The reflection of the Anglo-American institute of the agreement on guilt and punishment in the chosen European countries Abstract The goal of this thesis is to describe which elements of an Anglo-American institute of the agreement on guilt and punishment (represented by the American federal legal regulation as the most influential regulation of this institute) are reflected in legal regulations of an agreement on guilt and punishment in chosen European countries (Slovakia and the Czech Republic) by a detailed analysis of particular legal regulations. This thesis is supposed to inform about the history of the institute of the agreement on guilt and punishment in countries of its origin (England, Wales and the USA) including its spreading into countries with European continental law tradition. The thesis is systematically divided into four chapters. The first chapter discusses the history of the institute of the agreement on guilt and punishment and individual subchapters describe historical development in the USA, historical development in England and Wales including its spreading into countries with European continental law tradition, the author also gives reasons why this is happening. The second chapter is focused on defining of key concepts of the thesis which are 'plea bargaining', the agreement on...

Magister Legum - LLM / Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional with regard to its failure to extend benefits to an unrepresented accused. Unlike a represented accused, an unrepresented accused cannot benefit from section 105A. The only recourse available to him or her is to enter a plea of guilty under section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This plea of guilty does not offer him the benefits under section 105A. This causes the section to operate unfairly against the unrepresented accused based on his/her failure to secure legal representation. This continued operation of section 105A infringes on the rights of an accused by not affording this protection to the accused. This is in terms of a right to equality before the law, freedom from discrimination and what constitutes a justifiable limitation under section 36 of the Constitution. South Africa has ratified or acceded to international and regional treaties which require, inter alia that the right to equality before the law is respected. This requires a model framework to be put in place to ensure that unrepresented accused can benefit from section 105A. An evaluation of the viability of adding the unrepresented accused to the protection under section 105A is done. This is informed by experiences from other jurisdictions, which aid the need for reform.

La présente étude cherche à décrire et à comprendre les pratiques professionnelles des avocats de la défense lors des négociations des plaidoyers de culpabilité, phénomène très courant bien qu’encore trop peu connu. Nous nous sommes intéressées auxpropos de douze avocats de la défense travaillant au Palais de Justice de Montréal. Nos analyses mettent en évidence différents éléments liés à la cause, à l’accusé ou aux considérations professionnelles des avocats qui peuvent avoir une influence sur le déroulement des négociations, mais surtout, elles montrent comment ces éléments peuvent être interprétés différemment selon les avocats et les cas qu’ils défendent. De plus, le discours des avocats sur le déroulement des négociations laisse entrevoir des pratiques différentes entre eux, selon leurs niveaux d’implication (dans le dossier, dans leurs relations…). / This research paper aims to describe and understand the professional practices of criminal lawyers during plea bargaining, a well established phenomenon which is more pervasive than is commonly understood. Our study focuses on interviews of twelve criminal lawyers working at the Montréal courthouse. Our analysis emphasizes different elements related to the case, the defendant or lawyers’ professional considerations that can influence the negotiation process. We also show how those elements can be seen in a different way depending on the lawyer and the specific case they defend. Moreover, our lawyers’ interviews show that there is no uniformity in the way they handle cases, depending on their level of involvement (in the case, in their relationships…).

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LLD

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL. D.

L’analyse des procédures de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité en droit français et en droit anglais peut, de prime abord, sembler poser un certain nombre de difficultés. En effet les modèles inquisitoire et accusatoire de justice pénale, de par leurs spécificités, ne paraissent se prêter que difficilement à une telle étude comparée. Cependant cette affirmation n’est plus à l’heure actuelle, en raison notamment de la construction européenne, entièrement exacte. Les modèles de justice pénale dans la plupart des Etats de droit ne répondent plus à la dichotomie initialement posée et tendent progressivement à converger vers un modèle commun au sein de procédures pénales mixtes fondées essentiellement sur les principes du contradictoire et du procès équitable. C’est dans ce contexte qu’il convient de se pencher sur la notion de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité. Celle-ci tend à s’affirmer au gré des réformes législatives, devenant ainsi un véritable outil de politique criminelle visant à davantage d’efficacité de la procédure pénale, par une plus grande célérité dans le traitement des affaires pénales. Toutefois, en France comme en Angleterre, le recours croissant aux procédures de reconnaissance préalable de culpabilité nécessite une modification structurelle et organisationnelle de la justice pénale. En conséquence et s’agissant de l’évolution globale des systèmes de justice pénale, une tendance générale se profile érigeant l’autorité des poursuites au rang de pivot central du processus judiciaire. Des garanties doivent donc être offertes afin de conserver une procédure pénale d’équilibre, à la fois efficace et légitime. / The analysis of guilty plea procedures, in French and English laws, seems, on a prima facie ground, to raise some issues. The inquisitorial and the accusatorial model of criminal justice do not, due to their respective specificities, easily leave a breathing space for any comparative study. Yet, taking into account the European expansion, this assertion does not remain, nowadays, entirely true. Models of criminal justice, in most States governed by the rule of law, do not longer meet the initial dichotomy and gradually tend to be unified towards a standard model within “mixed” criminal justice systems essentially based on the adversarial and fair trial principles. In this perspective, the notion of pre guilty plea needs to be clarified. This notion asserts itself alongside with legislative reforms, thus becoming a genuine tool of criminal policy aiming at a better efficiency in the criminal process through a more prompt handling of criminal offences. Nevertheless, both in France and in England, the increasing resort to pre-guilty plea procedures requires a structural and organisational modification of criminal justice. As a consequence and regarding the global evolution of criminal justice systems, a general tendency has emerged introducing Public Prosecution authorities as the linchpin of the process. Safeguards should be provided in order to maintain a well-balanced criminal justice process, both efficient and legitimate.