THE UK HAS THREE SEPARATE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS:

• England and Wales

• Scotland
• Northern Ireland.

The criminal justice system and legal jurisdiction of England and Wales are reserved – non-
devolved – matters, and so are under the control of the UK parliament and government at
Westminster. The criminal justice systems of Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved to
the Scottish parliament and Northern Ireland assembly respectively.

However, the UK parliament is sovereign, meaning it retains the ability to legislate even in
devolved areas of criminal justice – although under the Sewel Convention it does “not
normally” do so without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature.

With the formation of the UK in 1707, Scotland kept its own distinct legal and criminal
justice systems. Its court system, legal professional bodies, police forces and prosecution
service, as well as prison and criminal justice social work services, were administered by
Scottish institutions for almost three hundred years prior to devolution in 1999. When the
new Scottish parliament was established, responsibility for the Scottish justice system was,
with few exceptions, devolved to it.

Wales has been part of a unified legal jurisdiction with England since the Laws in Wales Acts
1535 and 1542, during the reign of King Henry VIII, and so does not have its own criminal
justice system. The establishment of the National Assembly of Wales (now the Welsh
Parliament/Senedd Cymru), also in 1999, has produced a growing body of distinct Welsh law
within the joint England and Wales legal jurisdiction, especially since the powers of the
assembly were expanded in 2007. This has led to calls for the devolution of justice powers
and the creation of a separate Welsh legal jurisdiction.

The partition of Ireland under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 created the separate legal
system of Northern Ireland, followed by the establishment of the devolved Parliament of
Northern Ireland at Stormont, in Belfast. The Stormont parliament was suspended from 1972,
and Westminster exercised direct rule over Northern Ireland until the creation of the new
Northern Ireland assembly in 1999, following the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast
Agreement.

Policing and criminal justice powers were not initially transferred to the new assembly.
Instead, the Good Friday Agreement noted that the UK government was “ready in principle”
to devolve responsibility for these matters; and a mechanism for policing and justice to be
devolved was provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

When and how were policing and criminal justice powers devolved to Northern
Ireland?
Criminal justice and policing were not transferred to the Northern Ireland assembly until
2010. The devolution of these functions required cross-community consent – meaning the
support of a majority of designated unionist and nationalist members, as well as a majority in
the assembly as a whole, or majority of at least 60% of members present and voting,
including at least 40% each of unionists and nationalists.
The issue of police reform was a major hurdle to reaching cross-community agreement. The
Royal Ulster Constabulary, in particular, was regarded by many nationalists as representing
the unionist community, and its replacement in 2001 by the Police Service of Northern
Ireland was part of a long process to establishing cross-community trust in the justice system.
This helped pave the way for criminal justice powers to be transferred to Belfast.

To ensure that the devolved justice system commands the confidence of both communities,
the justice minister is the only minister in the Northern Ireland executive who is appointed by
means of a cross-community vote in the assembly.

What criminal justice powers do the devolved legislatures have?

The devolution settlements differ, but certain powers relating to criminal justice remain
reserved to Westminster for all devolved legislatures. These include those relating to counter-
terrorism, firearms, extradition, misuse of drugs and legal safeguards for human rights.

Scotland has the most extensive form of criminal justice devolution. Almost all aspects of the
justice system were devolved in 1999, save for a few specific exclusions such as those
mentioned above. Further legislation has led to the devolution of the drink-drive alcohol limit
in 2012 and railway policing in 2016.

While also extensive, Northern Ireland’s devolution settlement contains additional justice
exceptions. For instance, the specific powers of separating prisoners on grounds of security,
safety or good order, and the security of explosives (except fireworks) are reserved to
Westminster, due to Northern Ireland’s history of civil unrest.

Wales has significantly fewer powers in general than Northern Ireland and Scotland, and has
few powers in the area of justice. Responsibility for the police, courts, prisons and probation
in Wales rests with the UK parliament and government. A unique aspect of the devolution
settlement with Wales is the general reservation to Westminster of the single legal
jurisdiction of England and Wales. This means that the Senedd is able to make laws in
devolved areas, but that these are part of the general law of both England and Wales.

However, the Senedd does have a number of powers that heavily intersect with the operation
of the justice system. These include powers over mental health and substance misuse services
(both in the community and in prisons), education for prisoners, skills training relating to the
rehabilitation of offenders, and the provision of housing to offenders being resettled in the
community.

What are the criminal court systems in each nation?

Scotland has its own judiciary and court system, which has a different structure to the
equivalent system in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It is administered by the
Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Criminal prosecutions are heard by the justice of the
peace courts, sheriff courts and the High Court of Justiciary.

The UK Supreme Court sits as the highest court of appeal for all civil cases in Scotland, but
its right of review is limited in relation to Scottish criminal cases. Most final appeals for
criminal cases are heard by the High Court of the Justifier, sitting as an appeal court – the
Supreme Court cannot review the decisions of the High Court on matters solely concerning
Scottish criminal law.
The Supreme Court only hears Scottish criminal cases in which a devolution or compatibility
issue arises. Devolution issues arise in relation to questions over whether a provision of an act
of the Scottish parliament or decision of the Scottish government relate to a reserved matter,
such as a 2010 challenge over the sentencing for a road traffic offence[2] (an area where a lot
of the policy is devolved but the sentencing of offences is not). Compatibility issues arise
when a public authority or act of the Scottish parliament is challenged as being incompatible
with the European Convention on Human Rights or with EU law.

The courts of Wales have been part of a fully integrated system with the courts of England
since 1830, and there has been no devolution or separation of powers to change this. The
judiciary of those courts is headed by the lord chief justice of England and Wales, and the
court system is administered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS).

In England and Wales, there are two types of criminal court: magistrates’ courts and the
Crown Court (a single entity that sits in 77 locations across England and Wales). Cases begin
in a magistrates’ courts and are referred to the Crown Court only if they concern a serious
offence, require sentencing or if the first-instance decision is appealed. Any further appeals
are heard first by the Court of Appeal, and then by the Supreme Court as the final court of
appeal.

Northern Ireland has its own independent judiciary and court system, with the latter
administered by Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service. The court structure for
criminal prosecutions is broadly the same as in England and Wales, with less serious cases
heard by magistrates’ courts and more serious ones by the Crown Court. Unlike in Scotland,
the UK Supreme Court is not limited to reviewing specific categories of issues in criminal
cases in Northern Ireland, meaning it is the highest court of appeal for both civil and criminal
cases.

Violent crime:
A violent crime, violent felony, crime of violence or crime of a violent nature is a crime in
which an offender or perpetrator uses or threatens to use harmful force upon a victim. This
entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such
as murder, assault, rape and assassination, as well as crimes in which violence is used as a
method of coercion or show of force, such as robbery, extortion and terrorism. Violent crimes
may, or may not, be committed with weapons. Depending on the jurisdiction, violent crimes
may regarded with varying severities from homicide to harassment. There have been many
theories regarding heat being the cause of an increase in violent crime. Theorists claim that
violent crime is persistent during the summer due to the heat, further causing people to
become aggressive and commit more violent crime.
Violent criminals who use hostile acts towards others include murderers, active
shooters, kidnappers, rapists, burglars, muggers and torturers. Another category of violent
criminals are pirates and hijackers of cars or aircraft. Criminal
organizations, gangsters and drug cartels frequently employ violent criminals in their group,
usually as enforcers or hitmen. Violent criminals often display characteristics such as
low anger threshold, disinhibition/absence of impulsivity control, strong dominance/territorial
instinct, antisocial personality, psychological/mental health issues and aggressive tendencies
which enable them to carry out usually violent acts.
Property crime is a category of crime, usually involving private property, that includes,
among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting,
and vandalism. Property crime is a crime to obtain money, property, or some other benefit.
This may involve force, or the threat of force, in cases like robbery or extortion. Since these
crimes are committed in order to enrich the perpetrator they are considered property crimes.
Crimes against property are divided into two groups: destroyed property and stolen property.
When property is destroyed, it could be called arson or vandalism. An example of the act of
stealing property is robbery or embezzlement.
Property crimes are high-volume crimes, with cash, electronics (e.g. televisions), power
tools, cameras, and jewellery often targeted. "Hot products" tend to be items that are
concealable, removable, available, valuable, and enjoyable, with an ease of "disposal" being
the most important characteristic.
Domestic violence is violence committed by someone in the victim's domestic circle. This
includes partners and ex-partners, immediate family members, other relatives and family
friends. The term 'domestic violence' is used when there is a close relationship between the
offender and the victim.
transnational crimes are crimes that have actual or potential effect across
national borders and crimes that are intrastate but offend fundamental values of the
international community. The term is commonly used in the law
enforcement and academic communities. Transnational organized crime (TOC) refers
specifically to transnational crime carried out by crime organizations.
The word transnational describes crimes that are not only international (that is, crimes that
cross borders between countries), but crimes that by their nature involve cross-border
transference as an essential part of the criminal activity. Transnational crimes also include
crimes that take place in one country, but their consequences significantly affect another
country and transit countries may also be involved. Examples of transnational crimes
include: human trafficking, people smuggling, smuggling/trafficking of goods (such as arms
trafficking and drug trafficking and illegal animal and plant products and other goods
prohibited on environmental grounds (e.g. banned ozone depleting substances), sex
slavery, terrorism offences, torture and apartheid.
Cyber-crime:
Cybercrime is a crime that involves a computer and a network. The computer may have been
used in the commission of a crime, or it may be the target. Cybercrime may harm someone's
security and financial health.
There are many privacy concerns surrounding cybercrime when confidential information is
intercepted or disclosed, lawfully or otherwise. Internationally, both governmental and non-
state actors engage in cybercrimes, including espionage, financial theft, and other cross-
border crimes. Cybercrimes crossing international borders and involving the actions of at
least one nation-state are sometimes referred to as cyber warfare. Warren Buffett describes
cybercrime as the "number one problem with mankind" and "poses real risks to humanity.

UNIT-IV
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:
POLICING:
The International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) launched last week its Global
Policing Goals and is encouraging the international law enforcement community to support
them.

The Global Policing Goals serve as a framework for the international community to
collectively address the greatest security threats facing the 192 countries that are part of
INTERPOL. The seven goals cover a range of transnational security issues, including
combating cross-border crime, fighting terrorism, promoting border integrity, protecting
vulnerable communities, securing cyberspace for people and businesses, promoting global
integrity, curbing illicit markets, and supporting environmental security and sustainability.

The idea is to create a common understanding of what actions international law enforcement
and global security actors should prioritize in the coming years. The goals will shape the
wider security agenda by highlighting the need for collective action.

“Today’s global crime threats share a common denominator: the dire effects they have on our
public security, our businesses, and our governance structures. They undermine our security,
stifle economic development and deprive society of a better and brighter future,” Carl
Alexandre, executive director of partnerships and planning at INTERPOL, said. “The Global
Policing Goals developed by INTERPOL are both a call for action and a roadmap to focus
and coordinate international policing efforts which are consistent with promoting sustainable
development.”

EUROPOL:
the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation, better known under the
name Europol, formerly the European Police Office and Europol Drugs Unit, is the law
enforcement agency of the European Union (EU) formed in 1998 to handle criminal
intelligence and combat serious international organised crime and terrorism through
cooperation between competent authorities of EU member states. The Agency has no
executive powers, and its officials are not entitled to arrest suspects or act without prior
approval from competent authorities in the member states.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON COURT JUSTICE:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
(UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in
April 1946.
The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal
organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of
America).
The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to
it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized
United Nations organs and specialized agencies.
The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the
United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its
administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French.
The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)
The PCIJ was thus a working reality. The great advance it represented in the history of
international legal proceedings can be appreciated by considering the following:

• unlike arbitral tribunals, the PCIJ was a permanently constituted body governed by its
own Statute and Rules of Procedure, fixed beforehand and binding on parties having
recourse to the Court;
• it had a permanent Registry which, inter alia, served as a channel of communication
with governments and international bodies;
• its proceedings were largely public and provision was made for the publication in due
course of the pleadings, of verbatim records of the sittings and of all documentary
evidence submitted to it;
• the permanent tribunal thus established was now able to set about gradually
developing a constant practice and maintaining a certain continuity in its decisions,
thereby enabling it to make a greater contribution to the development of international
law;
• in principle the PCIJ was accessible to all States for the judicial settlement of their
international disputes, and States were able to declare beforehand that for certain
classes of legal disputes they recognized the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory in
relation to other States accepting the same obligation. This system of optional
acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court was the most that it was then possible to
obtain;
• the PCIJ was empowered to give advisory opinions upon any dispute or question
referred to it by the League of Nations Council or Assembly;
• the Court’s Statute specifically listed the sources of law it was to apply in deciding
contentious cases and giving advisory opinions, without prejudice to the power of the
Court to decide a case >ex aequo et bono if the parties so agreed;
• it was more representative of the international community and of the major legal
systems of the world than any previous international tribunal had ever been.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

That Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir William Malkin (United Kingdom), held 19
meetings, which were attended by jurists from 11 countries. In its report, which was
published on 10 February 1944, it recommended:

• that the Statute of any new international court should be based on that of the
Permanent Court of International Justice;
• that the new court should retain an advisory jurisdiction;
• that acceptance of the jurisdiction of the new court should not be compulsory;
• That the court should have no jurisdiction to deal with essentially political matters.
General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship
Council and the Secretariat, and whose statute would be annexed to the Charter, forming an
integral part of it. The main reasons that led the Conference to decide to create a new court
were the following:

• as the court was to be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, it was felt
inappropriate for that role to be filled by the Permanent Court of International Justice,
with its connection to the League of Nations, which was itself on the point of
dissolution;
• the creation of a new court was more consistent with the provision in the Charter that
all Member States of the United Nations would ipso facto be parties to the court’s
statute;
• several States that were parties to the Statute of the PCIJ were not represented at the
San Francisco Conference and, conversely, several States represented at the
Conference were not parties to the Statute;
• There was a feeling in some quarters that the PCIJ formed part of an older order, in
which European States had dominated the political and legal affairs of the
international community, and that the creation of a new court would make it easier for
States outside Europe to play a more influential role. This proved to be true: the
membership of the United Nations has grown from 51 in 1945 to 193 in 2020.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON CORRECTION:

• In criminal justice, particularly in North America, correction, corrections,

and correctional, are umbrella terms describing a variety of functions typically
carried out by government agencies, and involving the punishment, treatment,
and supervision of persons who have been convicted of crimes. These functions
commonly include imprisonment, parole, and probation. A typical correctional
institution is a prison. A correctional system, also known as a penal system, thus
refers to a network of agencies that administer a jurisdiction's prisons, and
community-based programs like parole, and probation boards. This system is part of
the larger criminal justice system, which additionally
includes police, prosecution and courts. Jurisdictions throughout Canada and
the US have ministries or departments, respectively, of corrections, correctional
services, or similarly-named agencies.

Community Based Corrections

Community Based Corrections are sanctions imposed on convicted adults or adjudicated
juveniles that occur in a residential or community setting outside of jail or prison. The
sanctions are enforced by agencies or courts with legal authority over the adult or juvenile
offenders.
Community Based Corrections can focus on both of adults and juveniles, attempting to
rehabilitate them back into the community. In contrary to the "tough on crime" mind set
which expresses harsh punishment, this community based correctional method seeks
to transition offenders back into the community.

Theories
The use of sanctions, which can be either positive (rewarding) or negative (punishment) is the
basis of all criminal theory, along with the main goals of social control, and deterrence
of deviant behaviour.
Many facilities operating in the United States adhere to particular correctional theories.
Although often heavily modified, these theories determine the nature of the facilities' design
and security operations. The two primary theories used today are the more traditional Remote
Supervision and the more contemporary direct supervision model. In the Remote Supervision
Model, officers observe the inmate population from remote positions, e.g., towers or secure
desk areas. The Direct Supervision Model positions prison officers within the inmate
population, creating a more pronounced presence.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE:

CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015. There are
various facets to the constitutionality of the latest Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015).
There is an approach towards the constitutionality of the Act from both sides one being the
reformists and the other being intolerant to the happenings in the country. The reformists
have various issues regarding the Act, first of them being “Violates the very essence of JJ
Act”.2 Secondly it also violates various Fundamental rights by making an irrational
classification, contravening the basic presumption of innocence until proven guilty.3 Thirdly,
it does not take into consideration the fact that India is a signatory to International
Conventions and is not in conformity to the same. Fourth, does not take into account other
relevant factors like social background and psychological issues.
LAWS PREVAILING IN OTHER COUNTRIES :

COUNTRY/ MINIMUM AGE OFFENCE PENALTY

STATE AGE (JUVENILE (CLASSIFIED (JUVENILE
(JUVENILE CAN BE TO BE TREATED AS
CAN BE TRIED AS AN HEINOUS ADULT
TRIED FOR ADULT) CRIME)
PENALTY
(JUVENILE
TREATED AS
ADULT

United Kingdom 10 yrs. 17 yrs.in Murder; rape; Same as an adult

England, Wales causing no life
and North explosion likely Imprisonment or
Ireland and 16 to endanger Life death penalty.
yrs. in Scotland or Property.
(can be lower in
exceptional
cases).

South Africa 10 yrs. 16 yrs. Murder, Rape Same as an adult

Robbery no life
Imprisonment or
death penalty
USA From 6-10 yrs. 13 yrs. Assault, murder, Same as an adult
robbery and no life
sexual abuse, Imprisonment or
firearms death penalty.
offences, drug
offences

France On case to case 16 yrs Murder, armed Same as an adult

basis robbery, serious imprisonment
offences and on case to case
rape. to basis

Canada 12 yrs. 14 yrs. Murder, Murder 7-10

aggravated yrs. maximum
sexual assault penalty for other
seriously bodily offences is 3 yrs.
harm to another no life
person. imprisonment,
no death
penalty.

Germany 14 yrs. 14 yrs. Sexual abuse 10 yrs.

abuse leading to Imprisonment
death. no life
imprisonment
and no death
penalty.

Japan 14 yrs 20 years Death 5 years

Exception:- 16 committed with imprisonment in
years (Death) criminal cases of Rape.
intention. Others case to
case basis.

RECENT TRENDS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Children are exploited, ill-treated and directed in to undesirable channels by antisocial
element in the community.55 In today’s time juveniles are committing more and more crimes
in the prevailing cultural and social setting. Belgium social statistician Adolphe Quetelet
about two centuries ago observed that adolescent’s particularly young males are prone to
crime, disorder and delinquency because of their childish impulsiveness or adolescent
conflict. To quote him “the propensity to crime is its maximum at the age when strength and
passions have reached their height, yet when reason has not acquired sufficient control to
master their combined influence”.56 In a country like India the number of juvenile delinquent
are rising day by day specially because of low income and poor background especially those
children who live in the area of slums. The issue being lack of guidance and care as both the
parents go for a job and due to this they cannot take proper care and protection of their
children. The issue being that even the high income groups of children are taking part in such
activities due to neglect of their parents as they are extremely busy in their lives and business.
Crimes committed by juvenile have risen in the last decade. According to National Crime
Record Bureau Data 2013 crimes committed by juveniles to total IPC crimes was reported as
1.2%. The highest percentage of crime reported by juvenile was reported under assault on
women to outrage her modesty 132.3% then after insult to the modesty of women 70.5% and
rape 60.3%. In the year apprehended juvenile under IPC was 66.3% in the age group of 16-18
years. Out of the total juveniles (43,506) involved in various crimes, 8,392 were illiterate and
13,984 had education up to primary level. In totality the two accounted for 51.9% of the total
juveniles arrested during the year 2013. A large number of juvenile 50.2% belonged to the
backward families in financial condition having an annual income was up to Rs.25000.57
This shows the high increase of crimes by juveniles in India and requires more and more
stringent laws which have a deterrent and a reformative effect on the Juveniles who are
delinquent.