{"title":"The First Draft","authors":"M. McConville, L. Marsh","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198822103.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198822103.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"A variety of policing scandals at all ranks within the police (discussed in Chapter 4) and the gradual realization that investigative practices, particularly by the Criminal Investigations Department, had developed in ways which showed disrespect for individual rights and caused doubts as to the reliability of police evidence with regard to ‘confessions’, made reconsideration of the Judges’ Rules unavoidable. This chapter describes the initial phase in which the judges themselves sought to draw up new Rules against the background of the changing climate of police–citizen relations that the post-war period had inaugurated and the fate that their proposals met. After deliberating for sixteen months, and amid rising public concern over police practices, in 1962 the judges produced a set of proposals designed to meet ‘the public interest’ in regulating the police. These far-sighted proposals were in key respects a mirror of the regime established twenty-five years later by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). This chapter shows how the executive summarily killed off these proposals, prioritizing instead what it saw as ‘the interests of the police’.","PeriodicalId":140616,"journal":{"name":"The Myth of Judicial Independence","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130638771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Aftermath","authors":"M. McConville, L. Marsh","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198822103.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198822103.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4 traces the aftermath of the formulation of the Judges’ Rules over the period 1918–60 including their reissue and additional interpretations of 1930, 1946, and 1947. In this account the technical disarray over the meaning of the Rules is analysed and the consequences for policing practices. There is an emphasis both upon the impact upon police culture, particularly within the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) from its origins in 1878, and the emergence and intensification of various forms of police deviance and corruption. The chapter links these developments to the experiences of suspects subjected to police questioning practices alongside, in the age of capital punishment, accounts of early cases of miscarriages of justice including that of Timothy Evans for murders committed by John Reginald Christie. In the face of Home Office resistance, public pressure eventually forced the establishment of a Royal Commission on the Police (1962) and a separate review of the Judges’ Rules (1964).","PeriodicalId":140616,"journal":{"name":"The Myth of Judicial Independence","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127477253","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction and Overview","authors":"M. McConville, L. Marsh","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198822103.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198822103.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter explains the formal division of powers in the British state: the power of Parliament to make and develop the law; the power of the judiciary to interpret the law; and the power of the executive to implement the law. Under this constitutional arrangement, the three branches should, in general, be independent of each other. The judiciary in England and Wales advance their claim to independence through adherence to the rule of law and declarations of impartiality and incorruptibility. Utilizing archival data drawn from Home Office files, it examines the validity of these claims through various rules, including the Judges’ Rules, plea bargaining (or state-induced guilty pleas), and the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR), which have regulated the boundaries between citizens and the state in criminal matters. Mindful of the strengths and limitations of archival data, it sets out the principal theme of the book: that the executive has secretly interfered with the judicial role while concurrently deceiving Parliament; the judiciary, for its part, under executive threats and persuasion, jettisoning common law principles leading, in the modern-era, to judicial and state policy going hand in hand with further impact upon former colonial territories.","PeriodicalId":140616,"journal":{"name":"The Myth of Judicial Independence","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126875060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}