The exercise of police powers is subject to rules and guidelines, and the event of police powers has occasioned considerable controversy since the inception of the 'new police'. On the one hand, the police clearly need powers to stop people on the street if they are suspected of a crime, to enter people's houses if they suspect that they are hiding stolen goods or firearms and to arrest people they suspect of a crime. They need to be able to interview suspects in the police station and may have to hold suspects in cells. On the other hand, individual citizens need to be able to carry on with their everyday lives without risking being stopped on the streets, having their homes ransacked by the police and being arrested and taken to the police station. Suspects must be protected from torture, brutality and the extraction of false confessions. Special protection may be afforded to vulnerable groups such as the young and mentally ill. Legislation on police powers, therefore, must balance conflicting needs. Saudi Arabia the Stop, Arrest, Detention and Custody Regulation (SADC) was set up in 1983. The regulation provided powers relating to stop and search, arrest, detention. interviewing, and the investigation of crimes It seeks to protect suspects from the abuse of such powers by granting to suspects certain rights and protections. In practice, however, the balance between the use of the powers and suspects' rights is different. The police appear to exceed their powers as they provided and the safeguards are ignored. Therefore, the question is, how do the pre-trial procedures work in practice? No research has been done to examine the pre-trial process in practice in Saudi Arabia. Data collection for the study as carried out using three methods: questionnaire, observation and documentary data from police files. In this research variations have been found between the official regulation and actual police practice.

Domestic criminal law helps define State sovereign identity. Over the past fifty years some criminality has become increasingly transnational in character. In the absence of a universal criminal code (as opposed to specified international crimes), States apply municipal law to prosecute offences of a transnational nature relying on mutual legal assistanceto secure evidence located outside the prosecuting State. A comparatively late contributor to the development of mutual legal assistance the UK now seeks to influence the work of the EU in developing a legal framework upon which to base mutual legal assistance and enhanced international law enforcement co-operation. The course of this developmentis outlined. This thesis examines through questionnaire and interview data, investigator and prosecutor experience of mutual legal assistance mechanisms in gathering of evidence from abroad for use at trial in England and Wales. Comparisons are made with data from an earlier survey of UK police (1996) and with an evaluation of mutual legal assistance administrative mechanisms within the EU (1999-2001) in order to identify changes in investigator experiences since the EU began to drive the strategic development of regional international law enforcement co-operation with the Treaty of Amsterdam and to assess whether politicians and administrators are delivering the solutions needed by investigators working across national borders. Set within the legislative context of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, the data indicate that neither this regime nor the emerging EU framework were addressing all practitioner concerns. Political responsesto the New York terrorist attacks of September 2001, which occurred during data gathering for this thesis, accelerated legislative construction in the UK and the EU. Updated to include discussion of these changes (some still not yet entered into force), the thesis now provides a benchmark against which to assess their impact in due course.

International criminal courts do not operate to the exclusion of national legal orders, but co-exist with them. The present thesis provides an in-depth analysis of the above relationship. By examining the concepts of primacy and complementarity on the basis of which the ad hoc international criminal Tribunals and the permanent International Criminal Court seize jurisdiction, the foundations of the interface are explored. As effectiveness is a key concept to international criminal justice, the relationship between international criminal courts and national legal systems is tested, by examining the co-operation regimes envisaged in the Statutes of both the Tribunals and the ICC, as well as the problems that arise in practice. Moreover, the way the UN Security Council affects State interplay with international criminal justice institutions is crucial for a holistic understanding of the limitations of the interaction. The final part of the thesis focuses on national incorporation efforts and provides a detailed analysis of implementing legislation of a number of key States with a view to discerning some common approaches and highlighting problem areas. The present thesis argues that despite the different constitutional bases of the Tribunals and the ICC, similar questions of interface with national courts arise and the challenges presented could be better tackled by aiming for a "functional or workable interaction". Overall, the originality of this thesis lies in its analytical approach. By scrutinising a number of crucial aspects of the relationship between international criminal courts and national legal orders an overview of the research question posed is achieved. Moreover, the examination of the legal principles and their practical application is complemented by a comprehensive discussion of national implementing legislation which has not previously been attempted in a similar manner. [Files associated with the accompanying CD-ROM (print version) are available on request to subject librarian.]

Résumé non transmis / Summary not transmitted

En France comme en Angleterre, le ministère public a historiquement vocation à garantir la forme juridictionnelle de la répression-pénale. A l'inverse, la juridictionnalisation de la répression pénale constitue une limite traditionnelle aux prérogatives du ministère public. Ainsi, alors que le premier rend toujours possible la juridictionnalisation et légitime la répression, la seconde limite légitimement le champ des possibles offerts au ministère public. Pourtant, la liaison qui paraît si évidente entre la juridictionnalisation de la répression pénale et l'institution du ministère public s'efface progressivement en nuances. Les législateurs français et anglais, encouragés par la jurisprudence, ont considérablement renforcé les pouvoirs d’enquête et de traitement infrajuridictionnels du ministère public évinçant par là la juridictionnalisation de la répression. Et même si la juridictionnalisation peut paraître préservée lorsqu'il s'agit pour le ministère public d'obtenir une coercition et une rétribution ultimes, celle-ci s'avère en réalité sans substance. Le contrôle à priori du juge de l'autorisation des pouvoirs d'enquête juridictionnalisés est souvent purement formel et ne peut permettre de contredire la nécessité d'ordonner tel ou tel acte qui serait requis par le ministère public, alors que le contrôle a posteriori du juge de l'annulation des actes d'enquête est lui déficient et aléatoire. La garantie d'un usage régulier des pouvoirs d'enquête et de traitement des infractions ne saurait pourtant venir d'une juridictionnalisation de l'institution du ministère public. La comparaison de l'organisation des ministères publics français et anglais laisse apparaître que les solutions qui sont envisagées l'indépendance et impartialité du ministère public français ne seraient pas suffisantes. C'est une restauration de la juridictionalisation des fonctions de l'institution, conforme à sa ratio profonde qu'il convient de mettre en œuvre. / In France, like in England, the Public Prosecutor is historically intended to ensure the judicial nature of criminal justice. Reciprocally, the strengthening of the judicial nature of the criminal justice traditionally restricts the prerogatives of the Public Prosecutor's Office. However, the link between the reinforcement of the judicial nature of the criminal justice and the existence of the Public Prosecutor, albeit obvious, evaporates slowly in multiple shades. The French and the English lawmakers, supported by case law, have come to considerably strengthen the Public Prosecutor's investigation and pre-trial powers, thus ousting the judicial nature of the criminal justice. Although it may seem that the judicial nature of repression is preserved when the Public Prosecutor is required to obtain coercive measures or ultimate retribution, it turns out to be deprived of substance. An a priori control by a judge who grants judicial investigative powers to the Public Prosecutor is always formalistic, whereas an a posteriori control by a judge who may annul decisions taken during the investigation is flawed and random. However, a guarantee of a regular use of investigative powers and of treatment of offenses cannot come out of the strengthening of judicial nature of the Public Prosecutor. A comparative analysis of the structure of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in France and in England reveals that the dues that are to be considered -independence and impartiality of the French Public Prosecutor -do not suffice. It is a reestablishment of the judicial functions of the body, coherent with its true ratio, that should be implemented.

Cette thèse oppose les libertés et droits fondamentaux et l’avant-procès-pénal antiterroriste, son champ d'étude se limite à deux pays, la France et les Émirats. Cette comparaison a montré que ces deux législations choisies se ressemblent, ou plutôt qu'elles sont en voie de se ressembler quant à la procédure pénale de l'avant procès stricto sensu, mais qu'elles diffèrent sur le respect des droits de la personne faisant l'objet de ce procès. La ressemblance ne signifie pas, pour autant, qu'elles soient identiques, la France avait mis en place une justice dérogatoire en matière de terrorisme, alors que les Émirats ont préféré le choix de l'exception et ont également mis en place une justice spécialisée. En d'autres termes, il s'agit d'une compétence spécialisée, voire spéciale, qui a pour intérêt de centraliser et juger, non seulement ce qui se passe au sein du territoire national mais aussi dans l'ensemble de la planète, évoquant la question de la justice universelle en matière du terrorisme. De plus, les deux législations étudiées permettent à d'autres acteurs du champ non pénal d'interférer dans le cadre de l'avant jugement antiterroriste, notamment les acteurs militaires, les agents du renseignement et de sécurité privée, les unités de coordination, les diplomates et, les Émirats ajoutent les robots comme acteurs contribuant à la prévention du terrorisme. Cette ressemblance concerne aussi les mesures de contrainte pénale : les moyens de recherche de preuves et de privation/restriction de liberté d'aller et venir qui revêtent de caractère dérogatoire, voire l'exceptionnel. Cependant, ces ressemblances entre ces deux législations sont trompeuses, car au fond, elles se différencient quant au degré de respect des droits des personnes faisant l'objet de cette justice de l'antiterrorisme, notamment lorsque les Émirats bafouent l'ensemble des droits de la défense et les droits de faire l'objet d'un contrôle judiciaire, avant, pendant et après les mesures coercitives. / This thesis compares the fundamental rights and freedoms, and preliminary phase of the terrorist criminal procedure ; its focus is limited to two countries : France and the United Arab Emirates. This comparison shows that these chosen bodies of legislation are similar but that they differ when it comes to the respect of the rights of the person subject to these kind of law cases. The similarities do not mean, however, that the two systems are identical ; France has implemented a use of special dispensation in cases relating to terrorism, while the UAE has opted for a justice system which is both exceptional and specialized. In addition, the two jurisdictions allow other actors to intervene in this criminal field, including military actors, intelligence agencies and private security agents, diplomats, and the Emirates have added robots to the list of actors contributing to the prevention of terrorism. This similarity also concerns measures relating to criminal procedure : means of searching for evidence and restricting the suspect's freedom of movement. Concerning the first set of coercive measures, these are very sophisticated and detrimental to individual freedom, erasing the distinction between investigation and inquiryb ; and between preventive and repressive investigations. Regarding the deprivation of freedom of movement, French lawmakers have settled for setting up exemptions in terms of police custody and pre­trial detention, whereas Emirati lawmakers have created new and exceptional measures for removing certain rights : security detention and placement in rehabilitation centers. However, these similarities between these two sets of legislation are misleading, since essentially, they differ only in how far they respect the rights of those subject to the anti-terrorist regime. This is especially apparent in cases where the Emirates violates all rights to a defense and the right to judicial review before, during and after measures within the criminal procedure.

La justice pénale française connait une diversification des modes de traitement des affaires qui lui sont soumises. Cette diversification résulte de facteurs endogènes et exogènes au système lui-même. Elle est le point de convergence de l'évolution des conceptions des phénomènes criminels, des attentes sociales pour une justice pénale efficace et, d'un nouveau mode de gestion de la justice. Les modes de poursuite traduisent une de logique de politique criminelle et, une logique de rationalisation du mode de management de la justice pénale. La notion de «modes de poursuite» devient une nouvelle catégorie juridique qui structure le traitement des délits. Sa portée théorique modifie l'approche de la poursuite. La diversification des modes de poursuite a des incidences sur la conception et la typologie du procès pénal et sur l'organisation des juridictions. Le procès pénal monolithique hérité du code d'instruction criminelle de 1808 devient un procès pluriel ayant une physionomie renouvelée et des finalités multiples. La poursuite pénale répond à des principes directeurs nouveaux ou renouvelés. La notion de «schéma d'orientation» illustre cette évolution. Une prise en compte législative de cette notion déboucherait sur une meilleure structuration de la réponse pénale. L'organisation de la chaîne pénale est également affectée, ainsi que la place des acteurs du procès. Des mécanismes de concertation et de délégation sont apparus. Le nouveau management judiciaire trouve appui sur cette diversification des modes de poursuite. Le procès pénal doit intégrer la transformation numérique qui devrait aboutir à la construction d'un procès pénal numérique. / The French criminal justice currently goes through a diversification of cases treatment processes. This diversification is the result of many factors, both endogenous and exogenous. It is the focal point of the evolution in theoretical approaches regarding criminal phenomena, social expectations of an effective criminal justice, and of a new process of justice management. Prosecution choices reflect a logic of criminal policy and also a logic of rationalization of the criminal justice management. The idea of «prosecution choices» becomes a new legal category that articulates the response to criminality. Its theoretical range modifies the approach of the prosecution. The diversification of prosecution choices has consequences on both conception and typology of the criminal trial and on courts organisation. The monolithic criminal trial inherited from the 1808 French code of criminal investigation becomes a more plural trial, with a renewed configuration and multiple purposes. The notion of « orientation schematics » illustrates such evolution. A legislative consideration of this notion would lead to a better structuring of the criminal justice response. The criminal justice system's organization is also affected, as well as the parties situation in the trial. Consultation and delegation mechanisms appeared. The new judicial management builds on this diversification in the prosecution choices. The criminal trial must integrate the digital transformation that should lead to the construction of a digital criminal trial.