This two-part study of the criminal investigation process first evaluated the frequency with which patrol officers solve cases assigned to the investigations division and then examined how detectives spent their time, both on case assignments and on other activity not related to current case assignment. Cases assigned to the investigations division for follow up were examined to determine how often a case was cleared by the patrol officer. The detective's time was then evaluated in order to determine how much time detectives spent on investigative tasks and other activities. This study confirms that the patrol officer should be given more time to conduct preliminary investigations for specific cases, and that tasks performed by detectives could be shifted to other personnel in the department. Both actions should serve to positively impact case clearance rates.

La phase préparatoire du procès pénal est une étape décisive, c’est dans ce laps de temps, plus ou moins long, que l’affaire va être mise en état d’être jugée. Regroupant les phases d’enquête, de poursuite et d’instruction, cette phase en amont du procès pénal est par définition complexe et attentatoire aux droits et libertés fondamentaux de l’individu. Dès lors, toute la difficulté de cette période va être de concilier deux intérêts antagonistes : la protection de la société d’une part, par la recherche de la vérité et de l’auteur de l’infraction, et la protection de l’individu suspecté, d’autre part. A l’aune du développement constant du droit européen des droits de l’Homme et du renouvellement des sources de la procédure pénale, force est de s’interroger aujourd’hui sur la vision qu’adopte le droit français quant aux règles applicables à cette étape fondamentale du procès pénal. Soucieux d’atteindre un objectif de perfection, le législateur français n’a cessé, au fil des vingt dernières années, de réformer la phase préparatoire du procès pénal, allant même parfois jusqu’à bouleverser l’équilibre de la matière pénale en général. Ainsi, les rôles des acteurs institutionnels du procès pénal ainsi que les droits accordés à chacune des parties au stade de la phase préparatoire se sont trouvés considérablement modifiés. Animé par l’idée de créer un modèle universel de procès emprunt d’équité et d’un respect accru des droits de la défense, le législateur semble être en quête constante d’un procès pénal idéal. Pour autant, est-il possible de concilier l’inconciliable ? La matière pénale a-t-elle vocation à respecter un équilibre parfait entre la sécurité de la société et la protection de l’individu ? Une telle idée n’est-elle pas utopique ? / The preparatory phase of a penal trial is a decisive stage. It is a variable period of time during which a case is prepared for judgement. The phase includes investigation, prosecution plus preliminary investigation & hearing stages. It takes place ahead of the penal trial. By definition it is complex and detrimental to the fundamental freedoms of the individual. Consequently, it is a period involving a tricky balancing act to reconcile two antagonistic interests: on the one hand, protecting society, by searching for the truth and the author of a crime, and, on the other hand, protecting the suspect. On-going developments in European law on Human rights and renewed criminal procedure sources raise issues in terms of the stance that French law will adopt on rules applicable to this fundamental stage in a penal trial. Anxious to achieve perfection, over the past twenty years the French legislator has persistently reformed the preparatory phase of the penal trial, on occasions even going as far as to overturn the balance of criminal matters in general. Thus, the roles of the institutional players in the penal trial and the rights granted to each of the parties during the preparatory phase stage have been considerably amended. Motivated by the ideal of creating a universal trial model based on a notion of fairness and an increased respect for defence rights, the legislator appears to be on a constant quest for the ideal criminal trial. However, is it really possible to reconcile the irreconcilable? Is the actual purpose of a criminal case to achieve a perfect balance between the safety of society and the protection of the individual? Isn’t such an idea utopian?

The aim of this essay is to describe and analyse the legal complications that arise in connection with preliminary investigations involving several juvenile offenders, where all suspected persons have not attained the age of criminal liability. It is also intended to give a broad analysis of the concept preliminary investigation, with particular emphasis on juvenile offenders. It further analyses the legislation and legal complications on the basis of a rule of law perspective. The method previously used is court dogmatic, where in front law text, preparatory work, case law and legal doctrine have been used in order to present the existing sources relating to the subject matter of discussion. The criminal investigative bodies consider juvenile offenders are regulated under the Swedish RB 23 - 28 chapters, FUK and LUL. The fundamental basis used in deciding whether to commence a preliminary investigation, is that of evidence gathered and if it can be reasonably concluded that a crime has been committed under general legislation. A preliminary investigation is initiated and led by either the police authority or the prosecutor. The preliminary investigation is always led by the prosecutor in serious criminal matters. There are certain specific rules that apply when juvenile offenders become the subject of a criminal investigation. The rules applied vary dependant upon and with due regard to the age of the offenders. The age of criminal liability is a crucial and definite factor in this context, where by preliminary investigations can be initiated only against young people that have attained an age of 15 years, but not against those yet to have reached that age. Criminal investigations may however under certain circumstances be initiated against juvenile offenders that have not reached the age of 15 years, as per LUL 31§. The most significant conclusion reached is that the rule of law be applied and met when young people become subjects of a criminal investigation. A majority of the regulations contained within the legislation limit and make the investigative process problematic, particular emphasis being under the interrogation process and the use of means of compulsion. A discussion or inquiry should be entered with regard to the effectiveness of the preliminary investigative process pertaining to juvenile offenders, with a means to improving the procedure whilst maintaining rule of law.

L’expertise judiciaire pénale consiste à faire intervenir un sachant, spécialiste de son domaine, dans un procès pénal, afin qu’il l’éclaire par sa science. Par la maitrise de son art, l’expert détient une place indispensable au sein de ce procès. Son rôle dans la manifestation de la vérité est essentiel et ne cesse de s’accroitre, notamment du fait des avancées scientifiques. Cette force probante importante influence énormément l’intime conviction des juges. Cela peut se révéler dangereux dans le cadre d’analyses faillibles ou subjectives. Face à ce risque, il est nécessaire d’encadrer strictement chaque étape de la mesure expertale. Ce besoin trouve également son origine dans la confrontation qui peut se produire entre l’expertise et les droits fondamentaux. À l’image de la procédure pénale, cette mesure se heurte à une opposition entre la nécessité de rechercher la vérité afin de protéger l’ordre public et les libertés individuelles atteintes par l’activité de l’expert. L’enjeu de l’encadrement de l’expertise pénale repose donc sur la recherche d’un équilibre entre ces deux objectifs de protection, parfois antagonistes. Cet équilibre se manifeste aussi entre le besoin d’efficacité de la mesure et le respect des règles du procès équitable dans lequel le contradictoire possède une place considérable. Par ailleurs, l’expertise fait face à des obstacles factuels qui peuvent rendre sa mise en œuvre laborieuse. L’encadrement de l’expertise pénale se doit d’en tenir compte. Ainsi, du recrutement de l’expert, jusqu’aux effets du rapport, en passant par la mise en œuvre de la mission, l’encadrement de l’expertise pénale est confronté à des difficultés et répond à un besoin impérieux. Cet encadrement se doit d’être évolutif pour se trouver en conformité avec la société dans laquelle il intervient. Bien que satisfaisant, il reste perfectible. Le système actuel pourrait faire l’objet d’une homogénéisation, dans un but de simplification des procédures. L’encadrement de l’expertise pénale doit être particulièrement simple pour être efficace, car il s’adresse en grande partie aux experts qui, par définition, ne sont pas des spécialistes du droit. / The criminal expertise involves calling upon a specialist, knowledgeable in his/her field to shed light in criminal trial. Because of his/her level of competence, this expert witness is a key element in a criminal trial. His/her role in revealing the truth is essential and even more so when considering scientific progress. This major probative force greatly influences the judges’ personal convictions which can prove risky in the case of fallible and subjective analyses. Accordingly, it is necessary to tightly frame each step of the expert’s testimony. This need also stems from the possible conflict between the expertise and fundamental rights. Just like criminal proceedings, the criminal expertise collides with the contradiction between safeguarding public order by seeking the truth and preventing the expert’s testimony to infringe on individual rights. Therefore, the challenge in framing the criminal expertise lies in finding a balance between these two sometimes conflicting, safeguarding purposes. A need for balance is also evident when considering both the effectiveness of the criminal expertise and the respect of the rules for a fair trial where the principe of audi alteram partem is greatly important. Moreover, the criminal expertise faces factual obstacles which may hinder its implementation. This must be taken into account while establishing the criminal expertise framework. Thus, from the selection of the expert to the impact of the report, through the implementation of the task, the criminal expertise framework has to cope with difficulties and has to answer to a compelling need. This framework must be adjustable and conform to the society to which it applies. Although satisfying, it still could be improved. The current system might be subject to standardization, leading to a simplification of procedures. The criminal expertise framework must be specifically simple to be efficient because it addresses, for the most part, experts who, by definition, are no law experts.

No description available.

The purpose of this dissertation is to identify whether a custodial audience in civilizing the arrest warrant, reverencing the principles of the adversary and ample defense from the beginning of the criminal prosecution, will allow the emergence of a new policy on preliminary investigation, now oriented towards the Fundamental guarantees, especially of the contradictory in the investigative phase. In this way, it is intended to increase knowledge about the custody hearing, aiming to identify its origin, define its characteristics, the way it was implanted in the Brazilian legal system, and also evaluate the purpose of the presentation of the prisoner immediately to the Judge and impartiality Of the trial judge attending the hearing. In addition, it is sought to ascertain the characteristics and assumptions of the preliminary investigation, it also inquires about the possibility of applying the contradictory and its importance in the Brazilian preliminary investigation. In the end, we will discuss the Kafkian criminal proceedings, the compatibility of the contradictory in the preliminary investigation in light of the Brazilian procedural system, as well as if the custodial audience has the possibility to modify inquisitorial paradigms still present in our criminal policy. To do so, the existing literature will be reviewed, exploring studies on Criminal Procedural Law and Constitutional Law, especially by consulting books, dissertations and monographs published by Brazilian and foreign authors, aiming to broaden the knowledge about the topic discussed. / A presente dissertação tem como escopo identificar se audiência de custódia ao civilizar o ato de prisão, reverenciando os princípios do contraditório e a ampla defesa desde o início da persecução penal, propiciará o surgimento de uma nova política sobre a investigação preliminar, agora, orientada na efetivação das garantias fundamentais, principalmente do contraditório na fase investigativa. Dessa forma, pretende-se ampliar os conhecimentos sobre a audiência de custódia, objetivando identificar a sua origem, definir suas características, a forma como foi implantada no sistema jurídico brasileiro, e ainda avaliar a finalidade da apresentação do preso imediatamente ao juiz e a imparcialidade do julgador que preside da audiência. No mais, pretende-se averiguar as características e pressupostos da investigação preliminar, também se indaga sobre a possibilidade de aplicação do contraditório e a sua importância na investigação preliminar brasileira. Ao final, será discutido o processo penal kafkiano, a compatibilidade do contraditório na investigação preliminar à luz do sistema processual brasileiro, bem como se a audiência de custódia tem a possibilidade de modificar paradigmas inquisitoriais ainda presentes em nossa política criminal. Para tanto, será revisada a literatura existente, explorando estudos acerca do Direito Processual Penal e Direito Constitucional, especialmente mediante consulta a livros, dissertações e monografias publicadas por autores brasileiros e estrangeiros, visando à ampliação do conhecimento sobre o contraditório e a audiência de custódia. / São Cristóvão, SE