Pub Date : 2024-06-13DOI: 10.1177/13657127241259800
VE Munro, S. Weare, L. O’Doherty, G. Carter, L. Hudspith, E. Sleath, S. Brown, M. Cutland, C. Perot
Section 28, the last of the special measures under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to be implemented, was rolled out across England and Wales between 2020 and 2022. This allows vulnerable and/or intimidated witnesses and complainants, who have first pre-recorded their evidence-in-chief through a police video-recorded interview, to pre-record their cross-examination, which is then presented to the court during the substantive trial. This article critically explores s. 28 by drawing upon qualitative data from 108 semi-structured interviews conducted with participants across seven stakeholder groups, including criminal justice practitioners, and complainants and their families in sexual offences cases. Through a critical consideration of the articulated benefits associated with s. 28 within the context of sexual offences cases, we argue that there continue to be substantial challenges associated with its implementation that reduce its prospects for success, and which need to be addressed as a priority.
{"title":"‘It's the judicial equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul’—The implementation gap in section 28 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999","authors":"VE Munro, S. Weare, L. O’Doherty, G. Carter, L. Hudspith, E. Sleath, S. Brown, M. Cutland, C. Perot","doi":"10.1177/13657127241259800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241259800","url":null,"abstract":"Section 28, the last of the special measures under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to be implemented, was rolled out across England and Wales between 2020 and 2022. This allows vulnerable and/or intimidated witnesses and complainants, who have first pre-recorded their evidence-in-chief through a police video-recorded interview, to pre-record their cross-examination, which is then presented to the court during the substantive trial. This article critically explores s. 28 by drawing upon qualitative data from 108 semi-structured interviews conducted with participants across seven stakeholder groups, including criminal justice practitioners, and complainants and their families in sexual offences cases. Through a critical consideration of the articulated benefits associated with s. 28 within the context of sexual offences cases, we argue that there continue to be substantial challenges associated with its implementation that reduce its prospects for success, and which need to be addressed as a priority.","PeriodicalId":506826,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"22 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141347262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-10DOI: 10.1177/13657127241259803
Jiabin Lai
The legal status of cryptoassets as property has been widely accepted, but it remains unclear who owns a cryptoasset. This article explores the determination of the owner of a cryptoasset. It argues that under the doctrine of deemed ownership, a person in possession of a thing is deemed or presumed to be its owner unless there is evidence to the contrary. The cryptographic control of cryptoassets is equivalent or analogous to the physical possession of tangible things. Thus, a private key holder who has cryptographic control of a cryptoasset is presumed to be the owner of the cryptoasset. A person without cryptographic control can prove ownership of the cryptoasset in the hands of a different person if they can follow or trace the cryptoasset into the hands of the controller and they are entitled to claim ownership over the followed or traced cryptoasset.
{"title":"Proof of cryptoasset ownership in England and Wales","authors":"Jiabin Lai","doi":"10.1177/13657127241259803","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241259803","url":null,"abstract":"The legal status of cryptoassets as property has been widely accepted, but it remains unclear who owns a cryptoasset. This article explores the determination of the owner of a cryptoasset. It argues that under the doctrine of deemed ownership, a person in possession of a thing is deemed or presumed to be its owner unless there is evidence to the contrary. The cryptographic control of cryptoassets is equivalent or analogous to the physical possession of tangible things. Thus, a private key holder who has cryptographic control of a cryptoasset is presumed to be the owner of the cryptoasset. A person without cryptographic control can prove ownership of the cryptoasset in the hands of a different person if they can follow or trace the cryptoasset into the hands of the controller and they are entitled to claim ownership over the followed or traced cryptoasset.","PeriodicalId":506826,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"124 47","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141362559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-03-20DOI: 10.1177/13657127241238020
Zelin Su
Blockchain evidence is a technical method for evidence storage, transmission and fixation. Its evidential value has a dual nature, reflected in the fact that it cannot be absolutely tamper-resistant, can only provide periodic assurance of evidence authenticity and the commonly used consortium chains do not possess all the benefits of public chains. Simultaneously, blockchain evidence occupies a unique status within the entire evidence system, it serves as an evidentiary storage mechanism, is essentially an electronic evidence reflecting both the evidence collection process and outcome and its notarisation and forensic examination documents are a type of opinion evidence. It is evident that blockchain evidence does not emerge in a vacuum, rather than serving as a mere replacement for traditional evidence, blockchain evidence represents an upgrade in the functionality and effectiveness of traditional evidence. From this perspective, the improvement of blockchain evidence rules should align with the basic position of ‘technological neutrality’, which means that although technological evolution can lead to rapid changes, legislators are not always required to cater to these dynamic demands. It is essential to distinguish between on-chain and off-chain when addressing issues of authenticity, hearsay and originality, and improvements proposing should within the frameworks of existing electronic evidence rules and opinion evidence rules, thereby unlocking the potential of blockchain evidence.
{"title":"Evidentiary value and evidentiary status of blockchain evidence","authors":"Zelin Su","doi":"10.1177/13657127241238020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127241238020","url":null,"abstract":"Blockchain evidence is a technical method for evidence storage, transmission and fixation. Its evidential value has a dual nature, reflected in the fact that it cannot be absolutely tamper-resistant, can only provide periodic assurance of evidence authenticity and the commonly used consortium chains do not possess all the benefits of public chains. Simultaneously, blockchain evidence occupies a unique status within the entire evidence system, it serves as an evidentiary storage mechanism, is essentially an electronic evidence reflecting both the evidence collection process and outcome and its notarisation and forensic examination documents are a type of opinion evidence. It is evident that blockchain evidence does not emerge in a vacuum, rather than serving as a mere replacement for traditional evidence, blockchain evidence represents an upgrade in the functionality and effectiveness of traditional evidence. From this perspective, the improvement of blockchain evidence rules should align with the basic position of ‘technological neutrality’, which means that although technological evolution can lead to rapid changes, legislators are not always required to cater to these dynamic demands. It is essential to distinguish between on-chain and off-chain when addressing issues of authenticity, hearsay and originality, and improvements proposing should within the frameworks of existing electronic evidence rules and opinion evidence rules, thereby unlocking the potential of blockchain evidence.","PeriodicalId":506826,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"6 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140225665","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：