{"title":"The Development of the Prosecutor's Role in England and Australia with Respect to its Duty of Disclosure: Partisan Advocate or Minister of Justice?","authors":"D. Plater","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2360937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The proper role of the prosecutor, contrary to popular perception, is not that of a partisan persecutor bent on securing the conviction of an accused person but rather that of a quasi-judicial 'minister of justice' whose detached function is to seek justice and to ensure fairness. This view of the prosecutor's role can be traced back at least to the early 1800s and continues to command firm support in both Australia and England. In considering the development of the role of the prosecutor it is instructive to consider the crucial function performed by the prosecution in the disclosure of potentially significant material in its possession; whether this is evidence upon which the prosecution is choosing to rely at trial or so-called unused material. In this article I will trace the development of the principles relating to disclosure in both England and Australia from the time when the prosecutor was entitled to act as a partisan advocate to the operation for much of the 20th century of the informal 'Old Boys Act' approach to disclosure to the modern insistence on candour culminating in the landmark decisions in England in the 1990s and of the High Court of Australia in R v Mallard in 2005. The fundamental theme that emerges in relation to the issue of disclosure is that the prosecutor must act as the frank minister of justice. There is no place in the modem criminal process either for the prosecutor to act as the partisan advocate or to rely on the informal 'Gentlemen's Club' approach to disclosure. It is clear that the operation of the law in England regarding disclosure has given rise to significant practical and theoretical problems and that it would therefore be wise to be wary before importing the English model to Australia. However demanding and problematic as the prosecutor's duties of disclosure may be, I would argue that in this area, 'The prosecutor must act as a minister of justice, presenting the prosecution evidence fairly, making full disclosure of relevant material and ever conscious that prosecution must not become persecution.","PeriodicalId":83426,"journal":{"name":"University of Tasmania law review","volume":"25 1","pages":"111-155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2360937","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Tasmania law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2360937","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
The proper role of the prosecutor, contrary to popular perception, is not that of a partisan persecutor bent on securing the conviction of an accused person but rather that of a quasi-judicial 'minister of justice' whose detached function is to seek justice and to ensure fairness. This view of the prosecutor's role can be traced back at least to the early 1800s and continues to command firm support in both Australia and England. In considering the development of the role of the prosecutor it is instructive to consider the crucial function performed by the prosecution in the disclosure of potentially significant material in its possession; whether this is evidence upon which the prosecution is choosing to rely at trial or so-called unused material. In this article I will trace the development of the principles relating to disclosure in both England and Australia from the time when the prosecutor was entitled to act as a partisan advocate to the operation for much of the 20th century of the informal 'Old Boys Act' approach to disclosure to the modern insistence on candour culminating in the landmark decisions in England in the 1990s and of the High Court of Australia in R v Mallard in 2005. The fundamental theme that emerges in relation to the issue of disclosure is that the prosecutor must act as the frank minister of justice. There is no place in the modem criminal process either for the prosecutor to act as the partisan advocate or to rely on the informal 'Gentlemen's Club' approach to disclosure. It is clear that the operation of the law in England regarding disclosure has given rise to significant practical and theoretical problems and that it would therefore be wise to be wary before importing the English model to Australia. However demanding and problematic as the prosecutor's duties of disclosure may be, I would argue that in this area, 'The prosecutor must act as a minister of justice, presenting the prosecution evidence fairly, making full disclosure of relevant material and ever conscious that prosecution must not become persecution.
与普遍的看法相反,检察官的适当作用不是一心想使被告定罪的党派迫害者,而是准司法的“司法部长”,其独立的职能是寻求正义和确保公平。这种关于检察官角色的观点至少可以追溯到19世纪初,并继续在澳大利亚和英国得到坚定的支持。在考虑检察官作用的发展时,考虑控方在披露其所拥有的可能重要的材料方面所发挥的关键作用是有益的;这是控方在审判中选择依赖的证据还是所谓的未使用的材料。在这篇文章中,我将追溯与披露有关的原则在英国和澳大利亚的发展,从检察官有权作为党派倡导者的时候,到20世纪大部分时间里非正式的“老男孩法案”对披露方法的操作,再到现代对坦率的坚持,最终以20世纪90年代英国具有里程碑意义的决定和2005年澳大利亚高等法院的R v Mallard案为高潮。与信息披露问题相关的基本主题是,检察官必须扮演坦率的司法部长的角色。在现代刑事诉讼中,检察官既不能充当党派辩护者,也不能依靠非正式的“绅士俱乐部”方式进行披露。很明显,英国关于披露的法律运作已经引起了重大的实践和理论问题,因此,在将英国模式引入澳大利亚之前保持警惕是明智的。无论检察官的公开义务有多苛刻和问题,我都认为,在这方面,检察官必须像法务部长官一样,公平地提出起诉证据,充分公开相关材料,并始终意识到起诉不能成为迫害。