Developing Scots criminal law: a shift in responsibility?

Notes that the Scottish courts have made few significant changes to the criminal law system in recent years while the Scottish Parliament has been more active in this area. Comments on how this law reform has mainly been triggered by particular cases or controversies instead of being proactive

Corroboration: consequences and criticism

No abstract available

Jury majority, size and verdicts

No abstract available

Criminal law in the shadows: creating offences in delegated legislation

Substantial numbers of criminal offences are created in the UK in delegated legislation, often carrying heavy maximum penalties. The majority are created in statutory instruments passed under the negative resolution procedure, which offers very limited opportunity for scrutiny and does not involve a parliamentary vote. This phenomenon has slipped under the radar of orthodox criminal law scholarship, where debate has focused primarily on the criteria that should be used to determine the content of the criminal law and on the principles to which such offences should conform, rather than on the process of creating criminal offences. Creating offences in delegated legislation raises questions of democratic legitimacy and has resulted in criminal offences being created which do not conform to basic principles of fair notice and proportionality of penalty. To address this, we propose that parliamentary approval should be required for all serious offences. It would be impractical to do this for all criminal offences, and direct participation in the legislative process via consultation can act as an alternative (or additional) legitimating principle. This does, however, require that the consultation process complies with certain basic minimum requirements, and we explain how these requirements might appropriately be framed

Causes of wrongful conviction

No abstract available

How should we go about jury research in Scotland?

Considers why jury research is needed in Scotland, and the methods that could be used. Discusses the justifications for research into jury reasoning and decision-making advanced by the Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review, and its proposals on issues such as simple majority verdicts. Examines options for research with real or mock juries, the possible research questions, and whether reform of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 would be necessary

Jury research in Scotland: a rejoinder

Responds to an article by Cheryl Thomas in Crim. L.R. 2016, 12, 915-923, criticising the authors' earlier article "How should we go about jury research in Scotland?", Crim. L.R 2016, 10, 697-713, which discussed why jury research is needed and the methods available. Replies to Thomas's criticisms of their understanding of jury research methods and their findings on methods used to answer the questions of the Post-Corroboration Safeguards Review

A Comparative Analysis of Hate Crime Legislation: A Report to the Hate Crime Legislation Review

In January 2017, the Scottish Government announced a review of hate crime legislation, chaired by Lord Bracadale.1 Lord Bracadale requested that, to assist the Review it its task, we produce a comparative report detailing principles underpinning hate crime legislation and approaches taken to hate crime in a range of jurisdictions. Work on this report commenced in late March 2017 and the final report was submitted to the Review in July 2017