首页> 外文期刊>The journal of criminal law >Necessary Intrusion or Criminalising the Innocent? An Exploration of Modern Criminal Vetting
【24h】

Necessary Intrusion or Criminalising the Innocent? An Exploration of Modern Criminal Vetting

机译:是否需要对无辜者进行入侵或将其定罪?现代刑事审查探索

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This article considers the processes of criminal vetting and outlines the legislative framework allowing such disclosures and subsequent judicial interpretation of that framework. The focus is on disclosure of non-conviction (so-called 'soft') materials on 'enhanced' certificates and subsequent challenges to those disclosures at judicial review. Key cases are analysed, including R (on the application of X) v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police (2004) and R (on the application of L) (FC) (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) (2009). The proportionality test in R (L) is noted and its subsequent application in the recent decisions of R (on the application of C) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester; Secretary of State for the Home Department (2011) and R (on the application of B) v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary (2011) is scrutinised. The article also highlights interference in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy) and questions whether interference can be justified, and whether the present judicial focus on right of representations in such cases is misplaced.
机译:本文考虑了刑事审查的流程,并概述了允许此类披露的立法框架以及随后对该框架的司法解释。重点在于披露关于“增强”证书的非定罪(所谓的“软”)材料,以及随后在司法审查中对这些披露的质疑。分析了一些关键案例,包括R(在X的情况下)v西米德兰兹郡警察局局长(2004年)和R(在L的情况下)(FC)(上诉人)v大都会警察局长(被告)( 2009)。在R(L)中对比例测试进行了注明,并随后将其应用在R的最新决定中(关于C的适用)v大曼彻斯特首席警察;审查了内政部国务卿(2011)和R(根据B的适用)诉Derbyshire Constabulary的首席警官(2011)。该条还强调了对《欧洲人权公约》第8条(隐私权)的干预,并质疑是否可以合理地进行干预,以及在这种情况下,目前司法对代理权的关注是否放错了地方。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号