Journal articles: 'Self-incrimination'

1

Breslin, John. "Self‐incrimination: Recent Developments." Journal of Financial Crime 4, no. 1 (March 1996): 47–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb025754.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Decker, Jason. "Conciliation and Self-incrimination." Erkenntnis 79, no. 5 (January 29, 2014): 1099–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9599-8.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Stuntz, William J. "Self-Incrimination and Excuse." Columbia Law Review 88, no. 6 (October 1988): 1227. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1122556.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

ROSEN, MURRAY. "THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF‐INCRIMINATION." Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 1, no. 1 (January 1992): 116–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb024759.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Lamberigts, Stijn. "The Privilege against Self-Incrimination." New Journal of European Criminal Law 7, no. 4 (December 2016): 418–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/203228441600700404.

Full text

Abstract:

This article revisits the different justifications of the privilege against self-incrimination and examines two topical issues, the relation between the privilege and documentary evidence and the applicability of the privilege to corporations, in light of these justifications. Although the Presumption of Innocence Directive has recently addressed these two issues, several lingering uncertainties remain.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Roxin, Claus. "Involuntary Self-Incrimination and the Right to Privacy in Criminal Proceedings." Israel Law Review 31, no. 1-3 (1997): 74–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700015247.

Full text

Abstract:

In any rule-of-law system the law of criminal procedure is bound to weigh the intended investigation of the truth against the interest of the person charged with a criminal offence in protecting his privacy. The German law of criminal procedure is a typical example of the permanent struggle with these conflicting demands. While the majority of the courts are making an effort to reinforce the protection provided to the accused, the latest pieces of legislation reveal a tendency of allowing increasingly far-reaching invasion of privacy. I will try to map out the most important aspects of this development.In doing so I will distinguish between state-enforced, involuntary self-incrimination and the right to privacy. These two problems overlap because enforced self-incrimination will often entail invasion of privacy and, conversely, because an invasion of privacy by the state will often result in involuntary self-incrimination. But although these problems are intertwined I will differentiate between them and I accept that there will be some overlapping. After all, there may be invasions of privacy without self-incrimination and there may be cases of self-incrimination which are not caused by an invasion of privacy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Yanti, Ni Kadek Dripta, and I. Ketut Mertha. "EKSISTENSI SAKSI MAHKOTA DALAM PROSES PERADILAN PIDANA DI INDONESIA BERDASARKAN ASAS NON SELF INCRIMINATION." Kertha Semaya : Journal Ilmu Hukum 8, no. 12 (December 3, 2020): 1928. http://dx.doi.org/10.24843/ks.2020.v08.i12.p10.

Full text

Abstract:

Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui (1) eksistensi saksi mahkota dalam proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia berdasarkan asas non self incrimination; dan (2) perlindungan hukum terhadap saksi mahkota. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa (1) Eksistensi saksi mahkota dalam proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia berdasarkan asas non self incrimination sudah lazim digunakan. Kehadiran saksi mahkota baru dikatakan tidak bertentangan dengan asas non self incrimination jika dilakukan sesuai dengan apa yang diatur dalam Pasal 199 jo. Pasal 200 Rancangan KUHAP versi Januari 2009; dan (2) Perlindungan hukum terhadap saksi mahkota, seperti perlindungan terhadap saksi sebagaimana diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban, namun kepada saksi mahkota diberikan juga keringanan hukuman bahkan dibebaskan dari penuntutan jika peranannya dianggap yang paling ringan. The objective of this research to reveal (1) the existence of a crown witness in the criminal justice process in Indonesia based on the principle of non self-incrimination; and (2) legal protection of crown witnesses. The result of this research indicates that (1) The existence of crown witnesses in criminal justice processes in Indonesia based on the principle of non-self-incrimination is commonly used. The presence of a new crown witness is said not to contradict the principle of non-self-incrimination if it is carried out in accordance with Article 199 jo. Article 200 of the January 2009 version of the Draft Criminal Procedure Code; and (2) Legal protection for crown witnesses, such as protection for witnesses as regulated in Law Number 13 of 2006 concerning Protection of Witnesses and Victims, however crown witnesses are also given leniency and even exemption from prosecution if their role is considered the lightest.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Howarth, William. "Self-Monitoring, Self-Policing, Self-Incrimination and Pollution Law." Modern Law Review 60, no. 2 (March 1997): 200–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00075.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Dine, Janet. "Self incrimination and the Companies Act." Business Law Review 9, Issue 4 (April 1, 1988): 83–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/bula1988033.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Redmayne, M. "Rethinking the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27, no. 2 (December 20, 2005): 209–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Jerrold, Laurance. "Self-incrimination in the civil arena." American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 117, no. 4 (April 2000): 507–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70001-1.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Wynn-Evans, Charles. "Self Incrimination in English Employment Law." Industrial Law Journal 34, no. 2 (June 1, 2005): 178–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwi010.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Sukarjono, Bambang, Meirza Aulia Chairani, Angga Pramodya Pradhana, and Lusi Ardiani. "Peranan Saksi Mahkota Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Kasus Pembunuhan Berencana Brigadir Joshua Dikaitkan Dengan Asas Non Self Incrimination." YUSTISIA MERDEKA : Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 9, no. 1 (June 14, 2023): 68–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.33319/yume.v9i1.219.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract-The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of the crown witness in the premeditated murder case of Brigadier Joshua associated with the principle of non-self-incrimination and the obstacles to using a crown witness in the premeditated murder case of Brigadier Joshua associated with the principle of non-self-incrimination. This writing research method uses a normative juridical method with three approaches, namely the statutory approach (statute approach), conceptual approach (conceptual approach), and case approach (case approach). The results of the research on the role of the crown witness in the premeditated murder case of Brigadier Joshua were linked to the principle of non-self-incrimination, there were five defendants who were used as crown witnesses against the other defendants namely Ferdy Sambo, Putri Candrawathi, Bripka Ricky Rizal, Strong Ma'ruf and Bharada E However, there were two defendants who refused to be the crown witness for the other defendant, namely Ferdy Sambo who refused to be a witness for Putri Candrawathi, and vice versa Putri Candrawathi refused to be a witness for Ferdy Sambo. With this in mind, there are obstacles that come from obstacles to the defendant, obstacles to evidence, and obstacles to the trial judge. Based on this study, the use of crown witnesses in court proceedings is common. Aims to open the veil of crime from the defendant who was used as a witness. However, the use of crown witnesses must still pay attention to the human rights of the accused. In criminal law theory, this provision is referred to as the principle of non-self-incrimination, namely the defendant has the right not to provide information that incriminates himself (privilege against self-incrimination), which in practice the attitude of silence and not admitting to the accused is used as an excuse or circumstance that can be aggravating for punishing the accused.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Rafiq, Waqas, Samza Fatima, and Muhammad Bilal. "Protection Against Self-Incrimination: An Evaluation of Legal Framework in Pakistan." Global Legal Studies Review VIII, no. I (March 30, 2023): 76–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/glsr.2023(viii-i).09.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper examines the legal framework of Pakistan in the context of the universally recognized right of protection against self-incrimination. Since there is scarce literature concerning the analysis of the statutory laws and judicial pronouncements in the light of this constitutional protection, this paper aims to bridge this gap by employing a black letter approach to doctrinal legal research methodology. Despite the explicit recognition of this right, there was extensive litigation involving several controversial and unresolved problems concerning the protection against self-incrimination in the apex courts of Pakistan. The examination of statutory laws in Pakistan shows that the protection guaranteed under Art. 13(b) has not been recognized in its full vigour and spirit, necessitating appropriate legislative reforms. The analysis of the judicial pronouncements clearly signifies the resolve of courts in enforcing protection against self-incrimination, but the courts are constrained to make a hard rule to protect individual rights.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

III, George C. Thomas, and Marshall D. Bilder. "Aristotle's Paradox and the Self-Incrimination Puzzle." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 82, no. 2 (1991): 243. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1143808.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Andrews, N. H. "Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Civil Proceedings." Cambridge Law Journal 52, no. 1 (March 1993): 42–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197300017220.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Iraola, Roberto. "Self-Incrimination and the Non-Resident Alien." Pace Law Review 22, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.58948/2331-3528.1299.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Pilyavsky, Michael. "The Influence of Basic Laws on Criminal Law and the Right to Remain Silent According to Israeli Supreme Court Rulings – A Brief Overview." Open Journal for Legal Studies 7, no. 1 (April 26, 2024): 9–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojls.0701.02009p.

Full text

Abstract:

The practice of “Privilege Against Self Incrimination” of secrecy against self-incrimination in all Western legal methods, including Israeli law, is seen as one of the human rights in general and part of the right to due process in particular. The constitutional revolution took place and with the enactment of the basic laws of human dignity and freedom, which established several human rights, among them is the right to remain silent, which is considered a right derived from the Basic Law of Human Dignity and Freedom.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Franjić, Siniša. "Anyone Accused for a Criminal Act Has the Right to Silence." Law and Economy 2, no. 11 (November 2023): 60–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.56397/le.2023.11.08.

Full text

Abstract:

Anyone accused for a criminal act has the right to remain silent and the right not to contribute to self-incrimination. The right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognized international standards and are at the very heart of the concept of a fair trial. The right not to incriminate oneself in criminal proceedings applies to all types of criminal acts, from the simplest to the most complex. The right to remain silent applies from the moment the police interrogate the suspect.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Jackson, John. "RE-CONCEPTUALIZING THE RIGHT OF SILENCE AS AN EFFECTIVE FAIR TRIAL STANDARD." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 58, no. 4 (October 2009): 835–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020589309001407.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractAs the European Court of Human Rights has come to qualify the privilege against self-incrimination and the right of silence in recent decisions, this article argues that the Court has failed to provide a convincing rationale for these rights. It is claimed that within the criminal process the right of silence should be distinguished from the privilege against self-incrimination and given enhanced effect in order to uphold the protective and participatory rights of the defence which come into play when a suspect is called upon to answer criminal allegations.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Priyambodo, Ryan. "Kajian Atas Peranan Saksi Mahkota Dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Pencurian." Verstek 10, no. 2 (August 2, 2022): 323. http://dx.doi.org/10.20961/jv.v10i2.67634.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui peranan saksi mahkota dalam tindak pidana pencurian pada putusan nomor 205/Pid.B/2019/PN.Cbd. Selain itu juga untuk mengetahui peranan saksi mahkota apabila ditinjau dari asas non self incrimination. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif bersifat perspektif dan terapan. Pendekatan yang penulis gunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan kasus (case approach). Jenis dan sumber bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah bahan hukum primer dan sekunder dengan cara studi pustaka/dokumen. Teknik analisis bahan hukum menggunakan metode silogisme dengan menggunakan pola pikir deduktif. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa Peranan saksi mahkota dalam tindak pidana pencurian pada Putusan Nomor 205/Pid.B/2019/PN.Cbd adalah memenuhi standar batas minimal pembuktian dikarenakan Jaksa Penuntut Umum tidak memiliki alat bukti yang cukup sehingga terganjal pasal 193 KUHAP yang mengatur minimal dua (2) alat bukti yang sah. Peranan saksi mahkota sebagai memenuhi standar batas minimal pembuktian telah melanggar asas non self incrimination sebab ada kalimat pengakuan bersalah oleh saksi mahkota dalam keterangannya. Kata kunci: Asas non self incrimination; Pencurian; Saksi Mahkota, Abstract: This study aims to determine the role of the crown witness in the crime of theft in decision number 205/Pid.B/2019/PN.Cbd. In addition, it is also to know the role of the crown witness when viewed from the non-self-incrimination principle. The method used in this research is normative legal research which is perspective and applied. The approach that the author uses in this study is a case approach. The types and sources of legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials by means of literature/document studies. The technique of analyzing legal materials uses the syllogism method using a deductive mindset. Based on the results of the study, it shows that the role of the crown witness in the crime of theft in Decision Number 205/Pid.B/2019/PN.Cbd is to meet the minimum standard of proof because the Public Prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence so that it is hampered by Article 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code which regulates the minimum two (2) valid evidence. The role of the crown witness as meeting the minimum standard of proof has violated the principle of non self-incrimination because there is a sentence of guilt confession by the crown witness in his statement. Keywords: The principle of non-self-incrimination; Theft; crown witness.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

BISSET, ALISON. "The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Truth Commission-Administered Accountability Initiatives." Leiden Journal of International Law 30, no. 1 (December 13, 2016): 155–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0922156516000613.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractIn recent times, transitional justice practice has increasingly seen truth commissions tasked with administering accountability programmes, distinct from, and in addition to, their traditional truth-seeking role. Such accountability schemes typically take the form of granting or recommending amnesty for those who disclose involvement in past crimes or facilitate reintegration on the basis of similar disclosures. Self-incriminating disclosures made in the course of traditional truth commission proceedings generally attract a robust set of legal safeguards. However, the protections within transitional accountability schemes administered by truth commissions tend to be less stringent. This article explores this anomaly, focusing particularly on the extent to which the privilege against self-incrimination is protected within truth commission-administered accountability programmes. It considers the programmes operated to date, and the levels of protection afforded, and demonstrates a lack of consistent practice in the safeguarding of individual rights within these programmes. It examines international legal standards on the privilege against self-incrimination and questions whether the procedures operated by accountability programmes can be reconciled with international norms in order to protect those who make self-incriminating disclosures within accountability initiatives. The article argues that a failure to ensure individual rights against self-incrimination risks compromising the efficacy of the programmes themselves and the contribution that they can make to long-term peace and reconciliation in transitional states.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Amar, Akhil Reed, and Renee B. Lettow. "Fifth Amendment First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause." Michigan Law Review 93, no. 5 (March 1995): 857. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1289986.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Peyser, Herbert S. "Self-Incrimination on Medical Board and Licensing Applications." Psychiatric Services 44, no. 6 (June 1993): 517. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/ps.44.6.517.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Gans, Jeremy. "Something to Hide: DNA, Surveillance and Self-Incrimination." Current Issues in Criminal Justice 13, no. 2 (November 2001): 168–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2001.12036224.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Cotton, John. "Australia: The Privilege against Self‐Incrimination: Recent Developments." Journal of Financial Crime 5, no. 3 (January 1998): 283–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb025842.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Davies, Haydn, and Beverley Hopkins. "Environmental Crime and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination." International Journal of Evidence & Proof 4, no. 3 (July 2000): 177–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136571270000400302.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Stewart, H. "The privilege against self-incrimination: Reconsidering Redmaynes rethinking." International Journal of Evidence & Proof 20, no. 2 (April 1, 2016): 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1365712716628538.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

DRISCOLL, PAUL. "THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS." Juvenile and Family Court Journal 15, no. 3 (July 30, 2009): 17–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.1964.tb00296.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Moules, Richard. "THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND REAL EVIDENCE." Cambridge Law Journal 66, no. 3 (November 2007): 528–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197307000931.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Seet, Matthew. "SUSPECTED TERRORISTS AND THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION." Cambridge Law Journal 74, no. 2 (July 2015): 208–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197315000525.

Full text

Abstract:

THE tension between the competing values of security and human rights in the fight against terrorism was the subject of the ECtHR (Fourth Section) decision of Ibrahim v Others v the United Kingdom (Application nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08, and 40351/09), 16 December 2014. Two weeks after the London bombings of 7 July 2005, bombs were detonated on the London transport system but failed to explode. After the first three applicants were arrested on suspicion of detonating the bombs, they underwent “safety interviews” which are conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life and preventing serious damage to property, without any solicitor present and before the suspect can seek legal advice, as authorized under the Terrorism Act 2000. At the start of the “safety interviews”, instead of the “old-style” caution which reminds the suspect of his right to silence and informs him that anything said may be given in evidence, the police wrongly issued the “new-style” caution, which reminds the suspect of his right to silence and informs him that the court can draw adverse inferences at trial from his silence. This was contrary to s. 34(2A) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which states that adverse inferences cannot be drawn at trial if the defendant did not have the opportunity to consult with a solicitor prior to questioning. During the “safety interviews”, the first three applicants denied any involvement in or knowledge of the detonation, but, at trial, they acknowledged their involvement in the detonation yet claimed that the bombs had been a hoax and were never intended to explode. The statements taken at their “safety interviews” were admitted at trial. The fourth applicant, Abdurahman, was initially interviewed by the police as a witness. When he started to incriminate himself by discussing the assistance he provided to one of the suspects, the police did not, at that stage, arrest him and inform him of his rights to silence and to legal inform as required under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code of Practice C; they only did so after having further questioned him as a witness and having taken a written statement from him. His written statement was admitted at trial.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

KIRSCHNER, ELISABETH M. "Self-Incrimination Remains Major Problem With Environmental Audits." Chemical & Engineering News 72, no. 34 (August 22, 1994): 13–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cen-v072n034.p013.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Callewaert, Johan. "The Privilege against self-incrimination in European Law." ERA Forum 5, no. 4 (December 2004): 488–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12027-004-0014-9.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Elwindhi Febrian. "SPLITSING DALAM PERSPEKTIF ASAS CONTANTE JUSTITIE DAN ASAS NON SELF INCRIMINATION (SPLITSING IN CONTANTE JUSTITIE AND NON-SELF INCRIMINATION PRINCIPLES PERSPECTIVE)." Majalah Hukum Nasional 49, no. 2 (January 24, 2020): 107–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.33331/mhn.v49i2.32.

Full text

Abstract:

Penuntut Umum dalam membuat dakwaan suatu dugaan tindakan pidana yang dilakukan oleh lebih dari satu terdakwa acap kali melakukan pemisahan perkara atau sering disebut dengan splitsing, kemudian dengan berkas perkara yang terpisah para terdakwa saling bersaksi untuk satu sama lain. Praktek demikian mengakibatkan proses persidangan menjadi berbelit-belit sehingga bertentangan dengan asas contante justitie. Memunculkan saksi dari perkara splitsing juga beresiko melanggar hak asasi Terdakwa karena mereka harus bersaksi atas tindak pidana yang dituduhkan kepada dirinya sendiri sehingga beresiko memberikan keterangan yang memberatkan dirinya sendiri, hal tersebut bertentangan dengan asas non self-incrimination. Pasal 142 KUHAP mengatur mengenai pemisahan perkara, dan mengatur dengan jelas bagaimana perkara dapat dilakukan pemisahan perkara. Namun dalam prakteknya pemisahan perkara tidak sesuai dengan maksud dan tujuan dari KUHAP yang diciptakan untuk memberikan penghargaan yang besar terhadap hak asasi manusia, justru sebaliknya digunakan untuk melanggar hak asasi manusia.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Maina, Eva, and Edward Paranta. "Taxing Income from Illegal Activity: The Kenyan Perspective." Strathmore Law Review 2, no. 1 (January 1, 2017): 103–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.52907/slr.v2i1.96.

Full text

Abstract:

Increasingly, states are being called upon to act on illicit financial flows with respect to taxation. In a recent decision, the Court of Appeal of Kenya held that illegal income is taxable under the Kenyan law. There are various arguments for and against taxation of illegal income. As well as arising issues such as deductibility of expenses incurred in the process of income generation, how it relates with the right against self-incrimination and the role of tax law in reinforcing the criminal justice system. This essay is an analysis on whether illegal income in Kenya should be subjected to taxation. The contribution surmises that while taxation of such income may reap benefits, caution must be exercised in order to protect the right against self incrimination.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Corns, Chris. "The ‘Big Four’: Privileges and Indemnities†." Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 27, no. 2 (September 1994): 133–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000486589402700203.

Full text

Abstract:

From at least the seventeenth century, English law has recognised the right of any person not to provide evidence which may incriminate him or her in the commission of a crime (the privilege against self-incrimination). The exercise of this right would appear to represent a significant obstacle to the effective investigation of criminal activities, and in particular, organised crime. However, through the use of indemnification procedures, the National Crime Authority, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, and the Criminal Justice Commission (Qld) are able to circumvent the traditional protection provided by the privilege against self-incrimination. This paper examines the use of indemnities by such bodies and considers a number of issues relating to adequate accountability and the problem of demonstrating efficacy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Theophilopoulos, Constantine. "State compulsion of smartphone security features and the privilege against self-incrimination." South African Journal of Criminal Justice 36, no. 2 (2023): 282–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.47348/sacj/v36/i2a5.

Full text

Abstract:

There is currently a lacuna in statutory and case law about the legal nexus between smartphone technology in the form of password/code or biometric-locked smartphone security features and the privilege against self-incrimination. This paper examines whether a recipient of a cyber-warrant, subpoena, or other compelling order, may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in the face of a state order compelling the production of a security feature in order to unlock a smartphone and forensically access stored incriminating data files as admissible relevant evidence at trial. This paper examines the legal nexus by critical reference to relevant South African legislation, comparative international law, the Fifth Amendment privilege, and the foregone conclusion doctrine as described by the USA Supreme Court in Fisher v United States, Hubbell v United States and other federal courts.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Andoh, Benjamin. "The Search Order and The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination." Business Law Review 26, Issue 1 (January 1, 2005): 6–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/bula2005135.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

MACNAIR, M. R. T. "The Early Development of the Privilege against Self-Incrimination." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 10, no. 1 (1990): 66–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/10.1.66.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Pizzi, William T. "The Privilege against Self-Incrimination in a Rescue Situation." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 76, no. 3 (1985): 567. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1143515.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Inbau, Fred E. "Should We Abolish the Constitutional Privilege against Self-Incrimination?" Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 89, no. 4 (1999): 1385. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1144186.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Bodenhamer, David J., R. H. Helmholz, Charles M. Gray, John H. Langbein, Eben Moglen, Henry Smith, and Albert Alschuler. "The Privilege against Self-Incrimination: Its Origins and Development." American Journal of Legal History 42, no. 4 (October 1998): 419. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/846047.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Eriksen, Morten, and Tarjei Thorkildsen. "The Ban on Self Incrimination after the Saunders Judgment." Journal of Financial Crime 5, no. 2 (April 1997): 182–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb025832.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Andrews, Neil. "PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS ERA." Cambridge Law Journal 66, no. 1 (March 2007): 47–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197307000360.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Allen, Ronald J., and M. Kristin Mace. "The Self-Incrimination Clause Explained and Its Future Predicted." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 94, no. 2 (2004): 243. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3491370.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Edwards, Susan. "The Self-Incrimination Privilege in Care Proceedings and the Criminal Trial and ‘Shall Not Be Admissible in Evidence’." Journal of Criminal Law 73, no. 1 (February 2009): 48–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2009.73.1.548.

Full text

Abstract:

This article considers the suspension of the self-incrimination privilege in care proceedings and the consequences for respondents and defendants implicated in civil and criminal trials relating to child abuse. This right against self-incrimination is differently applied in the civil and criminal forum. Where there are parallel civil and criminal proceedings and where different rules apply to the disclosure of fact, a respondent in a civil trial later facing criminal proceedings is at a disadvantage. This article explores the tension in the law with regard to a defendant's right to silence and the operation of the self-incrimination privilege with regard to documents and statements made by parties in civil and in criminal proceedings in cases arising from the physical and sexual abuse of children by family members or carers, and the law's overriding objective of child protection. It considers the several issues which arise when self-incriminatory statements are made in one set of proceedings and the use that can be made of these statements in the criminal investigation and at trial. It considers the duty of the criminal court to consider fairness in respect of admissibility of specific evidence (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s. 78) and also to consider the fairness of the trial as a whole (European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6). These sacrosanct principles and rules of evidence are examined in the context of their application in family/care proceedings and related criminal proceedings for offences of child abuse and the implications for the rights of respondents/defendants.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

MacCulloch, Angus. "The privilege against self-incrimination in competition investigations: theoretical foundations and practical implications." Legal Studies 26, no. 2 (June 2006): 211–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.2006.00012.x.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper examines the historical and theoretical basis of the privilege against self-incrimination and the case-law regarding the privilege before the UK and European courts in order to understand better the development of the privilege in relation to competition investigations in the UK and EU. The historical and theoretical basis of the privilege indicates that the privilege is a relatively modern legal creation and a number of theoretical bases are offered to justify its existence. The theoretical justifications assist in a better understanding of the extant case-law, but indicate that some of the distinctions drawn between categories of protected information have no clear basis. The paper goes on to examine the difference between self-incrimination and self-accusation, the extension of ‘human’ rights to corporate entities, and the existence of a privilege as a ‘functional necessity’. Finally the paper makes some suggestions about the type of information that might be sought legitimately in competition investigations and those requests that might be challenged.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Kurniawan, Zahri, Ilham Wahyudi, and H. S. Tisnanta. "The Right Non Self-Incrimination and Epistemology of Criminal Witnesses." Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 14, no. 4 (July 28, 2020): 363. http://dx.doi.org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v14no4.1988.

Full text

Abstract:

The absence of a clear normative interpretation related to witnesses who are also criminal perpetrators in the Indonesian court has controversy on the theoretical level. In practice, the practitioners adopt a concept known in other countries. However, in adopting ideas from other countries, practitioners are often trapped in practitioners’ paradigms. Translating the perpetrators’ witnesses such as crown witnesses, justice collaborators (JC), and whistleblowers (wb,) are not the concepts comprehensively. In the end, the witness being denied the rights of the perpetrators, namely right non-self-incrimination. The paper offers a concept for finding solutions in the use of witnesses who are also as criminal perpetrators in epistemological basis. These considerations are used to provide a coherent way based on the principle to justify the use of witness evidence from the criminal perpetrators. The purpose is to accord with the principle of due process of law, not to clash the principle of non-self-incrimination in proving the search of material truth.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Weigend, Thomas, and Khalid Ghanayim. "Human Dignity in Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Overview of Israeli and German Law." Israel Law Review 44, no. 1-2 (2011): 199–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700001023.

Full text

Abstract:

German constitutional law proclaims to grant human dignity “absolute” protection, whereas Israeli law permits a weighing of human dignity against other important interests. In spite of this difference in principle, German and Israeli law arrive at remarkably similar results with respect to the regulation of “dignity-sensitive” areas of criminal procedure, such as the privilege against self-incrimination, the search of the body and the home of suspects, and secret surveillance of private communications. With regard to privileged conversations, Israeli law provides for even stronger safeguards against state intrusion than German law. The protection against forced self-incrimination, by contrast, goes further under German law. In order to optimize the protection of human dignity in the criminal process, the authors suggest a strict distinction between measures designed to investigate past offenses and those aimed at preventing crime.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Zuckerman, Adrian A. S. "Coercion and the Judicial Ascertainment of Truth." Israel Law Review 23, no. 2-3 (1989): 357–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700016770.

Full text

Abstract:

The Commission of Inquiry into the Methods of Investigation of the General Security Service regarding Hostile Terrorist Activity dealt with the investigation methods which were practiced by the General Security Service (GSS) and which impinged on the rights of suspects.Suspects under interrogation have a number of rights: the right not to be physically or mentally injured or otherwise mistreated, the privilege against self-incrimination and a number of ancillary procedural rights, such as the right to consult a lawyer. The Commission concluded that the interests of combatting terrorism justify the suspension of these rights in whole or in part. It thought that the privilege against self-incrimination need not be accorded to terrorist suspects and, furthermore, that psychological and physical forms of pressure may be exerted on suspects in order to overcome their resistance to interrogation. The Commission accepted that a civilised criminal procedure has to reflect minimal standards of respect for the integrity of individuals. However, it found justification for the departure from normal procedures in an analogy to the doctrines of necessity and self-defence.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Self-incrimination'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles