#2 Essay Site on Sitejabber
+44 20 8638 6541
  • 中文 (中国)
  • English GB
  • English AU
  • English US
  • العربية (Arabic)




Professor name


City and state



In a society full of different people, the criminal justice system ought to be efficient to ensure equal representation in the community. However, when it comes to punishing the wrongdoers for crimes committed, the criminal justice system becomes complicated due to society’s expectation of the justice system to deliver instant judgment upon the accused while still retaining its efficiency. The criminal justice system protects the accused through individual rights equal to all citizens; therefore, the court is tasked with ensuring a fair trial.

Due to the criminal justice system’s different expectations, models were formulated by Herbert L. Packer, who was a legal scholar. They were developed in the 1960s to balance their ideologies to ensure the successful cooperation between the criminal justice system and human rights for each citizen.1 The two models differ in the priority of values each model exhibits in the criminal justice system. The crime control model aims at achieving efficiency in the criminal justice system. Simultaneously, the due process is responsible for ensuring the accused is treated fairly, and the quality of justice administered can be controlled. 2 The due process is more of solving an obstacle since it is the task of defence lawyers to represent the accused in a court of law. Their arguments are based on the violation of the accused rights, therefore calling for the prosecution’s rejection. However, due to the increased prison populations, Canadian and American scholars criticized the due process and crime control, model. They argued that offenders might reform and become law-abiding citizens if only they receive fair treatment instead of both models’ agendas, which advocate for punishment for the offenders.

Crime control model

The crime control model does not consider the court as its immediate authority as it places more power on the legislature due to its view towards criminal justice. For there to be public order to ensure each individual’s safety, this model argues that criminal sanction is necessary for positive results. The crime control model aims to provide efficiency in the justice system by ensuring public order in society. It achieves this by minimizing crime and controlling it to maximize every individual’s welfare in the community. The model assumes that crime can be governed by criminal law without acknowledging that most crime victims do not report the crime to the police.3. However, it argues that sufficient investigations conducted by the police with cooperation from prosecutors, there is a possibility of controlling crime. To prevent crime, Packer assumes that punishment is key to the offenders. However, it may produce negative results since the offenders may feel stigmatized, thereby breeding defiance among them. For an accused to be granted fair treatment in a criminal trial in a court of law, he/she ought to be represented by a defence lawyer.4

This model depicts the criminal justice process as a prosecutor and police in an “assembly-line conveyor belt,” leading a team of law enforcement officers to apprehend suspects for the court to determine the accused’s guilty nature. When found guilty, the court uses the correctional facilities system to administer heavy punishment upon the criminal. In the real world, law enforcement is faced with the challenge of limited resources to conduct its operations; therefore, more emphasis is placed upon the speed and finalization of a criminal process.5 It aims to group out the accused from the innocent and convict them quickly to mitigate events that may pose obstacles that limit this action. Evidence and facts collected against the accused are coordinated in police stations and streets by police officers. It is contrary to the typical scenario of lawyers and judges handling the points obtained in a court of law. They emphasize factual guilt rather than legal guilt due to the firm belief that the accused most likely committed the crime. It ignores the legal d guilt that is determined through a court of law that adheres to the individual rights and defences that the accused possesses and assessing the available evidence.

Factual guilt is bred due to the unlimited investigative capabilities that the police possess, which leads to the arrest and questioning of suspects. 6 However, the accused’s confessions’ reliability and honesty pose a challenge since false statements can be made, resulting in an innocent civilian’s prosecution. In this model, the accused detained by the relevant law enforcement are blocked from the opportunity of contacting their lawyers to seek legal advice. Lawyers advise clients not to disclose any information without their presence, hence slowing down the process, which favours the guilty party. Despite the “bent” nature of this model towards police, the crime control model respects the rule of law, which also applies to law enforcement officials. According to Dicey, any undertakings against the police’s required common law, which includes police abuse, is subject to disciplinary actions and legal proceedings.7 However, when the constable has made a mistake, the criminal’s freedom is rejected by the crime control model.8

The crime control model places less emphasis on the essential nature since it serves its purpose at the criminal process’s initial stages. When evidence’s validity is being reviewed at a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor is most favoured in conducting this task, contrary to a judge. The prosecutor is reliable and accountable before the face of the law to decide whether the evidence against the accused is sufficient to indict a guilty plea. Due to the limited nature of resources both time and economical, the prosecutor stands in a better position in evaluating the accused’s innocence. This model favours pre-trial detention methodology since it serves multiple purposes, including ensuring the accused’s presence during criminal proceedings. It also helps other hidden agendas, which provides for persuading the accused to take the guilty plea as early as possible to minimize wastage of time and again limit the future potential occurrence of the crime committed. In cases where the accused’s factual guilt is undeniable, the prosecutor and judge close the topic without trial; thus, the model favours them together with the defendants. It minimizes their time and effort that would have been used in the case; therefore, they do not question the concrete nature of the factual plea. The model motivates trial judges to acknowledge every guilty plea regardless of their accuracy or presence of defence for the accused party. A sentencing discount is offered as a reward for honesty to the charged with saving the law enforcement agencies limited time and financial resources. The accused may be allowed to appeal the case when “no reasonable trier of fact could have convicted on the evidence presented.”9 The appeal is also applicable to prosecutors to mitigate the risk of releasing a guilty person, which is a common trait contrary to an innocent individual’s conviction.

Right to a fair trial

According to article 6 of the United Kingdom constitution, every citizen is granted the right to a fair trial regardless of the accused’s innocent or guilty nature under the Humans Rights Act. Article 6 is applicable when one’s presence is required in court subject to the criminal offence charged. It also protects one’s rights against a public authority whose undertakings limit an individual’s civil rights. These civil rights and obligations should adhere to relevant U.K. law fields, including contract law, property law, employment law, family, and planning law. For the hearing to be regarded as fair in the face of the law, it should adhere to particular necessities. The trial’s timing should apply to both parties, and it should be led by a bias-free decision-maker who makes a judgment based on the evidence provided. The adequacy of information is also crucial in ensuring equity in the criminal proceedings to give both parties equal opportunities for winning the case without bias. The cases should not be private hearings unless they are deemed highly sensitive, limiting the media and public participation. Cases against juveniles are considered to protect their interests, while some are excluded based on moral consideration. In societies where democracy is adhered to, cases that may interfere with national security and public order are also excluded from the media. The court is mandated by the law to provide equal representation for the defendants and the plaintiff. In cases where the language barrier poses a challenge, an interpreter should be provided by the court. The public plays an essential role in the case as the court expects their decision after a critical analysis of the case based on witnesses and evidence provided.

During criminal proceedings, the law has no bias towards any individual; hence each person is innocent until the law proves them guilty. The accused should be familiar with the charges he/she faces and be updated with any changes. Silence should also be maintained by the accused during a trial and should only speak when given the judge’s authority when answering questions by the prosecutors and plaintiff lawyers. Due to some individuals’ financial strains, the court is responsible for providing a lawyer to the defendant, funded by the system, to ensure equal representation for justice to prevail. The accused is also mandated to be present and avail themselves to every legal proceeding against them to present them the chance to tell their side of the case. The accused is also allowed to face the plaintiff and question them, which the court uses to determine the case’s credibility. Witnesses in favour of the defendant are entitled to truthfully state the event’s occurrence after undergoing an oath by the court. There are certain limitations to Article 6 of the constitution, affecting cases regarding extradition, voting rights, tax, and immigration laws.10 As defined by the law, an appeal is an application by the defendant or prosecutor in a higher court to oppose the decision made in a subordinate court. The time factor is adhered to strictly by the court and may lead to the lack of submission when the case is submitted late.

D.G. v Secretary of state for work and pensions (ESA) [2010]

D.G. brought forward an appeal after the court ruled against his employment and support allowance (ESA) that took place after a medical examination was conducted by medical practitioners. He submitted a request proposal to Jobcentre Plus to reach out to his nominated representative called G.P. However, the plaintiff never presented evidence to neither D.G.’s social representative and G.P. During the First Tier Tribunal, DG missed on the chance given of showing his side of the case during trial, which occurred during the initial stages of the independent tribunal process. The court decided on legal advice from Jobcentre Plus, which resulted in the appeal’s dismissal, which was paper-based. As required by Article 6 of the U.K. constitutions, which grants fair trial for every individual, the Upper Tribunal found that the decision made against D.G. did not adhere to law after the c. The decision was reached by the upon based on inadequate counsel by Jobcentre Plus and the underlying mental health conditions suffered by the defendant. Lack of adequate information interfered with the court’s decision since the tribunal and Department for Work failed to reach out to his G.P.

The due process model

This model bases its arguments and perceptions towards the moral values the criminal sanction possesses and the overall utility yielded, especially in victimless crimes. It advocates for a criminal justice system that is not biased and which adheres to constitutional rights. Since the crime control model compares its method to an “assembly-line,” the due process model compares the criminal justice system to that of an “obstacle course.” The model’s perspective is termed as liberal since it advocates for individual rights and freedom as a priority that should be adhered to following the law. The due process model places much importance on an individual while limiting power placed upon law enforcement authorities. Laws that address prostitution cases and drug enforcement also add upon uncertainty that lies on liberal values of this model due to the heavy policing participation.11

The criminal justice faces numerous challenges, among them the frequent accumulation of cases in which some are considered minor and ought to be decriminalized. Through this policy, the government places more resources on higher priority cases involving serious crimes, and the rights of the accused are adhered to extensively. This model’s relevant authority is the Supreme Court, contrary to the crime control model, which refers to the legislature as its validating authority. It does not focus on factual guilt since equity is its guiding factor regardless of an individual’s social class. These model advocates that wealth should not be a factor considered when determining the equal treatment of individuals. For example, during criminal proceedings, all relevant parties are granted the opportunity to be represented by a lawyer. If an individual cannot afford to hire a lawyer, the court must provide a lawyer to him/her. Prosecutions and police brutality mainly target the minority societies and those that belong to the lowest social class. Among groups that can be termed as disadvantaged, Parker failed to recognize crime victims as among them.

The application techniques governing the due process model differ from that of the crime control model. It aims to reduce backdoor evidence collection from station houses and streets, which may be used for an indictment against the accused. Restrictions against the police are thoroughly enforced, such as the arrest and detaining of an accused. It assists in preventing the police from using informal methods of building a case against an accused. In the United Kingdom, the accused is entitled to remain silent and not provide any information to the law enforcement authorities. The police should inform the accused of the right to reach out to a lawyer for legal advice and representation in legal proceedings. Any information involuntarily provided by the defendant, which has the probability of self-indictment, should not be considered during legal proceedings since it does not protect the accused’s rights. “The rationale of exclusion is not that the confession is untrustworthy, but it is at odds with the postulates of an accusatory system of criminal justice. It is the state to make its case against a defendant without forcing him to co-operate in the process and capitalizing on the ignorance of legal rights.”12

The factually guilty in this model can highlight any instance their rights were violated arising from harassment by police in the criminal trials. It has become a normality for the minority, the lower social class, to be targeted by police leading to the violation of rights. When legal proceedings identified an instance when the system violated the accused rights, they brand the case as ” inefficient,” which leads to the case being penalized. Due to limited resources, both economic and time factors, prosecutors and police often use informal ways, which has become a norm in the departments. This fact demonstrates the importance of concrete laws present in the United Kingdom to ensure police abuse cases will be forced to face a criminal trial.

During preliminary hearings, the courts validating authority, which is the judge, must have full confidence that there is the presence of a prima facie case. The criminal justice system places equal levels of trust between police and prosecutors in conducting their screening job. The due process model argues that to ensure the accused’s presence in a criminal trial, he/she should be detained in a reasonable period as long as he/she adheres to rules provided by the court. This opportunity is provided to allow the defendant to build the case’s defence side, whose efficiency is minimized when pre-trial detention occurs. It enables the accused to prove innocence to help for dismissal of the case. The criminal justice system provides an option of cash bail to ensure freedom before the trial starts. However, a system can be termed as discriminatory if its policies are bias based on financial ability. The European Convention prohibits judges and prosecutors who handle a case for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms from offering deals to the accused to ensure a declaration of guilty pleas from them.

Criminal justice should be conducted by legal practitioners ethically and logically rather than an added expense and workload. The prosecutor’s task is to review and conduct an analysis of the evidence obtained legally to ascertain the court the accused is lawfully guilty. It minimizes instances where the criminal trial is based solely on factual guilt; therefore, courts rely on prosecutors’ efficiency in ensuring the rights of the accused are not violated. For an indicted to be termed as legally guilty, it requires the participation of relevant judges and defence lawyers. Therefore a criminal justice system should avail opportunities of the accused to appeal decisions made by appointed judges if they are dissatisfied with the outcomes. It is made available to mitigate the risk of convicting an innocent person, which leads to a big blow to the criminal justice system.13

The appeals occur at higher courts than previously where the case was held since they can reverse decisions relevant to a subordinate court case. However, the U.K. laws allow when the court determines an instance where the accused’s rights were violated, leading to the decision. When such instances occur, it signifies the trial judges’ failure to protect the accused by adhering to their rights. To ensure that moral values are complied with within the criminal justice system, the higher court reversal of the decision acts as an affirmation to equality in legal proceedings. Therefore in the due process model, the Supreme Court has overall authority as its purpose is to protect all legal rights. It also does not neglect the accused because it provides remedies that treat every individual equally according to the Human Rights Act.

Policing and human rights

In the United Kingdom, the police conduct their operations based on their geographical basis, which is quite different from most parts of the globe. 90% of the United Kingdom’s population is situated in England and Wales; therefore, territorial policing is facilitated through the cooperation of 43 forces.14 There remaining regions, which includes Scotland and North Ireland, comprise eight police forces and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), respectively.15 The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, the British Transport Police, and the Ministry of Defense Police are among a different group of forces categorized as “non-home office forces.” The United Kingdom Police force’s accountability and reliability were under question and review in the 1980s due to bias in delivering services towards society’s specific sectors. It escalated and became an issue in national politics since it interfered with democracy in the department.

Regarding human rights adherence by the police department in ensuring accountability is crucial and involves two policies. A) Policing is political. In determining how policing should be conducted, alternative options act as competition into how power should be exercised, making it political. B) The paradox of police governance involves the equal balance between efficiency in conducting operations by police forces with the proper exercise of power to prevent unwarranted abuse. How police exercise, their powers are regulated by the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, highlighting policies that govern human rights.16 This international policy instrument is essential to the United Kingdom’s laws as it defines operations by the judiciary and legislature. To adhere to the United Nations policies, the United Kingdom established the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.17 It was symbolic as it demonstrated the democratic nature, which later in 1998 led to the Human Rights Act to be implemented and incorporated into the United Kingdom laws. The Act binds police undertakings’ responsibility to it, which compels the department to abide by its policies.

In instances where the convention rights are breached, it calls for review and compensation of wrongfully conducted cases due to the adjudication powers placed upon United Kingdom courts. Due to factors such as complaints and challenging to resolve, clients dissatisfied by operations by United Kingdom domestic courts provided the opportunity to submit their case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), located in Strasbourg. 18Through these measurements, law enforcement officers, including the police, are responsible for their actions due to heavy laws overseeing them. Any misconduct by police officers is against the principles in the Human Rights Act 1998, which calls for intervention by the Police Ombudsman situated in Northern Ireland and the Independent Police Complains Commission for investigation purposes. In 1979 the Law Enforcement Officials act served the global objective of regulating standards across different policing agencies. It adheres to the Code of Conduct of the United Nations to act as an observant of how police conduct their affairs, leading to arrest and detention of those accused of various crimes.

All activities conducted by law enforcement officials should also adhere to various international conventions that advocate for human rights in conjunction with the United Nations Universal Declaration.19 In carrying out their tasks, force should only be applied under certain conditions, which may be life-threatening. When excessive force is applied to neutral and harmless situations, law enforcement officials may face the law as it does not adhere to the required policies. The United Kingdom is not exempted from such procedures as it is a member of the Council of Europe, which binds all its law enforcement officials. The officials are bound by the 1979 Council of Europe Declaration on Police act, which regulates and enforces particular codes of conduct.20

The government implemented these policies to enforce human rights protection and improve the quality of performance and efficiency demonstrated by police officers. However, specific guidelines are exempted from direct judicial interference in the United Kingdom laws, including the European Declaration on the police and the United Nations Code of Conduct. They serve to guide law enforcement officials to ensure the accountability of police officers in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom’s parliament is responsible for binding all law enforcement officials’ actions to the legislature, which holds them accountable for all activities. Therefore this makes the police force’s validating authority to be the legislature, giving them independence from other government forms, including the executive and legislature. Due to the risk of misinterpretation of the parliament by various case laws and legal proceedings, the police officers are only bound by the law. The United Kingdom is ruled by the Crown to which the law enforcement officials owe allegiance. It results in the complex paradox of police accountability in the United Kingdom. Public powers bestowed upon the government are performed by servants of the Crown, including officials such as ministers.21

The tripartite system

“The tripartite structure of police accountability” is the name given to the cooperation between the 43 police forces present in both England and Wales, which are home to 90% of the United Kingdom population.22 Its origin and authority lie in the Police Act of 1964, which acts as the police’s primary governing body. It was possible after considerations by the Royal Commission on police in the year 1962. This system is responsible for subdividing tasks into three to be handled by the local police, the Home Office, and the force’s relevant chief constable. Since the police recognize only the law, which makes them its servants but also mitigates them from interference by politics and administrative bodies. Through this, limitations arise on the autonomous nature of chief constables in undertaking their objectives. They also recognize the executive powers, which binds their police to them since it comprises the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and the Home Office. The National Policing Plan falls under the Home Secretary’s supervision since policies governing the police are among the responsibilities. Therefore reports and data on accountability are dealt with by the Home Secretary through the tripartite system. The system is also responsible for ensuring accountability in society through local police authorities. A central board nominates these local police authorities since it comprises the local community represented by businessmen, magistrates, and local councillors.

In Scotland, the tripartite system was existent and functionally before Wales, and England decided to implement the Police Act in 1964. It means that the police are the primary force of legislation since the overall regulation of policies is undertaken by ministers of Scotland parliament through its ministers. Matters relating to police budgets are handled by the Joint Police Boards in association with police authorities.23 They also ensure that moral values are adhered to through services offered by police officers towards the public. In Northern Ireland, the police’s authority is facilitated by the policing board to ensure international standards are met per the Humans Right Act 1998. The board also has the mandate of recruiting a police force capable of undertaking their duties effectively per the law. It also owes allegiance to the Police Service of Northern Ireland to ensure all standards are met following international conventions. In instances where investigations on the PSNI are called upon, the board is mandated to coordinate inquiries.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)

This body was formulated in 1984 to ensure efficient and appropriate collection of evidence against the accused are conducted in a formal manner adhering to United Kingdom laws. Those accused of committing serious crimes in the face of the law are provided with the chance by the criminal justice system to stand trial to prove their innocence. They are also given equal opportunities for legal representation by a lawyer during court proceedings. Evidence obtained through informal methods carries the risk of case dismissal since it has been contaminated to sway the court’s decision to particular directions.24. These actions harm reports on police effectiveness due to the neglect of adherence to required rules and regulations. The Act also provides powers bestowed upon police on search warrants on properties, arrest, and detention of those accused of crimes. Every rule broken has the consequence of disciplinary actions despite the codes not being statutory.

The police complaints system

The Home Office outlines specific guidelines that guide investigations on police officers’ abuse and complaints and is usually internally based. The internal study is conducted on individual officers who have a record pattern of receiving complaints from citizens. 25It is prevalent among minority societies, such as the poor within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. The government established this system in Britain to ensure public confidence and increase law enforcement agencies’ credibility under scrutiny. There were complaints about how complaints were handled by the relevant authorities, which led to the system’s establishment in 1984. The Police Complaints Authority, which is tasked with this purpose, was under review of its independent status to prevent interference and influence by other external bodies.

Due to the questions on credibility, the Police Reform Act was enacted in 2002, which replaced the agency in 2004 by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. A minority black male named Stephen Lawrence was murdered by a group of white youths, which led to Macpherson’s intervention in inquiries.26 The IPCC argues that it is credible and can reassure public confidence due to the independent nature of being an independent body free from external government departments’ interference. In Scotland, all complaints against police officers are conducted by the police, leading to bias in completing the investigation. However, the opportunity to appeal to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is available in dissatisfaction with the methodology of how the police conducted the investigations.27

Human rights issues in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom continues to face scrutiny on its discrimination against ethnic minority societies, which has led to the accountability questioning on its systems. The police force has spotlighted citizens’ unlawful shooting, especially those from minority ethnic societies. Discrimination is also present when probing into investigations involving murders, which show incompetence when dealing with those involving minority societies as victims. There have also been reports of deaths occurring while in police custody, and no significant consequences have happened since they are not a priority to the law enforcement department. Macpherson termed the police force as “institutionally racist” since his inquiries led to the police force’s self-imposed reforms. Racial discrimination continues to be an issue that continues to grow within the United Kingdom, threatening the criminal justice system’s credibility.

Criticism of Packer’s models

Over the years, scholars have been attempting to balance the crime control model and the due process model. In the criminal justice system, which involves authorities such as judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and the police, it has been noted that recurrent interests have been threatening the composition and teachings of both models. The bureaucrats’ Act based on self-motivated agendas that threaten the criminal justice system’s reliability in addressing human rights issues. In the due process model, many of those accused easily accept the guilty plea since “the cost of invoking one’s rights is frequently more significant than the loss of the rights themselves.28 The due process model ideologies function effectively under cases that are big and serious in the face of the law. Most defence counsel advocates give legal advice for the accused to accept the guilty plea to be offered the most favourable deal as a discount on the sentence will count.29 The defence counsel can be termed as symbols of the crime control model since, in most instances, they accept the presentation of evidence without any resistance with the rare occurrence of appealing cases. Packer compares the criminal justice system to the “assembly line” of the crime control model since the end product is the guilty plea.30


Academics have considered the due process model’s ideologies as irrelevant as it leads to legitimate crime control. It has the negative effect of ignoring the needs of the disadvantaged since it obstructs crime control. 31Academics argue that both the crime control model and due process model hinder creativity on justice. Developments on issues regarding crime victims and the victimization they face fail to be incorporated in both models. However, United States courts mainly embrace the crime control model, which provides legal rhetoric on police officers’ practices. Its ideologies define how courts and police should conduct their affairs as well as being favourable to legislators. When assessing factors realistically through both models, we discover that the accused becomes a victim of the “assembly line” of the crime control model. It is contrary created in the due process model, which portrays the accused as having equal opportunities in exercising their rights. Nations such as Canada, which embraced the due process model’s ideologies, noticed increased prison populations. It occurred when authorities imposed relevant restrictions based on the model on prosecutors and police. It is also a scenario present in the United States that has recorded a failure in the due process model’s effectiveness since it has not reduced drug-related crimes and an ever-increasing prison population. The due process model creates an illusion of failure among the public when courts grant freedom to the factually guilty. The media is responsible for this publicity to inform the public; however, the methodologies have proved imperfect. Packer designed these models to assume that the public and state differ in agendas from that of individuals.


Books and articles

Andrew Ashworth, the criminal process 26 (1994).

Alber t v dicey, introduction to the study of the law of the constitution 193 (10th ed. 1959).

Bottoms & McClean, supra note 15; john Baldwin & Michael McConville, negotiated justice (1977); Michael McConville er ai-, standing accused (1994).

Ezzat Fattah, understanding criminal victimization (1993); realist criminology: crime control and policing in the 1990s (John Lowman & Brian MacLean eds., 1992); Holly Johnson, dangerous domains: violence against women in Canada (1996).

Eva Baker, mm a: crime, law, and politics, 111-217 (1983); Craig Bradley, the failure of the criminal procedure revolution (1993); Fred Graham, the due process revolution: the warren court’s impact on criminal law (1970)

John Braithwaite & Stephen Mugford, Conditions of Successful Reintegration Ceremonies: Dealing with Juvenile Offenders 34 Brit. j. criminology 139 (1994); John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice: Assessing an Immodest Theory and a Pessimistic Theory (October 1997).

Liva Baker, Miranda: crime, law, and politics, 111-217 (1983); Craig Bradley, e failure of e criminal procedure revolution (1993); Fred Graham, the due process revolution: the warren court’s impact on criminal law (1970).

Macpherson of Cluny, Sir William (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, cm 4262-1, London: HMSO.

Mawby, R.C. and Wright, A. (2003) ëThe police organisationí in Newburn, T. (ed.) The Handbook of Policing, pp 169-195, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Malcolm Feeley, Two Models of the Criminal Process: An Organizational Perspective, 7 L. & Soc’YREv. 407 (1973); Griffiths, supra note 8.

Malcolm Feeley, the process is the punishment 277 (1979).

Michael Mandel, a t-m charter of rights and freedoms and the legalization of politics in Canada (1994).

Patten, C. (1999) A new beginning: policing in Northern Ireland: the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, London: Stationery Office.

Patricia Carlen, magistrates’ justice 42 (1976); Ericson, supra note 15, at 223.

Peter Amelia, Rethinking the Functions of Criminal Procedure: The Warren and Burger Courts’ Competing Ideologies, 72 Geo. L.J. 185 (1983); Mirjan Damaska, Evidentiary Bar to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study, 121 U. PA. L REV. 506 (1973);

Packer, the limits of the criminal sanction, supra note 1, at 159.

Yerkes, M. (1969). The limits of the criminal sanction, by Herbert L. Packer (1968). Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 176, 2(1).






Case laws

People v. Defore, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (N.Y. 1926).

Treaties and legislation

McBarnet, supra note 23

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950

HMIC (1999) Police Integrity: Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence

Police and Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1994

Police (Scotland) Act, 1967

U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, 1979

U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948

Human Rights Act, 1998

  1. Peter Amelia, Rethinking the Functions of Criminal Procedure: The Warren and Burger Courts’ Competing Ideologies, 72 Geo. L.J. 185 (1983); Mirjan Damaska, Evidentiary Bar to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study, 121 U. PA. L REV. 506 (1973); Malcolm Feeley, Two Models of the Criminal Process: An Organizational Perspective, 7 L. & Soc’YREv. 407 (1973); Griffiths, supra note 8.↩︎



  4. John Braithwaite & Stephen Mugford, Conditions of Successful Reintegration Ceremonies: Dealing with Juvenile Offenders 34 BRIT. J. CRIMINOLOGY 139 (1994); John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice: Assessing an Immodest Theory and a Pessimistic Theory (October 1997) (the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, Intensive Course Materials) (on file with author).↩︎

  5. PACKER, THE LIMITS OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTION, supra note 1, at 159.↩︎



  8. People v. Defore, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (N.Y. 1926).↩︎

  9. PACKER, THE LIMITS OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTION, .supra note 1, at 230.↩︎

  10. Yerkes, M. (1969). The limits of the criminal sanction, by Herbert L. Packer (1968). Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 176, 2(1).↩︎


  12. EVA BAKER, Mm A: CRIME, LAW, AND POLITICS, 111-217 (1983); CRAIG BRADLEY, THE FAILURE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE REVOLUTION (1993); FRED GRAHAM, THE DUE PROCESS REVOLUTION: THE WARREN COURT’S IMPACT ON CRIMINAL LAW (1970)DEVIANT BEHAVIOUR AND PUBLIC POLICY (1965); Sanford Radish, The Crisis of Overcriminalization, 374 ANNALS OF POL Sa. 157 (1967); Jerome Skolnick, Coercion to Virtue: The Enforcement of Morals, 41 S. CALL. REV. 588, (1968).↩︎


  14. Mawby, R.C. and Wright, A. (2003) ëThe police organisationí in Newburn, T. (ed.) The Handbook of Policing, pp 169-195, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.↩︎

  15. Patten, C. (1999) A new beginning: policing in Northern Ireland: the report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, London: Stationery Office.↩︎

  16. U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, 1979↩︎

  17. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950↩︎

  18. Human Rights Act, 1998↩︎

  19. U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948↩︎

  20. Council of Europe Declaration on the Police, 1979↩︎

  21. Police and Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1994.↩︎

  22. HMIC (1999) Police Integrity: Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence.↩︎

  23. Police (Scotland) Act, 1967.↩︎

  24. HMIC (1999) Police Integrity: Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence, London: Home Office. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/integall.pdf↩︎

  25. HMIC (2003) Diversity Matters, London: HMIC. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmic/diversitymatters.pdf↩︎

  26. Macpherson of Cluny, Sir William (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, cm 4262-1, London: HMSO.↩︎

  27. Her Majesty Chief Inspector of Constabulary (2004) Annual Report 2003-2004, London: HMSO http://www.policereform.gov.uk/docs/HMIC_ann_rep_04.pdf↩︎



  30. PATRICIA CARLEN, MAGISTRATES’ JUSTICE 42 (1976); ERICSON & BA ANHx, supra note 15, at 223.↩︎

  31. MCBARNET, supra note 23.↩︎

How The Order Process Works

Amazing Offers from The Uni Tutor
Sign up to our daily deals and don't miss out!

The Uni Tutor Clients