Has the 'Silver Thread' of the Criminal Law Lost its Lustre? The Modern Prosecutor as aMinister of Justice

D. Plater, Lucy Line
{"title":"Has the 'Silver Thread' of the Criminal Law Lost its Lustre? The Modern Prosecutor as aMinister of Justice","authors":"D. Plater, Lucy Line","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2358305","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The notion of the prosecuting lawyer as the impartial non-partisan 'minister of justice' is entrenched in both England and Australia as the 'silver thread' of the criminal law. However, this article suggests that this acceptance overlooks a number of fundamental questions as to the continued application of the minister of justice role. Sir Patrick Devlin in 1956 warned that a too literal application of this role risked undermining the rationale and operation of the adversarial criminal trial. Devlin's concern remains pertinent today. The adversarial criminal trial remains the method by which common law criminal justice systems 'do justice'.The rationale of the adversarial criminal trial is that both prosecution and defense should discharge their respective roles with vigour and to the best of their ability to ensure that a trial has the greatest chance of being fair for all parties and that justice is done. The original rationale for the minister of justice role in the early 19th century was to compensate for the unequal playing field that typically existed between prosecution and defense in this period. However, the role, born from necessity and good intention, has in latter times not only lost relevance but has, in some respects, overly constrained the prosecutor and risks undermining the modern adversarial criminal trial. The role, created to promote justice, may actually serve to deny justice by rendering prosecutors unable to effectively discharge their functions. Devlin was correct in his analysis of the flaws in the minister of justice role and literal application of this role may prevent the modern prosecutor from acting as an active advocate within an adversarial system. It is contended that ultimately there is an irreconcilable tension between the notion of the prosecution as both zealous advocate and minister of justice and that more than a glib slogan is necessary to define the modern prosecutorial role.","PeriodicalId":83426,"journal":{"name":"University of Tasmania law review","volume":"31 1","pages":"54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Tasmania law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2358305","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The notion of the prosecuting lawyer as the impartial non-partisan 'minister of justice' is entrenched in both England and Australia as the 'silver thread' of the criminal law. However, this article suggests that this acceptance overlooks a number of fundamental questions as to the continued application of the minister of justice role. Sir Patrick Devlin in 1956 warned that a too literal application of this role risked undermining the rationale and operation of the adversarial criminal trial. Devlin's concern remains pertinent today. The adversarial criminal trial remains the method by which common law criminal justice systems 'do justice'.The rationale of the adversarial criminal trial is that both prosecution and defense should discharge their respective roles with vigour and to the best of their ability to ensure that a trial has the greatest chance of being fair for all parties and that justice is done. The original rationale for the minister of justice role in the early 19th century was to compensate for the unequal playing field that typically existed between prosecution and defense in this period. However, the role, born from necessity and good intention, has in latter times not only lost relevance but has, in some respects, overly constrained the prosecutor and risks undermining the modern adversarial criminal trial. The role, created to promote justice, may actually serve to deny justice by rendering prosecutors unable to effectively discharge their functions. Devlin was correct in his analysis of the flaws in the minister of justice role and literal application of this role may prevent the modern prosecutor from acting as an active advocate within an adversarial system. It is contended that ultimately there is an irreconcilable tension between the notion of the prosecution as both zealous advocate and minister of justice and that more than a glib slogan is necessary to define the modern prosecutorial role.
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
刑法的“银线”是否失去了光泽?作为司法部长的现代检察官
在英国和澳大利亚,作为刑法的“银线”,起诉方律师作为公正的、无党派的“司法部长”的概念根深蒂固。然而,这篇文章表明,这种接受忽略了关于司法部长作用的继续适用的一些基本问题。帕特里克•德夫林爵士(Sir Patrick Devlin)在1956年警告称,过于严格地运用这一角色,可能会破坏对抗性刑事审判的基本原理和运作。德夫林的担忧在今天仍然适用。对抗性刑事审判仍然是普通法刑事司法系统“伸张正义”的方法。对抗性刑事审判的理由是,控方和辩方都应有力地发挥各自的作用,并尽其所能,确保审判有最大的机会对所有当事方公平,正义得到伸张。19世纪初,司法部长这个角色最初的基本原理是为了弥补当时在起诉和辩护之间典型存在的不平等竞争环境。然而,出于必要性和良好意图而产生的这一作用在后来的时代不仅失去了相关性,而且在某些方面过分限制了检察官,并有破坏现代对抗性刑事审判的危险。为促进正义而设立的这一角色实际上可能会使检察官无法有效履行其职责,从而否定正义。德夫林对司法部长角色缺陷的分析是正确的,对这一角色的字面应用可能会阻止现代检察官在对抗制度中充当积极的倡导者。有人认为,检察机关既是热心的辩护人,又是法务部长,这两者之间存在着不可调和的矛盾,而且现代检察机关的作用需要的不仅仅是一个浮夸其谈的口号。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bushrangers, the Exercise of Mercy and the 'Last Penalty of the Law' in New South Wales and Tasmania 1824-1856 Has the 'Silver Thread' of the Criminal Law Lost its Lustre? The Modern Prosecutor as aMinister of Justice The development and application in nineteenth century Australia of the prosecutor's role as a minister of justice: rhetoric or reality? The Development of the Prosecutor's Role in England and Australia with Respect to its Duty of Disclosure: Partisan Advocate or Minister of Justice? Bridging the Global Divide on Human Rights
×
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