Noticeboard
| Published date | 01 January 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.395 |
| Date | 01 January 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
NOTICEBOARD
NOTICEBOARD
NOTICEBOARD
Law reform
Unanalysed evidence—United States
‘This report examines the issue of untested sexual assault kits (“SAKS”—often
referred to as “rape kits”) found in police evidence rooms, a problem that jurisdic-
tions nationwide are struggling to solve … This report highlights issues that must
be examined in order to develop lasting solutions such as how law enforcement
determines whether a SAK should be sent to the crime lab for analysis and when
(and if) victims should be notified when a jurisdiction discovers their untested
SAK.’ (US Department of Justice News Release, 25 May 2011.)
N. Ritter, The Road Ahead: Unanalyzed Evidence in Sexual Abuse Cases, US Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 2011, available at <https://www.ncjrs.
gov/pdffiles1/nij/233279.pdf>.
Legal privilege and tax advice—Australia
In 2007 the Australian Law Reform Commission proposed that a privilege should
be established to shield certain tax advice documents from the information-
gathering powers of the Commissioner of Taxation. A discussion paper about
privilege and tax advice was released by the Commonwealth Government in April
2011. This considers the implications of a privilege for the tax and accounting
professions, as well as the consequences of establishing a limited privilege on the
advice and documents prepared by these professionals. In August the ALRC
published its July response to the discussion paper.
ALRC, Submission in Response to the Discussion Paper on Privilege to Tax Advice
(July 2011), available at <http://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publica
tions/alrc_submission_re_tax_advice_privilege.pdf>.
doi:10.1350/ijep.2012.16.1.395
128 (2012) 16 E&P 128–152 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF
Discussion Paper, Privilege in Relation to Tax Advice, Treasury, Commonwealth of
Australia, April 2011, ISBN: 9780642746825, available at <http://www.treasury.
gov.au/documents/2005/PDF/DP_Privilege_in_relation_%20to_tax_advice.pdf>.
Rules of evidence in criminal cases—China
On 25 June 2010, the Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate,
Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security and Ministry of Justice
published two sets of rules raising the standard of evidence in death penalty cases
and excluding confessions obtained by illegal means in criminal cases more
generally. These new rules have been the subject of much discussion since they
came into effect on 1 July 2010. The two sets of rules aim to set higher standards
and make stricter demands on law enforcement authorities than hitherto and
therefore have the potential to improve significantly fair trial processes as well as
reduce the number of death penalty cases. However, the new rules have proved
controversial, and in one recent case ineffective, raising questions amongst legal
practitioners and academics as to their interpretation and enforceability.
A project has been established at the Centre for Criminal Procedure Reform at
Renmin University to study the rules. The project leader, Professor Chen Weidong,
has strong links to the legislative affairs committee of the National People’s
Congress. He is one of four experts who are consulted by legislators and who give
final approval to revisions of criminal procedure law drafted by legislators. The
Renmin project team includes Professor Adrian Keane of The City Law School, City
University, London. He is the only non-Chinese member and the source of the
information in this notice.
The Renmin project will examine three key areas in the new rules: coerced confes-
sions and their exclusion (Articles 18–22); the use of concealed evidence (i.e.
evidence that is known only to the defendant) linked to a confession (Article 34);
and the use of evidence obtained through special investigative measures, such as
tapping of mobile phones, undercover policing and entrapment (Article 35). The
effectiveness of the rules will be evaluated in three Chinese courts that have been
selected for their economic and geographic diversity. Using the information
gleaned by studying the work of these three courts, the project team will
recommend to the responsible authorities guidelines on how the rules should be
implemented. A significant barrier to due process in criminal cases in China is the
conflicting interpretation of regulations by the different legal authorities and it is
intended that the project’s report will encourage a more uniform interpretation
and application of the new rules of evidence.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF 129
NOTICEBOARD
To continue reading
Request your trial