权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Everyday Challenges to the Rule of Law: The Case of Civil/Criminal Procedural Hybrids

法治面临的日常挑战：民事/刑事程序混合案例

基本信息

批准号：
AH/S006680/1
负责人：
Jennifer Hendry
金额：
$ 19.91万
依托单位：
University of Leeds
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2019
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2019 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FS006680%2F1
关键词：
Everyday Challenges Rule Law Case

项目摘要

Rules of legal procedure determine the steps to be taken and standards to be met in the resolution of issues coming before the law. Due to their different purposes - criminal law being to punish, civil law to compensate - civil and criminal processes have traditionally been distinguishable in several ways, for example, in how they conceptualise harm, in the investigatory powers available to the state, in the role taken by a prosecution authority, and in the standards of evidence to be met. In practice this means that, while 'civil' processes operate under lesser burdens, processes designated as 'criminal' attract for the accused enhanced procedural protections as additional commitments. Importantly, it is the legal system that imposes these standards and requirements on itself, in accordance with the rule of law. The rule of law is a principle of governance comprising those foundational values that ought to be reflected in the legal system, thus establishing the minimum standards of fairness to be upheld. The additional safeguards within the criminal process protect the rights of the accused and ensure against the potential misuse of State authority.Civil/criminal procedural hybrids, which are blended processes that employ mechanisms normally associated with the other, serve to blur the lines between the civil law and the criminal law. This is the case both in terms of their stated purposes - compensation or punishment - and in terms of the processes to be followed and standards to be met. Such low-level hybrid procedures regulate some of the most commonplace interactions between the legal system and the public, and are deserving of greater scrutiny. Considering that such line-blurring can have the result of effectively removing those additional commitments attaching to criminal processes, it has real implications in terms of the legal system's compliance with the rule of law.Legislation introducing such hybridised procedures into UK law has become increasingly common, which begs the question as to why. What are the underlying policy reasons for the use of procedural hybrids - known alternatively as civil penalties, punitive sanctions, and quasi-criminal measures - and why are they becoming more commonplace? In the event that these reasons track important policy goals, are these goals so important that the potential rule of law concerns can be overlooked? In addressing these questions, this theoretical and comparative investigation employs three case studies, namely civil recovery, domestic violence protection, and 'crimmigration'. These procedural hybrids have been selected to include within the study a wide range of different forms, practices, and motivations. This research builds upon important groundwork I have done in this area and draws specific attention to the long overlooked 'rules of the proceedings' that govern the application of the substantive law. The focus of this study has been refined in consultation with stakeholders in the form of project partner Liberty and with the Advisory Board, comprising leading academics and experts from practice. It will have a transformative impact by influencing how, when and why such civil/criminal procedural hybrids are employed in the future. Outputs will target several audiences: academic, practitioner, and activist. The main outputs of this Fellowship will be:- Three sole-authored articles in high quality periodicals (Open Access)- Presentations at national and international conferences- Lectures to practitioners, stakeholders and potential beneficiaries- A dedicated ECR/PGR workshop, including mentoring- An end-of-project flagship conference- An augmented international profile as a research leader in this field- New collaborative international networks, both academic and stakeholder- An application for further UKRI funding (large-scale)- An edited collection (to be completed outwith the project's timeframe)

法律程序规则决定了解决法律问题时应采取的步骤和应满足的标准。由于其不同的目的——刑法是为了惩罚，民法是为了补偿——民事和刑事程序传统上在几个方面是有区别的，例如，它们如何概念化伤害、国家可利用的调查权、检察机关所扮演的角色以及要满足的证据标准。在实践中，这意味着，虽然“民事”程序在较轻的负担下运作，但被指定为“刑事”的程序为被告吸引了增强的程序保护作为额外的承诺。重要的是，法律体系按照法治的规定将这些标准和要求强加给自己。法治是一项治理原则，包括应在法律体系中体现的基本价值观，从而确立了要维护的最低公平标准。刑事程序中的额外保障措施保护被告的权利，并确保防止国家权力被滥用。民事/刑事程序混合是采用通常与另一方相关的机制的混合程序，有助于模糊民法和刑法之间的界限。就其既定目的（补偿或惩罚）以及要遵循的流程和要满足的标准而言，情况都是如此。这种低级混合程序规范了法律体系与公众之间一些最常见的互动，值得更严格的审查。考虑到这种界限模糊可以有效消除附加于刑事诉讼程序的额外承诺，它对法律体系遵守法治具有真正的影响。将这种混合程序引入英国法律的立法已变得越来越普遍，这就引出了一个问题：为什么。使用混合程序（也称为民事处罚、惩罚性制裁和准刑事措施）的根本政策原因是什么？为什么它们变得越来越普遍？如果这些原因跟踪重要的政策目标，这些目标是否如此重要以至于可以忽视潜在的法治问题？为了解决这些问题，这项理论和比较调查采用了三个案例研究，即民事康复、家庭暴力保护和“犯罪移民”。这些程序混合体被选择为包括在研究中的各种不同的形式、实践和动机。这项研究建立在我在该领域所做的重要基础工作的基础上，并特别关注长期被忽视的管辖实体法适用的“诉讼规则”。通过与项目合作伙伴 Liberty 等利益相关者以及由顶尖学者和实践专家组成的咨询委员会协商，本研究的重点得到了完善。它将影响未来如何、何时以及为何采用此类民事/刑事程序混合程序，从而产生变革性的影响。产出将针对多个受众：学者、实践者和活动家。该奖学金的主要成果将是： - 在高质量期刊上发表的三篇独撰文章（开放获取） - 在国内和国际会议上的演讲 - 向从业者、利益相关者和潜在受益者进行讲座 - 专门的 ECR/PGR 研讨会，包括指导 - 项目结束时的旗舰会议 - 增强作为该领域研究领导者的国际形象 - 新的学术和国际合作网络利益相关者 - 进一步 UKRI 资助的申请（大规模） - 编辑后的集合（将在项目时间范围内完成）