Search results
4 Offences against the state, 1970–72 The southern state’s tried and tested response to subversion had always been emergency law. Internment, military courts and restrictions on the press had all been implemented during the Civil War, the Emergency and the IRA’s 1956–62 campaign.1 But the situation after 1969 was unfamiliar. The emotional upsurge that accompanied the outbreak of conflict in the North made security measures against republicans problematic. During 1969 and again in 1972, plans to introduce repressive laws were stymied by public solidarity with
). 4 Indeed, even further back, similar accusations had been made in 2004, after the German ship the Cap Anamur run by the organisation Human Rights Without Borders, rescued 37 people lost at sea. The ship’s captain and the organisation’s director were charged with criminal offences by Italian authorities, but were acquitted five years later ( Sarobmed, undated ). 5
-called coast guard. For the Sea-Watch 3 , the most obvious course of action after it had completed the rescue operation of 12 June 2018 would have been to take its fifty-three passengers to a nearby Italian port. 6 However, not only did the Italian government prohibit this; on 14 June, it issued a security decree that made it an offence for NGOs to disembark rescued migrants in Italy, and provided for hefty fines for non-compliance. The Italian government expected private SAR vessels like the Sea-Watch 3 to instead sail to a North African port and disembark rescued
Justice , 8 : 1 , 31 – 52 . Purdeková , A. ( 2011 ), ‘“Even If I Am Not Here, There Are So Many Eyes”: Surveillance and State Reach in Rwanda’ , Journal of Modern African Studies , 49 : 3 , 475 – 97 . Purdeková , A. ( 2015 ), Making Ubumwe: Power, State and Camps in Rwanda’s Unity-Building Project ( Chicago : Berghahn Books ). Republic of Rwanda ( 2001 ), ‘Organic Law No 40/2000 of 26/01/2001 setting up gacaca jurisdictions and organising prosecutions for offences constituting the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity committed between
will immediately refer you to the police because that is a capital offence. We, even as leaders, are not allowed to solve them. We are only allowed to solve minor misunderstandings within the community. (Male Refugee Leader in Adjumani, 28 December 2018) Figure 1: The conceptual relationship between social actors and help
hierarchy of the courts system, considering its workload, the type of crime it deals with and its jurisdiction.2 The remaining three sections detail the nature of District Court proceedings and how offences are processed, examine the characteristics of some of the main participants (notably the prosecution, judges and defendants3), and introduce the District Court as a verbal institution by exploring the language of the law and the courtroom. The lowest and busiest of courts The District Court is a busy place. Sometimes called the ‘workhorse’ of the criminal justice
A. W. Brian Simpson 5 The invention of trials in camera in security cases A. W. Brian Simpson Even in peacetime in Britain it is possible to be tried for very serious criminal offences in camera, in particular for offences against the Official Secrets Acts (hereafter OSA). The most remarkable trials in camera have been cases thought to involve national security. For example, in 1961 George Blake was convicted of five OSA offences and sentenced to forty-two years’ imprisonment after proceedings largely conducted in secret, though the sentence itself was
H. G. Cocks 3 Trials of character: the use of character evidence in Victorian sodomy trials H. G. Cocks On 31 July 1854, a man who gave the name George Campbell appeared at the Guildhall magistrates court in the City of London. He had been arrested a few days previously at an unlicensed dancing place and charged, along with one other man, with conducting himself ‘in a manner to excite others to commit an unnatural offence’.1 He and his partner had both been dressed in women’s clothes. While his companion, a man of 60, had been ‘dressed in the pastoral garb of
negated the criminal liability of perpetrators. This chapter explores the various forms of direct participation in humanitarian law offences. These are: planning and conspiracy; ordering others to commit a crime; incitement and dissemination of hate propaganda; and complicity. Before we proceed with this analysis, it would be useful to identify the specific crimes, that is, the concept of war crimes and crimes against
humanity’, and I argued for two of these as defining the core concept. Crimes against humanity, I said, (i) are offences against the human status or condition, and (ii) lie beyond a certain threshold of seriousness, being harmful to the fundamental interests of human beings just as such. The pair of meanings thus specified, I also suggested, more or less maps on to the idea of basic human rights. This understanding of the core content of the notion is not eccentric. The terms, indeed, in which Article 6 (c) of the Nuremberg Charter – the article which first named the