R (on the application of W80) v Director General of the Independent Office of Police Conduct: Landmark Ruling or Business as Usual?

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-03-21 DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12885
Clare Torrible
{"title":"R (on the application of W80) v Director General of the Independent Office of Police Conduct: Landmark Ruling or Business as Usual?","authors":"Clare Torrible","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 5 July 2023 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in <jats:italic>R (on the application of W80)</jats:italic> v <jats:italic>Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct</jats:italic>. The issue before the Court was which test should be applied in assessing whether officers’ use of force amounts to misconduct; the criminal law test for self‐defence (as the Divisional Court found), the test set out in the Police Conduct Regulations 2012 (ie that officers should only use force when it is ‘necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances’) (as the Court of Appeal held) or the civil law test for self‐defence which the Supreme Court ultimately decided was the correct approach. The Court's affirmation that the criminal law test is inconsistent with the purposes of the police conduct system is to be welcomed. However, this case note argues that their Lordships’ reasoning in other regards was unconvincing and obscured deeper issues concerning police accountability which the recent Casey Review confirms need to be more openly addressed.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12885","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On 5 July 2023 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in R (on the application of W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The issue before the Court was which test should be applied in assessing whether officers’ use of force amounts to misconduct; the criminal law test for self‐defence (as the Divisional Court found), the test set out in the Police Conduct Regulations 2012 (ie that officers should only use force when it is ‘necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances’) (as the Court of Appeal held) or the civil law test for self‐defence which the Supreme Court ultimately decided was the correct approach. The Court's affirmation that the criminal law test is inconsistent with the purposes of the police conduct system is to be welcomed. However, this case note argues that their Lordships’ reasoning in other regards was unconvincing and obscured deeper issues concerning police accountability which the recent Casey Review confirms need to be more openly addressed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
R (on the application of W80) v Director General of the Independent Office of Police Conduct:具有里程碑意义的裁决还是一切照旧?
2023 年 7 月 5 日,最高法院对 R(W80 的申请)诉警察行为独立办公室主任一案做出判决。法院面临的问题是,在评估警官使用武力是否构成不当行为时应采用哪种检验标准;是采用刑法中的自卫检验标准(如分区法院认定的那样),还是采用《2012 年警察行为条例》中规定的检验标准(即警官只应在 "在所有情况下都是必要、相称和合理的 "情况下使用武力)(如上诉法院认定的那样),抑或是采用民法中的自卫检验标准(最高法院最终认定民法中的自卫检验标准是正确的做法)。法院确认刑法检验标准与警察行为制度的宗旨不符,这是值得欢迎的。然而,本案例说明认为,大法官们在其他方面的推理缺乏说服力,掩盖了有关警察问责制的更深层次问题,而最近的凯西审查证实,这些问题需要更公开地加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access Performative Environmental Law Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1