Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System

A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Bibliographic Data

ID13618504
AuthorsRichard Nobles (0000-0002-6275-9253, Laser Scan Engineering (United Kingdom), corresponding author), David Schiff (0000-0003-1561-9220, Laser Scan Engineering (United Kingdom))
Year2006
Volume69
Issue1
Pages80-91
Publication date2006-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueModern Law Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0026-7961 • E-ISSN: 1468-2230
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00577_2.x
OpenAlexW2157599239
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited3

The House of Lords upheld the Secretary of State's right to deny compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the ex gratia scheme to Mullen, whose conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions had been quashed by the Court of Appeal solely by reference to actions by the authorities (securing his illegal deportation to the UK) that constituted an abuse of process, without impugning the fairness of his trial or the accuracy of the verdict The note discusses the different judgments in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in terms of their implications for the respective roles of legal and political systems in determining guilt and innocence. In particular, the note explores the nature of the legal principle of the presumption of innocence as it operates in the context of successful appeals

Appeal · Context (archaeology · Conviction · Criminal justice · Criminal procedure · Deportation · Immigration · Innocence · Political science · Presumption of innocence · Right to counsel · Sociology · State (computer science · Supreme court · Verdict · History · Law · Legal principles and applications

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub