Comparative Criminal Law Lecture 1
Comparative Criminal Law, Lecture 1 (2016/2017)
In this bundle you will find all the important lectures and working groups of the course Comparative Criminal Law (2016/2017), Utrecht University.
Comparative Criminal Law, Lecture 1 (2016/2017)
Comparative Criminal Law: Workgroup 1 (2016/2017)
According to Brants & Franken, the central issue determining whether a criminal process is (predominantly) inquisitorial or adversarial, is the conception of the ideal search for the truth (p. 6 literature reader). Weigend’s article also elaborates on the truth-finding in both systems.
Lecture 2 in the Course Comparative Criminal Law (2016/2017): Police & Interrogation
Summary of the article C.H. Brants & A.A. Franken, ‘The protection of fundamental human rights in criminal process’, Utrecht Law Review
Utrecht University (2016/2017)
Comparative Criminal Law, Working group 2 (2016/2017).
Comparative Criminal Law, Lecture 3 (14 March 2017), Course Utrecht University (2016/2017)
Topic: Prosecution.
Summary of the Case Law Plonka v. Poland (Week 1), Comparative Criminal Law (2016/2017)
Summary of Case Law: Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins (Comparative Criminal Law, 2016/2017)
About police interrogation and waiver.
Summary of the Case Law: Salduz v. Turkey (Comparative Criminal Law, 2016/2017)
Access to a lawyer, breach of Article 6(3)(c) European Convention on Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms
Summary of the Case Law: Miranda v. Arizona (Comparative Criminal Law 2016/2017).
Police interrogation and a breach of the right not to incriminate oneself.
Comparative Criminal Law, Case Law: Bannikova v. Russia (2016/2017), Bachelor 3. This case is about an application of a Russian national against Russia, concerning Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (par. 1). The case is more precisely about inducing to commit crimes, by the police. The applicant alleged that she had been convicted of an offence incited by the police and complained that certain evidence had not been disclosed at the trial (par. 3). The applicant had some telephone conversations with S. and agreed that he would supply her with cannabis which she would then sell (par. 4). The telephone conversations were recorded by the Federal Security Service (FSB).The FSB started an undercover operation in the form of a test purchase, and bought 4,408 grams of cannabis from the applicant (par. 8). This was also filmed and recorded by the agent. After the purchase, the applicant was arrested and her house was searched; the FSB found another 28,6 grams of cannabis in her home (par. 8).The applicant pleaded guilty for having assisted the FSB agent in purchasing the cannabis, but she claimed that she had been induced by that agent to commit the offence, and that she...
Comparative Criminal Law (2016/2017): Case Law Summary: United States v. Russel
Comparative Criminal Law (Utrecht University, 2016/2017): Working Group 3: Entrapment/incitement.
Comparative Criminal Law Lecture 4: Judicial Decisionmakers
Utrecht University, Bachelor 3 (2016/2017)
Add new contribution