By Lord Verdirame KC and Professor Richard Ekins KC (Hon)

The International Criminal Court Act 2001 is an Act to give effect to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (the ICC Statute or Rome Statute). Part 2 of the Act makes provision for the arrest, detention and delivery up to the International Criminal Court (ICC) of persons against whom the ICC has issued an arrest warrant. But section 23 of the Act does not allow any action under Part 2 of the Act to be taken in relation to a person to whom state or diplomatic immunity attaches by reason of a connection with a state that is not a State party to the Rome Statute. The only exceptions to this limitation are if (a) the ICC obtains a waiver from that state or (b) the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) makes a resolution. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Israel is not a State party to the Rome Statute and has not waived state or diplomatic immunity. There is no relevant UNSC resolution. As a matter of customary international law, a Head of Government is entitled to absolute immunity against arrest. For this reason, it would be unlawful, as a matter of UK law and international law, to attempt to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu. If the Government were to attempt to comply with the arrest warrant it would be acting beyond the parameters of the powers conferred on it by an Act of Parliament and would be violating the UK’s obligations in international law to respect state or diplomatic immunity. To the extent that the Government has indicated that it would attempt to execute an arrest warrant, its actions warrant strong denunciation. Any court hearing an application from the Secretary of State under Part 2 of the Act should reject the application on the grounds that it is incompatible with section 23 and with the rules about state or diplomatic immunity incorporated into and having effect in UK law

London: Policy Exchange, 2024. 17p.

By Brian Johnson, Kiminori Nakamura, Lydia Becker, Raquel Hernandez

Firearms violence is a major policy concern in America. How criminal courts address firearm crimes represents a critical opportunity for improving public safety. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases are settled by guilty plea, yet little is known about the ways that plea deals impact criminal punishment for firearms-involved offenders, or how they shape subsequent recidivism. This project investigates the association between plea bargaining, sentencing, and recidivism outcomes in state-wide sample of firearms-involved offenders. It provides a descriptive overview of case characteristics and outcomes in firearms cases, examines the scope and impact of plea bargaining for these offenses, and considers how plea discounts potentially impact future reoffending. Findings indicate that plea negotiations are common in firearms-related offenses – a majority of cases involve multiple filed charges but a single conviction charge, and more than half of all cases include a reduction in the severity of the top charge between filing and conviction. The mean distance traveled, or average magnitude of plea discounts, results in a significant reduction in the likelihood of incarceration and expected sentence lengths. Results also reveal significant relationships between plea discounts and recidivism. Defendants who are convicted and sentenced to longer incarceration terms have lower odds of coming back into the system for a new offense, whereas those who receive charge reductions and are given larger plea discounts are more likely to recidivate during our study period. Because average sentences in firearms cases are substantial, and because our follow-up period is limited, these results likely reflect the short-term incapacitation effects of lengthier incarceration terms. Overall, the current study suggests there may be significant public safety implications of plea discounts in firearms cases, though future research is needed before strong policy recommendations can be offered.

College Park, MD: University of Maryland, 2024. 88p.

By Vanessa Bettinson

• Coercive control is a recognised form of domestic abuse under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and it is a criminal offence to engage in controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Domestic abuse disproportionately affects women as victims and this is reflected in the female prison population where research has found that 57% of women in the prison population in England and Wales have been victims of domestic abuse.

• Coercive control by a male intimate partner or relative can directly result in women’s offending. This occurs in a variety of ways such as taking responsibility for a partner’s crime, possession of a controlled substance belonging to an abuser and theft to support a partner’s drug habit, stealing personal items or using violent resistance against the abuser.

• Coercive control has also been linked to women’s reoffending with short custodial sentences leading to financial hardship and homelessness. Access to women’s refuges is limited as female offenders often have complex and multiple needs which make them ineligible for most refuges. Returning to an abuser to avoid homelessness is likely to lead to the continuation of coerced offending. Abusive partners can also prevent a female offender from complying with supervision under a community order by exerting coercive and controlling behaviours on them. In an effort to maintain their safety, the victim-offender can perceive that compliance with the abuser’s demands is their safest option.

• Existing sentencing guidelines do recognise ‘coercion, intimidation or exploitation’ as a mitigating factor in sentencing. It can operate as a factor that lowers the culpability threshold in some offence specific sentencing guidelines or, alternatively, it can be assessed as personal mitigation in accordance with the Sentencing Council’s ‘General guideline: overarching principles’. This means there is a high potential that coercive control as mitigation in sentencing is not consistently applied to all sentencing decisions.

• The guidelines do not explicitly adopt the term coercive control and sentencers could be limiting their approach to coercion for mitigation purposes to physical forms of coercion. HM Courts and Tribunals ought to apply the statutory guideline that supports the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 at sentencing hearings, however, there is no research on the ability of sentencers to identify coercive control and apply it to sentencing decisions.

• Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) are a valuable tool to assist the court in understanding the role coercive control played in the offending, however, there is a reduction in the volume of full written PSRs being requested by courts. In addition, there is no research on the ability of probation officers to identify coercive control and the extent it is included in PSRs

London: Sentencing Academy, 2024. 16p.

By Kathryn Hollingsworth, Jonathan Bild and Gavin Dingwall

This report describes the findings from a survey of 1,038 children living in England and Wales aged between 10-17 years, drawn from the general public and conducted in 2023. The research contributes to the literature on the public’s knowledge and opinion of sentencing and this survey follows up an earlier report by the Sentencing Academy, published in January 2022, which explored public knowledge of sentencing practice and trends through a survey of adult respondents. This report, however, focuses on a cohort – children over the minimum age of criminal responsibility – who are largely absent from the existing research literature.

Key Findings

• Most children reported having spoken to someone about what happens in a criminal court. The most common answer (57%) was that they had spoken to ‘my family’, with 39% of respondents having spoken to ‘my teacher at school’. However, very few respondents (2%) reported having been to a criminal court.

• Respondents reported having seen what happens in a criminal court from a variety of sources, with the two most common responses being ‘on a TV programme’ and ‘in a film’.

• Despite all participants in the survey having reached the minimum age of criminal responsibility, respondents generally over-estimated the age at which children become criminally responsible: 61% of those who provided an answer to the question of at what age does a child become criminally responsible (i.e. excluding those who answered ‘don’t know’) thought it was over the correct age of 10-years-old.

• The children in this survey were much less likely than adult respondents to think that the sentencing of adults is too lenient: 27% of respondents thought that sentencing was too lenient but a greater proportion – 34% – thought it was ‘about right’. Only 16% of respondents thought that the sentencing of children was too lenient.

• Whilst the vast majority (81%) of respondents correctly identified that a judge ‘would’ sentence a 25-year-old more severely than a 15-year-old for an identical offence, only 50% of respondents thought that they ‘should’ do so; 38% thought that both offenders should receive the same punishment.

• Respondents generally under-estimated the severity of sentencing for children convicted of a repeat knife offence. In a scenario crafted to engage a mandatory custodial sentence as the most likely outcome, 57% of respondents thought that the offending would most likely be met with a non-custodial sentence. This included a majority of 16- and 17-year old respondents to whom the mandatory sentencing provisions apply

London: Sentencing Academy, 2024. 26p.

By Brandon L. Garrett

In response to wrongful convictions, there has been a revolution in criminal procedure and research in law and science. This review seeks to summarize the cross-disciplinary explosion in work studying known wrongful convictions, examining their causes, and assessing policy reforms designed to help detect and prevent errors in criminal justice. Scholars have increasingly studied the characteristics of known wrongful-conviction cases, including by analyzing archival records and by creating public registries of exonerations. Scholars have conducted research in law, psychology, statistics, criminology, and other disciplines, as well as interdisciplinary research, designed to better understand the phenomenon of wrongful convictions and how to prevent errors. Scientific bodies, such as the National Academy of Sciences, have made important recommendations based on this research. Furthermore, the conversation is global, with litigation, research, and policy work across jurisdictions. A wide range of jurisdictions have adopted noteworthy changes designed to safeguard crucial types of evidence, such as confession, forensic, and eyewitness evidence, during police investigations and at trial. As a result, law and science have increasingly come together to produce tangible improvements to criminal justice.

Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2020. 3:245–59

By: Mike Molan

As a source of reference materials this is not a book designed to be read from beginning to end in a linear fashion. Most readers will dip into the chapters that follow in search of material relating to a specific aspect of the substantive criminal law. The substantive criminal law does not, however, exist in a vacuum. It is hard to have an effective understanding of the doctrinal aspects of criminal law without also having a grasp of the operational context. The materials that follow in this first chapter, therefore, provide a brief overview of the sources of criminal law, the approach taken by the courts in applying criminal statutes, the procedural options open to the prosecuting authorities, and the appeals processes that give rise to many of the precedents forming the backbone of the substantive law. The materials also illustrate the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the operation of domestic substantive criminal law, and the contribution of the Law Commission to the on-going programme of law reform. There are many other interesting aspects of the criminal justice system that could be considered, such as punishment, crime prevention, and theories of deviancy, but they lie beyond the scope of this text.

Routledge-Cavendish 2008

Edited by Andrea Krizsán

Domestic violence, one of the most prevalent forms of gender-based violence, is a policy ield where spectacular progress took place worldwide in the last decades. Importantly the issue was put on the policy agenda across diferent regions and countries almost invariably by women’s movements (Htun and Weldon 2012). Awareness of domestic violence as a policy issue which needs state intervention has also showed spectacular progress in the last decade or so in most countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Yet, considerable variety emerges in the achieved policy outputs and the extent to which these outputs are gender equality sensitive and serve the interests of women victims/survivors (Krizsan and Popa 2014). his volume asks how this variation can be connected to women’s movements in the region. Is women’s rights advocacy and autonomous women’s organizing an equally important component of progress in countries of this region?

The literature on women’s movements in the region has widely discussed their weakness and dependency on foreign donors, in the context of transition to democracy. Weak capacity to mobilize as well as to generate policy change, vulnerability to the inluence of foreign donor agendas, as well as the wide refusal of the feminist label because of its association with the communist project, were among the reasons for skepticism. he very existence and potential of women’s movements was sometimes questioned (McBride and Mazur 2010, Stetson and Mazur 1995, Jaquette and Wolchik 1998, Rueschemeyer 1993, Einhorn 1993). Even though major progress in policies advancing women’s rights took place in the irst two decades after the transition, two main caveats were attached to this progress. On the one hand, the newly adopted policies were attributed to international influence coming from global and regional human rights instruments as well as conditionality linked to European Union accession, rather than women’s rights activism and women’s movements’ mobilization (Avdeyeva 2007, Miroiu 2004). On the other hand, research has shown that many policies were adopted for window-dressing purposes, their implementation failed, was limited or oppositional to the initial gender equality intents, thus, ultimately minimizing their potential for gender transformation. Indeed, gender policies remained largely disconnected from domestic realities and domestic women’s rights advocacy.

While these trends may apply in general terms to post-communist countries, recent research has challenged the idea of regional homogeneity and is increasingly pointing to diversity in terms of gender equality policy processes and their outputs across the diferent countries of the region (Krizsan et al. 2010). In some countries of the region there is a staggering lack of gender equality progress, while other countries are deinitely faring better, adopting better policies, having more participatory policy processes and as a result are better at implementing gender policies. Furthermore, some gender policy issues are discussed more than others, and some bring more gender equality progress than others. Some gendered issues are discussed in more gendered ways, others in either non-gendered or outright hostile ways. he signiicant variation between countries points to the crucial inluence of domestic factors on gender policy change: most importantly for this volume the signiicance of domestic women’s movements and their interactions with domestic structures.

This volume aims to contribute to the debate on gender policy change in Central and Eastern Europe by placing the emphasis on the importance and relevance of domestic policy dynamics, and primarily domestic women’s rights advocacy vis-a-vis the state for understanding gender equality policy change in various countries of the region. It aims to challenge the general understanding about the weakness and lack of capacity of women’s groups for successfully advocating for policy change, and to highlight various domestic dynamics in diferent countries that have led to gender equality sensitive change and success. Our starting point in the volume is that diverse women’s movements exist in the region, and that they are the main protagonists of policy change in this ield in multiple and diferently eicient ways.

Central European University in 2012-2013.

By: Paula Whitacre, Steven Kendall, and Anne-Marie Mazza

The COVID-19 pandemic raised challenging legal and policy issues—as reflected in numerous, often inconsistent, health-related decisions made in the United States at the national, state, and local level and in COVID-related judicial opinions issued after the onset of the pandemic. The response to the pandemic provides an opportunity to consider whether federal, state, and local governments had the necessary authority to deal with the crisis, how authority was applied, whether there was sufficient clarity as to responsibility, and what should be changed for the future.

On May 30–31, 2024, an ad hoc committee under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Science, Technology, and Law (CSTL) convened a virtual workshop to examine the allocation of responsibility among levels of government when dealing with a public health crisis; the extent to which federal, state, and local governments have the necessary authority to act; whether there is sufficient clarity as to which levels of government are responsible for particular actions; and lessons that can be learned from the pandemic to inform government responses to pandemics in the future.

The National Academies Press 2024

By: Timothy R. Wyatt and Conner Gwyn Schenck

Background

State departments of transportation have a continuing need to keep abreast of operating practices and legal elements of specific problems in highway law. The NCHRP Legal Research Digest and the Selected Studies in Transportation Law (SSTL) series are intended to keep departments up-to-date on laws that will affect their operations.

Foreword

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many transportation departments and authorities, their contractors, and consultants looked to the force majeure provisions of their contracts to determine what conditions or terms would govern their performances, what risks and obligations would be upheld, and what potential waivers would apply.

NCHRP LRD 93: Pandemics and Contractual Issues addresses the legal impacts that transportation agencies can expect to have as a result of an unusual occurrence when the nature of the occurrence (e.g., a pandemic) is not explicitly identified in contractual force majeure provisions, and the sufficiency or reasonableness of consequences for noncompliance with contract performance levels and with risk transfers.

This digest focuses on typical force majeure provisions and conditions in transportation construction, maintenance, or toll road operation contracts. It also addresses the legal aspects of government-mandated and imposed quarantine and business disruptions caused by the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic.

The digest provides a review of:

• Applicable force majeure clauses and the key criteria and circumstances weighed in favor of the conclusion that force majeure applies;

• How performance, time of completion, and financial provisions in the contracts affected the transportation agency and the contractor;

• The defenses or remedies a transportation agency could assert to counter the claim of force majeure legal arguments to make in support of the declaration of force majeure; and

• How the cost of shortfalls is allocated to each side without the force majeure clause.

This digest will be helpful to all involved in the legal obligations of parties to contracts concerning force majeure impacted by pandemics and other unanticipated occurrences, including attorneys representing transportation departments and authorities, their contractors and consultants, policymakers, local, state, and federal personnel, transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and stakeholders.

The National Academies Press 2024

By: Catherine H. Augustine, Andrea Phillips, Susannah Faxon-Mills, Abigail Kessler

In this report, the authors describe how implementation of restorative practices in educational settings and a juvenile diversion program run by the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC) in San Diego County are working to stem the school-to-prison pipeline. The authors focus on how NCRC is serving as an intermediary organization for youth-focused programs, signs of success, opportunities to improve, and insights for other communities.

RAND Research—Published Sep 30, 2024

By: Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Elizabeth Marsolais, Samantha Matthews

The Los Angeles County Rapid Diversion Program (RDP) is a pretrial mental health diversion program operating in seven courthouses in Los Angeles County, California. Established in 2019 as a faster approach to mental health diversion compared with the traditional approach, RDP allows for the diversion of individuals who have a mental health diagnosis or substance use disorder and certain qualifying misdemeanor or felony charges. Individuals who complete the program have their case dismissed.

In this report, the authors present findings from a formal assessment of program implementation to date. Using a mixed-methods evaluation of program data and interviews with implementation partners and RDP graduates, they explore current program implementation, case outcomes for individuals who participate in RDP, and strengths and areas for improvement. Lessons learned from this evaluation have the potential to inform efforts to scale the program within Los Angeles County and to other counties interested in implementing a similar pretrial diversion program.

RAND—Published Sep. 30, 2024

By: SHAMENA ANWAR, JOHN ENGBERG, ISAAC M. OPPER, LEAH DION

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) methods to aid with decisionmaking in the criminal justice system has widely expanded in recent years with the increased use of risk assessments. Nowhere has this shift been more dramatic than in the widespread adoption of AI-enabled risk assessment tools to aid in pretrial detention decisions.

Despite the promise of pretrial risk assessment tools, the ways in which these tools have been implemented has limited potential progress. The vast majority of jurisdictions that have implemented these tools have essentially provided these risk assessment recommendations to judges in an advisory manner and generally cannot require judges to follow the recommendations when making their pretrial release decisions. Studies indicate that judges frequently ignore the recommendations of the risk assessment instrument; as a result, the adoption of these risk assessment tools has not had much impact on reducing the use of monetary bail and pretrial detention.

In this report, the authors investigate the factors that are predictive of whether judges follow risk assessment recommendations and identify the impacts to pretrial detention, public safety, and racial disparities when judges follow the recommendations more often.

RAND Research - Published Sep. 5, 2024

By Scottish Government, Safer Communities Directorate

This paper presents a review of quantitative evidence on women in the justice system. It is drawn from a range of data sources, of which the most prominent are Official Statistics produced by the Scottish Government's Justice Analytical Services.

Whilst the analysis in this paper seeks to highlight (and quantify) the differences and similarities between women and men in the justice system, it does not by itself explain why these may exist. Social research and other qualitative evidence would be more appropriate in providing further context for this. For example, qualitative research with victims-survivors of rape and sexual assault as they journey through the justice system in Scotland is available from the Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research[1]. Qualitative evidence which provides an insight into the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) restrictions on people experiencing domestic abuse and other forms of violence against women and girls is available on the Scottish Government website[2].

Key findings from these statistics are that:

• Women account for a much smaller proportion of those involved across Scotland's justice system than men (for example prosecutions, convictions, people in prison). This pattern has been constant over time, and is similar to what is seen in other parts of the UK[3].

• Women and men tend to experience crime in different ways, with a significant factor being the type of crime experienced, including violence. Women are much more likely to experience sexual victimisation and to be victims of partner abuse, while men are more likely to experience serious non-sexual violence (such as homicide and serious assault).

• Feelings of safety have improved over the longer term for women, but have remained consistently behind those of men. This may, at least in part, explain why a greater proportion of women are worried about experiencing crime than men – despite actual experiences of overall crime victimisation being similar for both women and men in Scotland.

• Women represent a minority of those convicted of a crime and of the prison population in Scotland, a feature that is consistent over time. Women also tend to be convicted of different types of crime when compared to men.

• Women generally receive shorter sentences than men, are less likely to receive a custodial sentence and are reconvicted less often on average.

• Looking at views on the criminal justice system, women are less confident in the system than men on a number of measures asked about in the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (for example, confidence that the criminal justice system allows all those accused of crimes to get a fair trial regardless of who they are).

• Justice organisations in Scotland show a mixed picture in terms of their workforce composition. Generally, females continue to make up a minority of more senior roles across the board. While there is targeted effort within organisations in terms of improving diversity, some continue to have a widely male dominated workforce, while others have female employees as the clear majority of their staff.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government, 2022. 34p.

By Scottish Government, Safer Communities Directorate

Summary

• Research shows further evidence on the negative impact of rape myths and misconceptions on the complainer, but also raises concerns about perceived fairness by legal professionals when using single judge trials.

• Overall, there is a lack of empirical research comparing modes of trial for rape cases, which makes it difficult to draw any robust conclusions in relation to their impact on the complainer, rights of the accused, public confidence in the justice system and conviction rates.

• That said, there are some tentative indications that the complainer experience may be improved by a single judge trial model, but it might be more dependent on wider court procedures and approaches to (cross) examination than the mode of trial itself.

• Providing a written reason of verdict is seen as a clear advantage of single judge trials, both for the complainer and accused.

• Studies suggest that considering the rights of the accused should include agreeing on the justifications/criteria for single judge trials, establishing clear procedures to ensure consistency and transparency and addressing (implicit) bias and diversity in the judiciary.

• Significantly, where single judge trials for serious offences have been adopted, e.g. in countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States, it is by choice of the accused. There were no instances found of jurisdictions introducing alternatives to jury trials specifically for rape cases.

• There is no clear data on the effect of changing mode of trial on public confidence in justice system, although studies have shown a clear support of the public for the jury system. These studies however, did not ask directly about changing mode of trial in specific cases, such as for rape offences.

• The evidence is mixed on conviction rates, from lower, to no difference, to higher rates of conviction for cases tried by single judge, although, again, the evidence is limited and not specific to rape cases.

• Literature discussing mixed panels of professional and lay judges point to the possibility to mitigate concerns about the lack of community engagement and potential bias with one decision-maker, while preserving some of the advantages of a single judge trial such as clearer judicial direction and a reasoned written verdict.

• Overall, the literature suggest that to understand the impact of a change in mode of trial, it is important to take into account how a new mode of trial interacts with already established procedures in the criminal justice system. To improve the complainer experience additional reflection would be required on pre-trial and cross-examination procedures and training given to legal professionals.

• Taking into account that the evidence presented is limited and not always specific to sexual offences, it is difficult to make a clear translation to the context of a Scottish pilot for rape offences. A pilot can offer valuable and much needed empirical data and insight on the effects of a change in mode of trial.

Edinburgh: Scottish Government Safer Communities Directorate, 2023. 40p.

By Scottish Government, Social Research

In late 2019, the Scottish Government commissioned an independent research study into decision making in relation to refusal of bail in Scotland. The overall aim of the research was to explore how decision making works in practice, as well as to gather perceptions on bail options. The research was carried out over two phases. Phase 1 involved online surveys of members of the Judiciary and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal (COPFS) staff, the findings from which were published in an Interim Findings report in July 2022.

This report presents findings from Phase 2 of the research which involved a series of qualitative interviews with key justice stakeholders (Sheriffs, COPFS staff, defence solicitors and social work staff) to add breadth and context to the survey data presented in the Phase 1 report. A case study approach was taken with fieldwork carried out in six different case study areas, selected on the basis of broad geographical coverage, as well as a mix of courts (from different Sheriffdoms) where historical data (provided at the outset of the project by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service) showed high, medium and low levels of remand. All participation was on a voluntary, self-selection basis and all interviews were carried out on a one-to-one or two-to-one basis, using either face-to-face, online or telephone interviews. A total of 60 people took part over a six month period.

Main Findings

The research highlights that the bail and remand decision making process is complex, multi-faceted and time pressured. The ‘jigsaw’ of legislation, combined with circumstance and human factors, means that no two cases are ever treated the same way and no response can ever be seen as ‘typical’. All participants across all stakeholder groups agreed that the decision making process was informed by multiple considerations in each case, and that there was never any one factor which was determinative in its own right. All cases were described as being unique and as being treated on the basis of the information available at the time and the merits of each individual case. Similarly, while some factors may carry more weight in some circumstances, all factors are still considered in their totality.

Findings from the research broadly fell under four key topics, these being: Legislative Grounds, Process and System Influences, Human Factors and Other Considerations. The main findings presented below are structured around these four topics, with a fifth separate dedicated section focusing on Alternatives to Remand.

(1) Legislative Grounds

The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 is the cornerstone of all decision making and was described by all stakeholders as the main framework within which all decisions on bail and remand are made, being of equal relevance and influence in both summary and solemn cases.

Most respondents concurred that a combination of all of the factors set out in Section 23C of the 1995 Act, alongside the particular facts and circumstances of a case, determined all decisions about whether an accused presents a risk of re-offending and whether bail should be opposed. In general, however, the nature of the offence (especially where the accused has a history of similar, recent offending) and previous convictions were the two factors which perhaps carried the most weight in decisions to oppose bail (by COPFS) and to refuse bail (by Sheriffs).

The nature (including level of seriousness) of offences before the court was described as “highly influential” in Crown decisions to oppose bail primarily because it was seen as the key indicator of the danger that the accused may present to the public and witnesses. Sheriffs also stressed that the seriousness of the current offence was paramount in their determinations (with decisions in solemn procedure even more likely to have seriousness at their heart than summary procedures).

The nature of any previous convictions of the person (including analogous offending) was described by the Crown as “highly influential” in their case marking, and could be sufficient for opposing bail on its sole merit (especially if previous offending was very similar to the new offending). It was noted that the nature of previous convictions could demonstrate that the accused has a preferred method of offending, as well as demonstrating risk of commission of further offending and/or being of danger to the public. Offence histories were also the second most frequently cited factor influencing Sheriffs’ decisions.

Previous behaviour whilst on bail (including compliance, previous breaches and previous breaches of other court orders) was described by Sheriffs as being “very commonly relied upon by the Crown and the court”, with COPFS respondents noting that it often indicated concerns as to commission of further offences, future failure to comply with bail conditions, failure to surrender and likelihood of custody (with breach of orders suggesting contempt of same). Similarly, solicitors noted that the record of the accused alongside their compliance with previous orders played heavily in their assessment of likelihood of bail being granted. Sheriffs confirmed that previous behaviour while on bail was considered as a key indicator of likely future behaviour in the current case.

How recently other offences were committed was described as playing a key role in decisions as it could help to demonstrate any pattern of offending or risk of re-offending and whether the accused was targeting a single or multiple victims/complainers. This information was also described as useful insofar as it may yield arguments that certain specific sections of society are not safe if the accused was to be at liberty. A period of desistance following a prolific record was not always seen as good reason to support bail, and it was noted that the weight of the record and other factors were also likely to be considered by COPFS and Sheriffs in turn.

Evidence of escalation of offending was perhaps seen as slightly less influential than other features of an accused’s history and was often considered only alongside other features (in particular the types of offending being escalated) to present a case for opposing bail by the Crown. For Sheriffs, escalation was also not a primary determinative factor in decisions.

Of lower importance in the order of considerations for Sheriffs was the risk of failure to appear at future court diets. While previous behaviour was seen to be indicative, Sheriffs tended to note that failure to appear would need to be severe, prolonged and prolific for this to be the reason why they would remand someone to custody.

Sheriffs also cited risk to public and community safety as being key to their decision making, and possibly one of the most significant factors weighing in bail/remand decisions, after offence nature and seriousness (the two often being intertwined). Assessing whether the accused was likely to interfere with victims/witnesses was also seen as important, although it was noted that interference was ‘rare’ in most types of case (the exception being domestic abuse/harassment cases). Similarly, most Sheriffs cited the nature and number of previous offences and previous non-compliance with bail and other court orders as a key consideration involved in assessing ‘substantial risk’.

Also in relation to legislative grounds, Section 23D of the Act (which sets out a presumption against bail for those accused of violent/sexual/domestic abuse offences or drug trafficking offences in solemn proceedings, where they have a previous conviction of a similar nature) was viewed as being interpreted very differently by different Sheriffs. Stakeholders viewed that ‘exceptional circumstances’ (which may allow the granting of bail in some such cases) was a (largely) undefined, fluid and subjective concept. Sheriffs and solicitors also concurred that there was a certain inevitability of bail being opposed by COPFS in Section 23D cases. It should be noted, however, that the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (which was still being passed through parliament at the time that the research was reaching its conclusion) repeals Section 23D of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. (continued)

Edinburgh: Safer Communities Directorate, 2023. 93p.

By Yin-Lan Soon, Sara Singh, David Greenberg, Natasha Rae, Daria Korobanova, Carolynn Dixon etc.

Mental health court diversionary programs are a key strategy to address over-representation of individuals with a mental illness in the criminal justice system. The study examined 2,476 individuals identified as eligible for mental health court diversion by the Statewide Community and Court Liaison Service (SCCLS) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia and compared reoffending of those granted and not granted court diversion. Individuals not diverted had 43% higher reoffending rate than those granted diversion. Predictors of non-diversion and reoffending included younger age, being male, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background, primary personality and/or substance use diagnosis and non-violent offence charges.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH, 1-15, 2024

By: Aaron Arnold, Precious Benally, and Michael Friedrich

In recent years, several U.S. states have adopted legislation aimed at decreasing sentences for low-level drug offenses. These reforms represent a promising effort to reduce the use of unnecessary incarceration. But one consequence has been reduced enrollment in drug courts. This paper explores how drug courts can adapt themselves to sentencing reforms and continue serving as a powerful, lifesaving intervention for court-involved individuals with substance use disorders.

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2020. 12p.

By Nisha Waller

The legal dragnet examines the law and prosecution practice concerning secondary liability, often referred to as 'joint enterprise'. Focusing on homicide cases, it highlights the risks posed by the current ambiguous law and makes a case for creating a safer framework for prosecution.

The report finds joint enterprise laws are vague and wide in scope, causing systemic injustice, including overcriminalisation, over punishment, discriminatory outcomes, and convictions where there is no compelling evidence of intent and a defendant’s physical contribution is minimal.

In particular, the current law:

• was not ‘fixed’ by the Supreme Court in 2016.

• does not have clear parameters on secondary parties’ conduct and contribution to an offence.

• lacks clarity about what counts as assistance and encouragement (the latter in particular).

Under the current vague law, suspects are routinely charged and cases constructed with an absence of rigour, quality, and precision as to the role of each defendant. The law encourages:

• the police and Crown Prosecution Service to charge suspects based on poor-quality evidence.

• ‘storytelling’ and highly speculative prosecution case theory to take precedence over strong evidentiary foundations.

• the use of gang narratives and vague concepts such as ‘in it together’ to construct collective intent. The risks of legal vagueness are particularly borne by young Black men and teenagers, who are most likely to be labelled and stereotyped as gang members.

Given the gravity and long-standing nature of concerns about the current law, the scope of secondary liability law needs to be narrowed in favour of a clearer and safer legal framework. Preventing wrongful convictions and their grave implications should take priority over the ease of prosecution.

The government must make good on their commitment to reform the laws of secondary liability as soon as is practically possible.

A minimum next step is for the government to request a Law Commission review. In addition to legal reform, urgent action is required regarding the various unjust processes that have flourished under the current vague law, highlighted in this report, particularly police and Crown Prosecution Service charging decisions, the overuse and misuse of gang evidence, and speculative and far-reaching prosecution case theory

Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2024. 32p.

By Thomas Sloan, Molly Pickard, Johanna Lacoe, Mia Bird and Steven Raphael

Since March 2020, Los Angeles County has experienced several distinct shifts in bail policy, shaping how people experience the pretrial process and igniting a dialogue about bail reform, equity, and safety. During the COVID-19 pandemic, LA County implemented an emergency bail schedule for most misdemeanors and low-level felonies (sometimes referred to as “zero bail”). In July 2022, LA County returned to the normal bail schedule, where a person who is arrested could pay the amount specified by the bail schedule and immediately be released from custody before their first court date. In May 2023, a successful court challenge to bail practice caused the Los Angeles Police and Sheriff's Departments to return to the emergency bail schedule. This was followed shortly thereafter by the countywide implementation of a new, more permanent approach to pretrial release decisions — the Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARPs) — in October 2023. Under the PARPs, no monetary bail is set for people arrested for certain lower-level offenses, and for some offenses judges are able to consider additional information when making a release decision, such as criminal history, previous failures to appear for court, and risk assessment recommendations.

KEY FINDINGS We leverage these three distinct policy shifts to estimate the short-run effects of bail policy changes on jail populations, crime reports, and arrests. We find:

• Removing the emergency bail schedule and reverting back to cash bail increased average daily jail populations with no short term effect on citywide crime. The retraction of the emergency bail schedule in July 2022 resulted in a statistically significant increase in the average daily jail population over the following two months, and no change in arrests or crime reports.

• Reinstating the emergency bail schedule did not change the average county daily jail population or total citywide crime in the following two months, but some property crimes increased. The resumption of the emergency bail schedule in May 2023 did not cause the average daily jail population to vary from its pre-period decline, but did cause a decline in pretrial jail population beyond the pre-period trend. At the same time, there was no statistically significant change in total crime reports or arrests, but reports of property crime increased relative to the pre-period trend.

• The PARPs decreased daily overall and pretrial county jail populations in the two months after implementation, with no effect on citywide crime. The daily pretrial jail population decreased by over 200 people (or three percent) on average relative to the pre-period trend following the implementation of the PARPs. Despite the decrease in people held in jail, there was no change in any measure of reported crime during the same period. Arrests for misdemeanor offenses declined, while overall arrest trends did not change. Despite concerns that these bail reforms would lead to increases in crime, we do not observe consistent changes in total crime in the City of Los Angeles for the two months following these bail policy shifts. In addition, a return to the standard bail schedule increased daily jail populations but did not reduce crime. Early evidence from the PARPs suggests that the approach can reduce jail populations while maintaining public safety, particularly during the pretrial period.

Los Angeles: California Policy Lab, Committee on Revision of the Penal Code 2024. 51p.

By Justin Murray

The American prosecutor’s legitimacy faces unprecedented challenges. A new wave of reformist prosecutors has risen to power promising to transform the criminal justice system from within, sparking fierce backlash from defenders of the prosecutorial status quo. Central to this conflict is a debate over the nature of prosecutorial discretion, influenced by a set of claims and assumptions that this Article terms the myth of individualized enforcement. This myth posits that prosecutors base discretionary decisions on case-specific facts and equitable circumstances rather than generalizable criteria or categorical nonenforcement practices, such as the policies some reformist prosecutors have adopted that disfavor prosecuting marijuana possession or abortion offenses or seeking the death penalty.

This Article is the first to identify and critically examine the myth of individualized enforcement. It draws on a review of historical evidence and research on contemporary prosecutorial practices to show that prosecutors have long engaged in categorical nonenforcement in relation to vice laws, property offenses, and even certain areas of violent crime enforcement. By situating reformist prosecutors’ policies within this broader context, the Article exposes how the myth of individualized enforcement has been weaponized to delegitimize reform efforts while shielding conventional prosecutors from scrutiny.

The Article also excavates the deeper distinctions between reformist and conventional approaches to categorical nonenforcement that the myth of individualized enforcement serves to hide from view. Reformist prosecutors tend to adopt centralized, formal, and transparent nonenforcement policies that aim to redistribute the benefits of prosecutorial leniency to historically marginalized groups. Conventional prosecutors, in contrast, have often dispensed categorical leniency in an informal, covert manner and in contexts that tend to reproduce existing hierarchies of race, class, and gender. By surfacing these divergences, the Article aims to reorient academic and political discourse about prosecutorial reform toward the more constructive end of evaluating different visions of discretionary justice and the institutional structures that will best align prosecutorial power with democratic values.

WASH. U. L. REV. — (forthcoming 2025)