First published in 1989, this volume reflects on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the 1982 Canadian Constitution, considering its implications for the future development of the nation. The book offers a concise analysis of what the Charter says and what the courts had, to the time of publication, taken it to mean. Beginning with a discussion of the Charter's origins, Greene then dissects the various clauses of the document before turning to Charter decisions already rendered by the Supreme Court. The Charter of Rights is a thoughtful primer of the Charter and its impact on the collective life of Canadians.

This book explains the historical significance and introduction of the presumption of innocence into common law legal systems. It explains that the presumption should be seen as reflecting notions of moral comfort around judgment of others. Specifically, when one is asked to make a judgment about the guilt or otherwise of a person accused of wrongdoing, the default position should be to do nothing. This reflects the very serious consequences of what we do when we decide someone is guilty of wrongdoing and is not a step to be taken lightly. Traditionally, decision makers have only taken it when they are morally comfortable with that decision. It then documents how legislators in a range of common law jurisdictions have undermined the presumption of innocence, through measures such as reverse onus provisions, allowing or requiring inferences to be made against an accused, redefining offenses and defenses in novel ways to minimize the burden on the prosecutor, and by dressing proceedings as civil when they are in substance criminal. Courts have too easily acceded to such measures, in the process permitting accused persons to be convicted although there is reasonable doubt as to their guilt, and where they are not guilty of sufficiently blameworthy conduct to attract criminal sanction. It finds that the courts must be prepared to re-assert the prime importance of the presumption of innocence, only permitting criminal sanctions to be imposed where they are morally certain that the accused did that of which they have been accused, and morally comfortable that the conduct being addressed is worthy of the kind of criminal sanction which prosecutors seek to impose. Courts must be morally comfortable about the finding of guilt, and the imposition of the criminal penalty in a given case. They have lost sight of this moral underpinning to criminal law process and substance, and it must be regained.

This truly groundbreaking textbook explores traditional and broader fields of criminal law and justice to give a full perspective on the subject.

Andrew Choo's 'Evidence' provides a lucid and concise account of the principles of the law of civil and criminal evidence in England and Wales. Critical and thought-provoking, it is the ideal text for undergraduate law students.

From DNA profiling to consideration of the accused's previous conduct, the law of evidence is a fascinating amalgam of logic, common sense, philosophy and tactics. Evidence explains the fundamentals and looks at the principles behind it.

Choo's Evidence provides a lucid and concise account of the principles of the law of civil and criminal evidence in England and Wales. Critical and thought-provoking, it is the ideal text for undergraduate law students.

Nearly every common law jurisdiction in the world has adopted a charter or bill of rights. Yet adopting a new rights document creates, rather than resolves, many fundamental constitutional questions. Should constitutional rights be relevant in private disputes? Does every political question need a constitutional or judicial answer? Should courts and legislatures equally participate in addressing the scope of which issues are to be considered constitutional? Judicializing Everything? illustrates how debates surrounding these persistent judicial questions are best understood as part of an ongoing clash between distinct forms of constitutionalism on and off the bench. Mark S. Harding canvasses the perennial debates within the field of constitutional studies and provides novel ways of understanding key disagreements between judges and scholars alike. Despite important formal differences between rights documents in Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, Judicializing Everything? shows that there are also considerable similarities in the kinds of cases, arguments, and legal outcomes in the three countries. As political life becomes increasingly constitutionalized and judicialized, this important book sheds light on the persistence of debates over bills of rights and their interpretation.