In this introduction to the ten year anniversary issue of ICE, the founding editors reflect briefly upon the establishment of ICE and how it has developed in the previous ten years. The theme of the issue, 'Evidence during the Ten Years of ICE,' is then introduced and the six essays in the issue are summarised.

One of the aims of this symposium is to demonstrate how the jury system has managed to adapt and survive in a range of very different legal and political environments. In one respect, the survival of the jury in a country that has long been riddled with political upheaval, violence, and division may be viewed as a powerful symbol of the triumph of an institution that has endured throughout the years as a living testament to the adaptability of the common law tradition with which the jury system is often associated. Not only did the jury survive the political troubles in eighteenth and nineteenth century Ireland, but it also has survived the constitutional changes of the twentieth century that brought about the partition of the island into two separate legal jurisdictions, the Republic of Ireland, an independent state comprising twenty-six out of the thirty-two counties on the island, and Northern Ireland, remaining part of the United Kingdom and comprising the other six counties. Although jury trial was imposed under the English common law in Ireland, this mode of trial was enshrined for criminal cases in the Irish Constitution of 1937 and remains an important constitutional right. North of the border, jury trial has survived thirty years of recent troubles, and, although it has been suspended for cases connected with the troubles, all the protagonists in the present “peace process” expect it to be restored once the troubles have abated. At another level, however, jury trial may be viewed as a dying remnant from the past, more deeply in decline perhaps even than in England and Wales, with only the force of tradition saving it from complete extinction. Jury trials have almost entirely disappeared in civil cases both north and south of the border. In the Republic of Ireland, civil juries are retained only for libel, slander,

Subject Criminal Law International Criminal Law Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

Abstract In Chapter Three, one of the distinctions made between contest and inquest models of proof was in the extent to which both information presented to the tribunal of fact and the verdict itself are subject to control. In the typical adversarial trial an extensive network of evidential and procedural rules will closely regulate the presentation of the issues to the fact-finding body, but that body’s ultimate decision will take a cursory and inscrutable form. Conversely, the inquest model is based upon limited input control and permits considerable output control, as the decision will be handed down in the form of a fully reasoned judgment.

Abstract Responses evoked by the expression ‘judging without jury’ will vary according to the perspective of the audience. In the specific context of Northern Ireland, the term will evoke for both lawyer and layperson the removal of the jury from the trial of serious criminal cases arising from the troubles and its replacement with the Diplock process. The debate on the respective merits of these forms of trial feeds into the wider debate on the suitability of the general emergency regime which has run in parallel to Northern Ireland’s ‘ordinary’ criminal process.1 The Diplock court system is often represented as the epitome of this regime, but it is only one aspect of a much larger legislative and administrative programme.

The rule of practice that requires judges to direct juries that it is dangerous to act on the uncorroborated evidence of certain categories of witness, namely accomplices, the alleged victims of sexual offences and children, has been diluted in certain jurisdictions, and subjected to rigorous criticism by a number of academic commentators. In this article it is proposed to consider whether a mandatory corroboration warning can ever be justified in respect of a particular category of witness. Rather than consider in detail the arguments in favour of retaining the warning for each of the present categories of witness, it is proposed to examine the case for the very idea of a corroboration warning in respect of any category of witness. We shall approach this question by first considering what it is that a corroboration warning requires a jury to do, over and above their ordinary task of determining the credibility of the evidence against the accused and deciding whether the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Attention has focused on the “enormous superstructure” that has been erected on the basic proposition that the evidence of some witnesses should be approached with caution and on the heavy burden that this imposes on a trial judge summing up to the jury. But another matter to consider is the demands that a corroboration warning imposes on the jury and whether it can ever be justified to make these demands in respect of particular categories of witness.

Book reviewed in this article: Community studies: the traditional approach contrasted with a class approach: Swanson, B. E., Cohen, A. and Swanson, E. P. Community studies: the traditional approach contrasted with a class approach: Hatch, E.

En s'appuyant sur les écrits de Ralf Dahrendorf et de Lewis Coser, l'auteur voudrait créer un modèle analytique du conflit qui serait applicable à l'étude des relations ethniques. Le modèle en question s'établit à partir de données dont la cueillette se poursuit dans une commune ontarienne qui compte des Canadiens d'expression française et d'expression anglaise. L'auteur considère le conflit comme une composante structurelle, un résultat inévitable, de la division du pouvoir et du statut II propose des hypothéses au sujet des variations des manifestations conflictuell. es. II suggère son modéle comme une alternative à l'approche de l'étude des relations ethniques d'après la théorie dite cyclique des relations raciales.