This report is about the directions that judges give to juries in the course of a criminal trail, and particularly at the summing up. These directions are designed to help jurors understand as much of the law and the issues that arise in the case as they need to make proper use of the evidence and to reach a verdict.

This book articulates the potential of the principle of separation of powers reflected in the structure and text of the Australian Constitution to protect fundamental due process rights. Clearly, the founding fathers did not enact an express bill of rights in the Australian Constitution, and the document contains a limited number of express rights. However, the High Court has accepted as fundamental the doctrine of separation of powers. While the precise contours of the separation of powers principle are still being drawn, the High Court has found that laws which require, or authorise, a court to exercise power involving a departure from characteristics of traditional judicial process are constitutionally suspect. This is because such a law would undermine a court's institutional integrity. While the High Court has been somewhat loath to identify precisely characteristics of traditional judicial process, some indicia - including open courts, ability to review a decision of a lower court for jurisdictional error, the provision of reasons, decisional independence and fairness - have been identified. This book argues that fundamental due process rights in the criminal law area, such as presumption of innocence, the right to silence, the right to confront accusers, open courts, no effective punishment without conviction, and proportionate rather than mandated sentencing, are so fundamental to a criminal procedure that laws which abrogate these rights and expectations are vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

This book provides guidance for judicial officer in the conduct of civil proceedings, from preliminary matters to the conduct of final proceedings and the assessment of damages and costs. It contains concise statements of relevant legal principles, references to legislation, sample orders for judicial official to use where suitable and checklists applicable to various kinds of issues that arise in the course of managing and conducting civil litigation.

The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process surveys the topics and issues in the field of criminal process, including the laws, institutions, and practices of the criminal justice administration. The process begins with arrests or with crime investigation such as searches for evidence. It continues through trial or some alternative form of adjudication such as plea bargaining that may lead to conviction and punishment, and it includes post-conviction events such as appeals and various procedures for addressing miscarriages of justice. Across more than 40 chapters, this Handbook provides a descriptive overview of the subject sufficient to serve as a durable reference source, and more importantly to offer contemporary critical or analytical perspectives on those subjects by leading scholars in the field. Topics covered include history, procedure, investigation, prosecution, evidence, adjudication, and appeal.

Criminal proceedings, it is often now said, ought to be conducted with integrity. But what, exactly, does it mean for criminal process to have, or to lack, 'integrity'? Is integrity in this sense merely an aspirational normative ideal, with possibly diffuse influence on conceptions of professional responsibility? Or is it also a juridical concept with robust institutional purchase and enforceable practical consequences in criminal litigation? The 16 new essays contained in this collection, written by prominent legal scholars and criminologists from Australia, Hong Kong, the UK and the USA, engage systematically with - and seek to generate further debate about - the theoretical and practical significance of 'integrity' at all stages of the criminal process. Reflecting the flexibility and scope of a putative 'integrity principle', the essays range widely over many of the most hotly contested issues in contemporary criminal justice theory, policy and practice, including: the ethics of police investigations, charging practice and discretionary enforcement; prosecutorial independence, policy and operational decision-making; plea bargaining; the perils of witness coaching and accomplice testimony; expert evidence; doctrines of admissibility and abuse of process; lay participation in criminal adjudication; the role of remorse in criminal trials; the ethics of appellate judgment writing; innocence projects; and state compensation for miscarriages of justice.

This research examines the reasons for which criminal trials in Australia fail to proceed on the day of listing. The rationale of such an inquiry is that matters that fail to proceed as scheduled contribute to backlog and delay, both of which consume significant criminal justice resources. Moreover, delay in the criminal trial system may result in adverse effects, not the least of which is the anguish endured by the victims of crime and their families, and the community demanding protection from criminal offenders. This research used quantitative data from courts across a number of Australian states and territories to demonstrate that more than half of all listed criminal trials fail to commence on the listed day. After an analysis of data about trials and extensive interviews with court administrators, it is found that those trials that do not proceed can be placed into two categories: those trials that are finalised on or near the trial date either by way of late guilty plea or late withdrawal by the prosecution, and those trials that are adjourned and re-listed. While some delays will be inevitable, the report builds on recommendations made by a working group of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to suggest ways of reducing the backlog of criminal trials across Australia.

Die regelm ige Abk rzung und Vereinfachung eines Strafprozesses durch ein Gest ndnis des Angeklagten, das durch einen zuvor ausgehandelten Strafnachlass angeregt wird, birgt verf hrerische Chancen und t ckische Risiken f r einen Rechtsstaat. Hierzu werden die reichhaltigen Erfahrungen im angels chsischen Strafprozess dargestellt, in dem das Schuldbekenntnis des Angeklagten gegen ber einer aufwendigen Beweisf hrung vor einer Jury von Geschworenen l ngst den Regelfall und nicht mehr die Ausnahme der Prozesserledigung darstellt. Insbesondere wird die (irreversible?) Eigendynamik beleuchtet, die sich mit der Etablierung dieser Prozessgestaltung in Australien, England und den USA entwickelt hat. Diese Erkenntnisse werden mit Blick auf den deutschen Strafprozess, der in j ngerer Zeit eine zunehmende Absprachepraxis erf hrt, einer kritischen W rdigung unterzogen. The regular shortening and easement of a criminal trial by a plea of guilty of the defendant induced by a bargained sentence discount implies seductive chances and tricky risks as measured by the rule of law. For this it is drawn from the comprehensive experiences in the Anglo-Saxon criminal process, where a plea of guilty has become the rule and no more the exception for the handling of criminal trials. A special focus is laid on the (irreversible?) momentum which has come along with the establishment of this practice in Australia, the UK and the USA. These findings are scrutinized with regard to the increasing practice of agreements in the German criminal trial.