Despite the inexorable global trend towards abolition, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have not embraced the abolitionist movement and still fail to accept capital punishment as a human rights issue. The application of capital punishment in the Indian subcontinent is not only a violation of international human rights law but is also contradictory to the domestic constitutional provisions that guarantee the right to life, the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture. This research identifies the glaring gaps in the substantive and procedural laws of these countries that lead to arbitrary application of the death penalty. Law Commissions’ reports and the case law of these countries reflect: the investigating agencies use torture to extract confession; the indigent accused facing capital charges do not get legal assistance at the state’s expense; and issues related to witnesses cause undue delay in criminal proceedings and an escape route to terrorist and the powerful from prosecution. Simultaneously, the special courts have heightened the risk of arbitrary and subjective application of capital punishment by adopting special procedures that lower fair trial standards and due process guarantees. These special procedures include special powers of arrest and detention, validity to confessions made under police custody and reversing the presumption of innocence. The thesis explains that the scope of capital punishment as enunciated in the primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence (the Quran and the Sunnah) is not only limited but is also entwined with stringent evidentiary requirements and due process guarantees. It helps to dispel the notion that sharia is an impediment to restrict the scope of the application of capital punishment in Pakistan. This dissertation explores the legal and physical problems of one third of the world’s death row prisoners who have been languishing in cells for many years under the conditions of solitary confinement in contravention to guidelines of the domestic courts and law commissions. The pain of death row in the Indian subcontinent is exacerbated due to the denial of fundamental rights to prisoners in the name of safekeeping. As part of a comprehensive approach, the research provides compelling legal grounds to strengthen the criminal justice system by focusing on the process of evidence and investigation in order to prosecute the powerful and terrorists to promote justice rather than revenge.

As one of humanity’s most vital social systems, Law plays a pivotal role in being the glue which keeps society functioning. Law’s function in society is to prescribe the rules by which we can all live safe, decent, fulfilling and just lives. The way Law relates and applies to us therefore, becomes extremely important. Wrongful Convictions/Miscarriages of Justice are very opposite to what we expect to see after Law’s processes have run their course, and they are very opposite to the achievements that we envisage for Law. Yet, they do occur - and their problematic occurrence poses certain questions for Law; chief among them, the question of how we address wrongful convictions/miscarriages of justice. Wrongful convictions/Miscarriages of Justice occur when decision making gets locked up within extremes. Addressing wrongful convictions/miscarriages thus requires that we avoid extremes in Legal decision making. The manner in which Judges conduct Legal decision-making therefore becomes quite central in the effort to address wrongful convictions/miscarriages of justice. Middle decision-making, through the striking of a mean, is argued as most yielding in avoiding extremes, as well as most yielding in addressing the issue of wrongful convictions/miscarriages of justice. Judges must re-train themselves to think and act in a manner which allows for Middle Legal Decision making. Judges must be flexible, abandon their default and traditional modes of Legal decision-making when necessary, take note of circumstance, pay attention to the stories of the individuals that are placed before them, and be willing to act as every set of facts exclusively demand.

This thesis investigates the characteristically unitary nature of the children’s hearings system (“CHS”) by reference to legal process and decision-making practice. It argues that it is possible to distil from the system’s constitutional document, the Kilbrandon Report, a general philosophy (herein termed the “Kilbrandon ethos”) which should, in principle, underlie the current practice of the CHS. Broadly, this ethos rests on the unitary nature of the system, which involves dealing with all children “in trouble” alike, procedurally and philosophically, whether it is their own actions or those of others that bring them to the attention of the system’s gatekeepers. The thesis argues that it follows from the Kilbrandon ethos that all children referred to children’s reporters (“reporters”), and by reporters to children’s hearings, ought to be dealt with in a similar manner, irrespective of the reason for which they are referred, and thereby explores whether differences in process and decision-making practice apply to different “types” of referral. Bringing together juvenile justice theory, original archival research, doctrinal analysis, classification theory, and the findings of an empirical study on reporter decision-making, the thesis contends that, while the Kilbrandon ethos has proved remarkably resilient, there are, nevertheless, indications that grounds of referral are not entirely interchangeable as access points to the CHS. In particular, it finds that referrals based on the offence ground and, more broadly, referrals based on grounds relating to the child’s conduct, are dealt with differently from referrals based on care and protection grounds. The thesis considers the implications of such differences in approach and explores possible responses to bolster the Kilbrandon ethos in practice.

This thesis is the first to undertake an extensive study of the petitions for the Royal Prerogative of mercy submitted to Robert Peel during his stewardship of the Home Office between 1822-7 and 1828-30. It analyses the separate functions Peel was obliged to discharge as legislator, member of the Executive and servant of the Crown. Against the background of the criminal justice system in place in 1822, it explores the underlying legal, jurisprudential and constitutional issues which constrained Peel’s decision- making and identifies the nature and extent of the conventions which evolved to curtail the personal discretion of the Monarch. It focuses on the challenges faced by Peel in reforming the maze of statutes, common law and custom, the main sources of English Law, and demonstrates that criminal law reform, in this period, was conducted incrementally in a continuum with consensus of both Tories and Whigs. It also stresses the importance of using accurate legal language in order to distinguish the common place meaning of mercy from the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy with its constitutional constraints, and suggests that this is a pre-requisite for an accurate appraisal of Peel’s stewardship. Based on research of more than 5,000 cases, it reconstructs the process of begging for mercy and shows that, whilst there were no formalities for the petitions, the Home Office’s responses were increasing standardised and bureaucratic. The conclusions reached will demonstrate that Peel’s penal reforms and his recommendations for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy were key landmarks in the transition from a parochial system with capital punishment at its heart to a more centralised system based on secondary punishments.

Stipulated by a growing interest in the social repercussions of crime control and imprisonment (e.g. Allen et al. 2014; Garland 2001; Travis, Western, and Redburn 2014), this thesis presents a detailed empirical overview of the relationship between solidarity and the collective experience of crime in contemporary European societies, making three original contributions to knowledge. With (a) a theoretical framework that combines Durkheim’s classic theory about the solidarity-enhancing effects of punishment with the contemporary framing theory of solidarity by Lindenberg (1998, 2006), the thesis (b) operationalises Garland’s (2001, 2000) concept of the ‘collective experience of crime’ and (c) assesses its potential to impact institutionalised solidarity in the welfare state and citizens’ solidarity attitudes in a comparative study of 26 European countries between 1995 and 2010. The theoretical framework argues that the collective experience of crime – consisting of the prevalence of crime, efforts to prevent crime, reactions to crime in the criminal justice system, and the salience of crime in society – is related to social solidarity has the ability to increase and to decrease solidarity, depending on which aspects of solidarity and the collective experience of crime are investigated. These propositions are tested on secondary data from social surveys, reports, sourcebooks, and country-level databases. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses indicate that in accordance to classic Durkheimian theory solidarity among citizens can be stimulated by public discourse about crime and is mainly produced at the expense of offenders. In contrast, welfare state solidarity is higher where penal regimes care for prisoners’ wellbeing and pursue reintegrative approaches to criminal justice. Furthermore, visible crime control efforts can highlight the presence of crime in society and decrease trust among citizens. Accordingly, crime control measures should not be seen in isolation from the social, economic, and political life around them, and policy-makers should take into account potential social consequences of crime control.

An examination of the nature of cyber attacks (meaning attacks on computer systems and the disruption of national security and order through online seditious and defamatory statements) and the appropriate countermeasures under the law of Malaysia and international law are undertaken in this project. This study explores the emergence of cyber attacks as a serious threat to security and a challenge to current legal norms. As such, it uses ontologies to encapsulate and analyse the existence and reality of the cyber attacks phenomenon. It provides an open-ended concept and categories of cyber attacks especially for countermeasures and criminalisation purposes. This study posits that criminal law is a necessary reaction in dealing with cyber attacks in Malaysia on the basis of effectiveness and fairness alongside other non-criminal law measures. In doing so, it identifies non-criminal and criminal law approaches in countering cyber attacks. Apart from the position in Malaysia, this study investigates the emergence of international norms in relation to cyber attacks. It examines the effectiveness and fairness of the international law in dealing with cyber-attacks. This study focuses on several approaches to draw out analysis of the effectiveness and fairness of the measures to counter cyber attacks. Besides doctrinal analysis and policy transfer, semi-structured interviews were also conducted with 32 participants in Malaysia including policymakers, law enforcement officers, deputy public prosecutors, legal practitioners and experts in cyber security from the public and private sectors. The results show that there are different variations in the perception of cyber attacks at the national and international level. In that socio-political culture of Malaysia influences the understanding of cyber attacks and countermeasures.

This thesis examines Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and its impact on the law for sentencing homicide. It seeks to establish the intention behind the statutory guidelines for murder, and critique the rules therein, using this analysis to inform an evaluation of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)'s interpretation and application of the schedule in appellate cases. It also, by virtue of the investigation into the schedule's motivations and the statutory framework accompanying it, considers if Schedule 21 has implications for the sentencing of other homicide offences, and concluding that it does, goes on to explore whether any such influence has been accorded to the schedule in the sentencing of manslaughter.

The lives of women who are trying to put offending histories behind them remain rare in research. This thesis follows fifteen women, all near the start of their journeys to cease their criminal behaviour, over a number of months. Their experiences, struggles and triumphs underline the challenge they faced in trying to 'pull their lives round again'. The micro-longitudinal design of the research allowed for interviews to be conducted in a sensitive, trusting and relaxed manner, producing rich data on the process of desistance as it was experienced. Although a number of important influences on the participants' journeys can be identified, it is the interconnections between these influences that really show the complexity of the participants' tasks. Few influences are found to be exclusively beneficial, and some influences that have previously been assumed to be negative are shown to be more nuanced. Specific findings on the role of agency, identity, confidence and social relationships were identified. First, the importance of agentic action in desistance is shown to be (sometimes heavily) tempered by external circumstances. Second, participants often experienced a change of identity- either in gaining a new 'self', or returning to a previous 'self', as part of their desistance. Third, much importance was placed by participants (and their workers) on gaining confidence and escaping stigma, but the methods used to do this varied considerably in their effectiveness. Finally, social support which showed true care of the desister made desistance much easier, but the negative influences of some others were serious barriers to participants' success. The thesis concludes by commenting on the impact these findings make on existing desistance research and the implications it could, and should, have on future policy, practice and research.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), 1984, in England and Wales and amendments to the Turkish Criminal Procedure Act (TCPA) in 1992 Turkey are regarded as fundamental law reforms in the field of police powers and rights of suspects. Both legislations aimed to set up a balance between police powers and the rights of the individual, whilst regulating police procedures. Furthermore, both Acts were intended to end police malpractices, with the larger aim of preventing miscarriages of justice. The thesis attempts to measure the impact of these legislative reforms on police practices with particular reference to detention and interrogation procedures. In doing so, it tries to reveal how far the rule changes under PACE and TCPA have affected police practices. In addition, the question is raised of how far policing can be shaped and controlled through the policy derived from the law. The study finds that in some police procedures there is a great deal of difference between the rhetoric of law and the actual police practice. It is therefore argued that the extensively-designed legal provisions regulating detention and questioning may not always constitute an effective restraint against the police applying the law to suit their own objectives. Consequently, it is apparent that there is a need to support legal regulation with other procedures and measures if any legislative reform of the police and policing is to be effective. For successful reform, on the one hand the rules must not be ambiguous and confusing, and on the other hand they must be endorsed by effective legal sanctions and administrative supervision. Moreover, improved adherence to the law will require a better calibre of police recruit, while design of the organisation in which the police operate should be enhanced. Finally, ensuring that the general public know about their legal rights will also be an important element in compelling the police to act within the boundaries of the law.

This study examines the presentation and examination of DNA evidence in the English Criminal Courts, from the perspective of forensic experts. The methodology involved qualitative analysis of expert perception and opinion, through interview. Much activity has concerned the contribution of faulty expert evidence to miscarriages of justice, however forensic experts have been largely ignored as sources of valuable data. This study is original in specifically examining their experience. Criticisms of expert evidence in the English courts are commonly described as having their origins in detrimental effects of the adversarial trial system, however, the position supported by this study is that many claimed detrimental effects are based on misunderstanding of the workings of adversarial procedure. The study examined experts’ perceptions of challenges they faced in the presentation and examination of DNA evidence, including their duty to offer objective and unbiased opinion. The study determined that whilst experts may give ‘unbiased’ opinion, ‘impartiality’ was practically difficult to achieve because of the different roles played by prosecution and defence experts. Furthermore, a lack of clarity regarding the responsibilities implied by the requirement of remaining ‘unbiased’ meant that experts put different interpretations on their duties in this regard. This study concludes that the policy objectives underlying the concept of ‘unbiased’ should be examined, with a view to better defining appropriate expert responsibilities. The study investigated experience within court. Interviewees reported similar experiences to those faced by forensic experts reported in previous studies. However, evidence in this study supports the proposition that DNA evidence is qualitatively different from older forensic identification techniques. First, the complexity of DNA evidence magnifies many known trial ‘pathologies’ in terms of presentation and examination. Second, it is fundamentally different in that its probabilistic nature means that experts are forced to present it in a rigorously scientific manner. In this way, not only does DNA represent a new paradigm in forensic identification, but it must inevitably force existing tensions between the law and scientific evidence into the open. This study found experts to be generally passive in supplying the demands of the judicial process. This has included passivity in the face of legal rulings on how complex DNA evidence should be presented. From an evidential perspective, this is indubitably a judicial responsibility. This study supports the proposal, however, that steps must be taken to engage scientific experts in the scientific aspects of these determinations, if the ‘new paradigm’ of DNA evidence is not to be diluted. The Government must take a lead in co-ordinating expert bodies towards an integrated approach to complex evidence such as DNA, in the inevitable anticipation that future forensic technologies can only be more complex still. It may do this without infringing the over-riding interests of the adversarial system of justice.