The role of special advocates
Advocacy, due process and the adversarial tradition
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12596166 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jonathan Jackson (0000-0003-2426-2219, University of Nottingham, corresponding author), John Jackson (0000-0002-4563-2840, University of Nottingham) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 343-362 |
| Publication date | 2016-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The International Journal of Evidence & Proof (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1365-7127 • E-ISSN: 1740-5572 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1365712716659806 |
| OpenAlex | W2566144070 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 11 |
The rise in secret courts or ‘closed material proceedings’ (CMPs) in recent years has called into question our commitment to long-cherished principles of open justice and due process. This debate has somewhat overshadowed the role of special advocates, who are appointed to represent the interests of parties excluded from such hearings. These advocates pose a challenge to the traditions of advocacy in the adversarial system but an international consensus across the common law world appears to be emerging that they may be justified on human rights grounds of fairness in that they bring a measure of procedural fairness to closed material proceedings. This paper examines this claim and considers the extent to which the rise of special advocates poses a threat to the adversarial tradition
Adversarial system · Economic Justice · Human rights · Law and economics · Political science · Process (computing · Sociology · Computer Science · International Law and Human Rights · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law in Society and Culture
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,67 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2024 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |