Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System: A Comment on R (Mullen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Author | Richard Nobles,David Schiff |
| Published date | 01 January 2006 |
| Date | 01 January 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00577_2.x |
sion does not provide a platform for the resolution of the outstanding issues of
contention relating to the international protection of GIs.
54
These issues span
much larger concerns such as the relative importance of GIs to rural economies,
the preservation of existing agricultural, industrial and cultural practices and,
more fundamentally, whether EC-style GI protection would enhance or distort
global trade in agriculture.As such, they are unlikely to be resolved other than by
serious political compromise.
Guilt and Innocence in the Criminal Justice System:
ACommentonR(Mullen)vSecretary of State for the
Home Department
Richard Nobles and David Schi¡
n
The House of Lords upheld the Secretaryof State’s right to deny compensation under section133
spiracy to cause explosions had been quashed by the Court of Appeal solely by reference to
actions by the authorities (securing his illegal deportation to the UK)that constituted an abuse
of process, without impugning the fairness of his trial or the accuracy of the verdict The note
discusses the di¡erent judgments in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in terms of their
implications for the respectiveroles of legal and political systems in determini ng guilt and inno-
cence. In particular, the note explores the nature of the legal principle of the presumption of
innocence as it operates in the context of successful appeals.
The House of Lordsdecision in Mullen
1
wasthe¢nalstageofthesagaoftheEng-
lish courts’ reaction to the discovery, 10 years after Mullen’s 30 year sentence of
imprisonment for conspiracy tocause explosions, that his deportation from Zim-
babwe to England to stand trial had been procured by the British and Zimbab-
wean security services in breach of Zimbabwean law and international human
rights standards.This discovery led to Mullen’s conviction being quashed by the
Court of Appeal in 1999,
2
following which he applied tothe Secretary of State for
compensation, both under section133 of the Criminal Appeal Act1988, and the
ex gratia compensation scheme. Both were refused. Reversing Mullen’s success at
the Court of Appeal, their Lordships determined that an abuse of process that
54 Cf B. Goebel,‘GeographicalIndications’ in European CommunitiesTrade Mark Association, Past,
Presentand the Future:DevelopmentofTrade Marks,Designs and Related IP Rights in Europe, Special Gaz-
ette 52, May 2005, http://www.wipo.int/meetings/2005/geo_pmf/en/presentations/pdf/wipo_geo_
pmf_05_goebel2.pdf.
n
Law Department, LSE.We wish to thank our colleague Mike Redmayne for his comments on an
earlier draft of this case note.
2RvMullen [2000] QB 520
Guilt and Innocence i n the Criminal Justice System
80 rThe Modern LawReview Limited 2006
To continue reading
Request your trial