Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorC. Stenning, Philipen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T11:19:13Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T11:19:13Z
dc.date.issued2009en_US
dc.date.modified2011-10-31T06:25:25Z
dc.identifier.issn08293201en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/37897
dc.description.abstractIn the great majority of cases, the proper exercise of investigative or prosecutorial discretion presents little challenge and evokes little controversy. In a very small number of "high-profile" cases, however, such discretionary decisions become highly controversial and the subject of intense political, public, and media debate. It is such relatively rare cases that are the focus of this article. In such cases, two critical questions are typically at the forefront of debate: What does "the public interest" in such cases require? And who should have the final say as to what the public interest in such cases requires? The first of these questions typically reveals disagreements as to how the various commonly accepted "public interest" considerations should be applied to the case at hand; the second goes to the heart of the concept of "independence," alleged to be a fundamental and constitutionally essential attribute of police and prosecutors in making such decisions. This article is concerned less with the details of discretionary decisions themselves than with the "political economy" of prosecutorial discretion, with particular reference to controversial high-profile cases that raise significant "public interest" considerations. Specifically, the article considers who currently does, and should, have the ultimate authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion in such cases, and why, and what such arrangements imply for the prevailing concept of prosecutorial "independence." The author draws on four recent high-profile cases in the United Kingdom and in South Africa to illustrate the different ways in which these issues have arisen and the controversies that have developed out of attempts to resolve them.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_AU
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_AU
dc.publisherUniversity of Toronto Pressen_US
dc.publisher.placeCanadaen_US
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.acds-clsa.org/en/canadian_journal_law_society.cfmen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom337en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto366en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue3en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalCanadian Journal of Law and Societyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume24en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_AU
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPolice Administration, Procedures and Practiceen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode160205en_US
dc.titleDiscretion, Politics, and the Public Interest in "High-Profile" Criminal Investigations and Prosecutionsen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.rights.copyrightSelf-archiving of the author-manuscript version is not yet supported by this journal. Please refer to the journal link for access to the definitive, published version or contact the authors for more information.en_AU
gro.date.issued2009
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record