Search results

The paper aims to reach a better understanding of accountability and social reporting in the Italian justice system, by examining the state of the art of both literature and practice. The case study highlights the critical elements in drawing up the social report of one of the most important Prosecutor Offices in Italy.

The case study analyzes the activities of the actors involved in the report building process by detailing all the steps involved in a research diary, in order to examine such process from the inside, thus reversing its perspective.

The study shows that both the lack of guidelines for judicial administrations and a consolidated trend of transforming administrative facts into documents useful to stakeholders slow down the evolution of practices, which are stuck in a perpetual trial stage.

The limitations are mainly related to the adoption of a single case study, which does not include any comparison with other reporting experiences in the justice sector.

This paper adds evidence to the theoretical debate on social reporting in the justice sector which has so far received the attention of a limited number of scholars. Furthermore, unlike other studies focusing exclusively on the final report while overlooking the process that turns input into output, this research deals with the core of the social reporting process and practices in their development, capturing their most intimate and controversial aspects from the inside.

One of the most dramatic controversies over judicial independence in the United States occurred at the state level, in antebellum Kentucky, when two entirely different state high courts remained in operation, each claiming to be the only legitimate tribunal. This chapter describes Kentucky's two-court crisis, but focuses primarily on the constitutional convention of 1849, which followed it. Through the lens of modern scholarship about judicial independence, the lessons that antebellum Kentuckians drew from their own history seem quite counterintuitive. They did not view their project of judicial design as a matter of balancing judicial independence with accountability, a task that many modern scholars of American politics have posited as the central problem of judicial design. Instead, Kentucky's constitutional convention sought to structure an institution that would allow the state's courts to respond to popular sentiment without compromising their independence. Thus, these debates suggest frameworks for understanding judicial independence that do not pit independence against judicial accountability or popular politics, but attempt to discern which forms of politics threaten the independence of courts, and which forms may not.

In England and Wales the Crown Prosecutor is a lawyer who is independent from the investigation and is charged with assessing evidence and evaluating whether a prosecution should proceed or not. The CPS is intentionally authorised to override the decisions of the police to curb any potentially over‐zealous investigations and evidence gathering that might subsequently tarnish the standards of procedure in the courts when applying the criminal law. The increasingly burdensome rules of disclosure have made demands on the CPS which are akin to the overall requirement on the investigating magistrate of civil law jurisdictions to find the truth by examination of the prosecution and defence evidence. The recent moves to return a limited number of lawyers to police stations is a further indication that the future role of the CPS may include an active rather than solely passive role in evidence gathering. The Serious Fraud Office are directly involved in the investigation and prosecution of complex frauds. This office has statutory and judicial authority to conduct investigations which follow an inquisitorial rather than accusatorial model. The juge d'instruction in France has authority to direct and control police investigations and subsequently to compile a dossier of evidence for presentation before a trial court. This paper points out that there are close parallels emerging in pre‐trial procedures in England and Wales and in France and the criticisms of the role of the investigating magistrate, the ‘sick man’, may hold lessons to be learnt for investigators and prosecutors within this jurisdiction.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the legendary decision of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. Apart from this, the author’s aim is to analyse the constitutional interpretation done by the Higher Judiciary of the Country. Another aim of this note is to simplify the decision of this case for the understanding of the mass people and law students.

To conclude this paper, both qualitative and analytical methods have been used.

In this paper, a summarized fact of the case has been presented. In addition to that, decision of the High Court Division in the Writ petition has been simplified with six simple points. Moreover, major arguments submitted by both the Appellant’s and Respondent’s Lawyers have been summarized. Decision of the Appellate Division has been simplified with 12 simple points along with the reasoning behind the judgement.

In this paper, only the case of Secretary, Ministry of Finance vs Md. Masdar Hossain and Others has been studied and analysed in depth.

This paper will mainly help the Law and Social Science students for simply understanding the decision and the reasoning behind the decision of the case. Apart from that, this case noting will help both academics and legal professionals to study this case within a short period.

This paper will help mass people who want to study about this case to simply understand the case in depth. In addition to that, people will get known about the procedure hoe the subordinate judiciary of Bangladesh became independent.

This conceptual paper is the original piece of work and is not under review in any other journal. This paper has not been published previously in any other journal.

Corruption is a serious problem in many Asian countries, judging from their ranking and scores on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). To combat corruption these countries have relied on three patterns of corruption control. The first pattern relies on the enactment of anti-corruption laws without a specific agency to enforce these laws. For example in Mongolia, the Law on Anti-Corruption that was introduced in April 1996 is jointly implemented by the police, the General Prosecutor's Office, and the courts (Quah, 2003a, p. 44)¹. The second pattern involves the implementation of anti-corruption laws by several anti-corruption agencies. In India, the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA) is implemented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and the anti-corruption bureaus and vigilance commissions at the state level (Quah, 2003a, p. 66). Similarly, the Philippines has relied on 18 anti-corruption agencies to enforce the many anti-corruption laws since the Integrity Board was formed by President Quirino in May 1950 (Batalla, 2001, p. 47; Oyamada, 2005, pp. 99–101).

This paper aims to examine the growing incidence of judicialisation of politics in Nigeria's democratisation experience against the backdrop of questionable judicial accountability.

The article draws on legal and political theory as well as comparative law perspectives.

The judiciary faces a daunting task in deepening democracy and (re) instituting the rule of law. The formidable challenges derive in part from structural problems within the judiciary, deficient accountability credentials and the complexities of a troubled transition.

Effective judicial mediation of political transition requires a transformed and accountable judiciary.

The article calls attention to the need for judicial accountability as a cardinal and integral part of political transitions.

That on accountability in public organizations is quite an old debate. Its introduction in judicial systems is, however, still viewed with some suspicion, due to its potential trade-off with independence and impartiality. Nevertheless, the need to respond to the demands for greater transparency and accountability has also pushed judicial organizations to establish a dialogue with a wide range of subjects. This study aims to explore the understanding and the current practices of sustainability reporting currently in place in judicial systems.

The study adopts a comparative approach, conducting an online survey in two European countries (Italy and Poland). The survey was built around the research questions and literature and administered between February and March 2020. Specifically, 804 courts were involved, of which 430 are in Italy and 374 in Poland.

Findings show that the current practices are still not widespread and there is still a lack of understanding of what sustainability reporting is, and therefore, of what its potential usefulness within the courts could be. Moreover, many differences between the two countries are pointed out, so it is possible to assume that the different cultural and institutional settings influence sustainability reporting practices. Finally, some interesting implications for policymakers are provided.

Judicial organizations are still poorly investigated in the literature, despite being at the center of a wide public and political debate. Moreover, the international comparative perspective adopted constitutes a further aspect of novelty.

This study aims to explore to what extent stakeholder engagement affects the sustainability reporting (SR) process and if it succeeds in facilitating the encounter between demand and supply of accountability, as well as the main challenges of this practice, by focusing on a crucial and under-investigated public sector area, the judicial system.

The study adopts an action research (AR) approach. Specifically, it focuses on a specific phase (i.e. stakeholder engagement) of the broader project that was carried on from 2019 in an Italian Public Prosecutor’s Office. Data were collected from multiple sources, i.e. written notes and reports gathered during meetings, the survey administered to stakeholders and the published sustainability reports.

Stakeholder engagement may be a valuable and effective tool for improving the level of accountability, as it increases the responsiveness of SR to the informative needs of stakeholders. However, the study also highlights some critical points that must be addressed to exploit this fully. Among these is the need to act upstream of the process by working on an accounting system that goes beyond the economic dynamics and can effectively answer the accountability demand.

The study contributes to theoretical and empirical knowledge by exploring a topic and a public sphere still limited investigated, i.e. the stakeholder engagement in sustainability in the judicial sector. The AR approach also presents some originality points, as it is low widespread in management and accounting literature.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the status of independence of the judiciary in Bangladesh. It is recognized worldwide that an independent judiciary is the sin qua non of democracy and good governance. However, without separation of the judiciary from other organs of the state absolute independence of judiciary is not possible. An attempt has been made in this paper to sketch the brief historical background of judicial system in Bangladesh through analyzing the meaning and basic principles of judicial independence and to what extent these principles exists in Bangladesh. How did the judiciary finally separate from the executive? After separation of the judiciary, what is the status of executive interference over judiciary in Bangladesh has also been evaluated in this paper.

The study is qualitative in nature and based on secondary sources of materials like books, journal articles, government rules, newspaper reports, etc. Relevant literature has also been collected through Internet browsing.

In this study, it has been found that from time immemorial the judicial system of Bangladesh was not completely independent from the interference of the executive branch of the government. It has also been found that from the beginning of the British colonial rule, the question of separation of the judiciary from the executive had been a continuing debate. Presently, even after separation of the judiciary, the interference of the executive over the judiciary is still continuing.

This paper opens a new window for the policy makers and concerned authorities to take necessary steps for overcoming the existing limitations of the status of judicial dependence in Bangladesh.

The paper will be of interest to legal practitioners, policy makers, members of civil society, and those in the field of judicial system in Bangladesh and some other British colonial common law countries.

This paper aims to examine the new anti-corruption policy of the National Judicial Council of Nigeria to determine the level of effectiveness of its preventive measures and to provide recommendations on how the policy could be strengthened.

This paper relies mainly on primary and secondary data drawn from the public domain. It also relies on documentary research.

This paper determined that the anti-corruption policy of the National Judicial Council of Nigeria could achieve its desired objectives if the following recommendations are implemented: The Central Bank of Nigeria should permanently discontinue production of large denomination bank notes like the 1,000 naira notes and the 500 naira note. This policy will make it more difficult for corrupt judicial officers to smuggle significant amounts of cash out of Nigeria. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should be amended to allow ordinary citizens to participate in the criminal justice system. The jury system will speed up corruption trials, reduce bias, corrupt inducement of judges and enhance administration of justice in Nigeria. Statutes and civil procedure rules should require lawyers to certify “after reasonable enquiry” that motions have not been interposed for delay. As most courts experience high rates of adjournment because of medical illness, the adjournment policy of the National Judicial Council of Nigeria should be amended to require a doctors’ certificate and, if necessary, require the doctor to appear, with costs met by the lawyer. The National Judicial Council of Nigeria should be constitutionally mandated to provide the Attorney General of the Federation with a copy of any petition filed against a judicial officer by a member of the public.

This paper focuses on the new anti-corruption policy of the National Judicial Council of Nigeria. It does not address the older policies.

This paper offers a critical analysis of the new anti-corruption policy of the National Judicial Council of Nigeria. The paper will provide recommendations on how the policy could be strengthened. This is the only paper to adopt this kind of approach.