this highly symbolic norm and ultimately undermine international criminal law and justice as a whole.

Fighting Terrorism – the Unprincipled Approach: the UK, the War on Terror and Criminal Law

Few would deny that murder, bodily harm, and the destruction of property are properly the subject of criminal law. Offences bringing such behaviour within the ambit of criminal law are core features of every criminal code across Europe. It would appear rational then that such offences when perpetrated or planned on a large scale – usually central to any definition of what terrorist offences aim to punish for1 – should be subject to the strong arm of the law on an equally massive scale. Within the continental European context, it is impossible to imagine anyone denying the appropriateness of dealing with terrorism via the criminal law. Although there is rightfully discussion surrounding the definition of terrorism2 and (where related offences are formulated too widely) controversy whether all forms of behaviour covered by terrorist-related offences are appropriately included (being that they are thus included in this emotive area of the law which aims to punish the most heinous of crimes), prima facia it seems absurd for anyone to seriously deny that acts of terrorism must primarily concern justice systems as a subject of criminal law. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases, one might question the need for any additional “special” criminalising law for terrorism; only rarely does some form of behaviour associated with it not fall within the traditional ambit of criminal law.3

Securing defence rights in transnational proceedings

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.