根据搜查令和保护特权搜查和扣押数字资料:比较分析和最佳做法建议

Rebecca Mitchell, Michael Stockdale, Francis A. Gilligan
{"title":"根据搜查令和保护特权搜查和扣押数字资料:比较分析和最佳做法建议","authors":"Rebecca Mitchell, Michael Stockdale, Francis A. Gilligan","doi":"10.1177/00220183231223592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Academic literature in England and Wales and New Zealand does not consider the protection of legal professional privilege where digital material is seized under a search warrant. Academic literature in the United States does engage with this subject but is not informed by a comparative approach. This article fills both gaps. It examines practices that have been developed by investigative teams and prosecuting authorities in all three comparator jurisdictions in their attempts to provide safeguards necessary to preserve privilege. Such practices involve the use of technology to increase the speed, cost effectiveness and/or efficiency of identifying privileged documents. The process of developing these practices has been informed by judicial guidance, where they have been challenged before the courts, and by guidance from government departments, Bar Associations or Law Commissions. Following comparative analysis, the article recommends measures that should be included in legislation, codes of practice or guidance in any jurisdictions where there is potential for legal professional privilege or an equivalent concept to be undermined when digital material is seized under a search warrant.","PeriodicalId":501562,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"48 35","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Search and Seizure of Digital Materials Under Warrant and Protecting Privilege: Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practice\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Mitchell, Michael Stockdale, Francis A. Gilligan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00220183231223592\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Academic literature in England and Wales and New Zealand does not consider the protection of legal professional privilege where digital material is seized under a search warrant. Academic literature in the United States does engage with this subject but is not informed by a comparative approach. This article fills both gaps. It examines practices that have been developed by investigative teams and prosecuting authorities in all three comparator jurisdictions in their attempts to provide safeguards necessary to preserve privilege. Such practices involve the use of technology to increase the speed, cost effectiveness and/or efficiency of identifying privileged documents. The process of developing these practices has been informed by judicial guidance, where they have been challenged before the courts, and by guidance from government departments, Bar Associations or Law Commissions. Following comparative analysis, the article recommends measures that should be included in legislation, codes of practice or guidance in any jurisdictions where there is potential for legal professional privilege or an equivalent concept to be undermined when digital material is seized under a search warrant.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Criminal Law\",\"volume\":\"48 35\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Criminal Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231223592\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231223592","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

英格兰、威尔士和新西兰的学术文献没有考虑在根据搜查令扣押数字资料时保护法律职业特权的问题。美国的学术文献确实涉及这一主题,但并未采用比较方法。本文填补了这两个空白。文章研究了所有三个参照辖区的调查小组和检察机关在尝试提供必要保障以维护特权过程中形成的做法。这些做法涉及利用技术提高识别特权文件的速度、成本效益和/或效率。这些做法的发展过程参考了在法庭上受到质疑的司法指导,以及政府部门、律师协会或法律委员会的指导。经过比较分析,本文推荐了在根据搜查令扣押数字资料时有可能破坏法律职业特权或同等概念的任何司法管辖区应纳入立法、实践准则或指南的措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Search and Seizure of Digital Materials Under Warrant and Protecting Privilege: Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for Best Practice
Academic literature in England and Wales and New Zealand does not consider the protection of legal professional privilege where digital material is seized under a search warrant. Academic literature in the United States does engage with this subject but is not informed by a comparative approach. This article fills both gaps. It examines practices that have been developed by investigative teams and prosecuting authorities in all three comparator jurisdictions in their attempts to provide safeguards necessary to preserve privilege. Such practices involve the use of technology to increase the speed, cost effectiveness and/or efficiency of identifying privileged documents. The process of developing these practices has been informed by judicial guidance, where they have been challenged before the courts, and by guidance from government departments, Bar Associations or Law Commissions. Following comparative analysis, the article recommends measures that should be included in legislation, codes of practice or guidance in any jurisdictions where there is potential for legal professional privilege or an equivalent concept to be undermined when digital material is seized under a search warrant.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信