We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
My paper on the Corpus Juris project in the first volume of this Yearbook closed by saying, in effect, “Watch this space!” At the end it told how, at the time of writing, the European Parliament and Commission had re-engaged the original team that drafted the proposals, plus some others, and constituted them as a Comité du suivi with instructions to find out how hard or easy it would be to integrate the Corpus scheme into the existing legal systems of the Member States. And it also told how the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities had begun to carry out a study of the Corpus project.
1 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, volume 1 (Oxford, Hart, 1999), 77–105.
2 House of Lords, Select Committee on the European Communities, Session 1998–99, 9th Report, “Prosecuting fraud on the Communities’ finances—the Corpus Juris “, HL Paper 62; available from the Stationery Office at £19.50, and on the internet via the UK Parliament home page at http://www.parliament.uk.
3 Criminal Justice Act 1993 Commencement Orders Nos. 10 and 11, S.I. 1999 No 1199 and 1499, bringing Part I of the Act into force from 1 June 1999.
4 HLSC Report, Minutes of Evidence, §299.
5 The Implementation of the Corpus Juris in the Member States (Antwerp, Groningen and Oxford Intersentia, 2000). It is also available on the Internet at http://www.law.uu.nl/wiarda/corpus/index1.htm.
6 HLSC Report, §110.
7 HLSC Report, §113.
8 The flavour may be gathered from the his piece entitled “Europe needs British justice” which appeared in The Independent, 21 September 1990: “The inquisitorial method was initiated by the Church of Rome in the Middle Ages. Its purpose as the ‘holy inquisition’ was to stamp out heresy, witchcraft and deviant thoughts … It was adopted as a system of justice by secular governments throughout continental Europe as a tool for imposing the ruler’s will … Only Britain failed to adopt this method. Here, under Magna Charta (sic), the law was, and is, conceived as an instrument that also protects subjects against the overweening powers of central authority … Napoleon standardised the inquisitorial method in his code of criminal procedure. His armies imposed it throughout continental Europe. His imperial rule may have been swept away at Trafalgar and Waterloo, but his code remains in force today …”
9 European Journal, April and June 1997.
10 See in particular the edition of 30 November 1998.
11 Mr Dick-Erikson submitted a version of his thesis, written in uncharacteristically restrained language, as written evidence to the HLSC, where it appears on pages 117–119 of the Report.
12 20 January 2000.
13 “The Committee has, however, been concerned about the way in which the Corpus Juris has been portrayed in some sections of the press. Headlines such as ‘Alarm over Euro-wide justice plan’ and ‘Freedom’s flame flickers’ may startle the reader and pander to prejudice. It is not helpful to indulge in such hyperbole.” HLSC Report §113.
14 Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (Chairman Sir Cyril Philips), Cmnd 8092 (1981).
15 Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
16 See generally Edwards, J.L., The Attorney General, Politics and the Public Interest (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 1984)Google Scholar. In England and Wales, the possibility of abuse is also tempered by the fact that the police are constitutionally independent of government control.
17 Under the revised version the European Director of Public Prosecutions (EDPP) would be nominated for a period of six years, renewable once only. His subordinates, the European Delegated Public Prosecutors (EdelPPs) would be nominated for six years, with a reconfirmation after three years. In both cases the nomination would be by the European Parliament, on a proposal by the Commission in the case of the EDPP and by the Member States for the EdelPPs. Dismissal for misconduct would be in the hands of the ECJ.
18 “How does the prosecution succeed in proving the defendant’s guilt? The answer to that is quite simple—by making you sure of it. Nothing less than that will do. If after considering all the evidence you are sure that the defendant is guilty, you must return a verdict of ‘Guilty’. If you are not sure, your verdict must be ‘Not Guilty’.” (The approved direction as set out in the Judicial Studies Board’s Crown Court Bench Book.)
19 HLSC Report §126.
20 Interception of Communications Act 1985.
21 Under what is called a “writ of assistance”: see Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 s.161.
22 HLSC Report, §127.
23 Above n 1 at 97.
24 See R v. Director of the Serious Fraud Office ex pte Smith [1993] AC 1.
25 Under s. 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 the defendant is obliged to answer questions—but the answers he so provides may not be used against him in subsequent criminal proceedings.
26 HLSC Report §121.
27 See HLSC Report, Minutes of Evidence, paragraph 22.
28 The idea is further explored by Professor Christine, van den Wyngaert in an article “Corpus Juris, European public prosecution and national trials for Eurocrimes: is there a need for a European pre-trial chamber?” 24 (1999) AGON, 4–8 Google Scholar.
29 Avis de la Commission du 26 Janvier 2000, Com (2000) 34.
30 This system would only apply in the absence of a Pre-trial Chamber (see chapter 2, section 2).
