Declarations of Incompatibility, Dialogue and the Criminal Law

Davis, Fergal F. and Mead, David (2014) Declarations of Incompatibility, Dialogue and the Criminal Law. Common Law World Review, 43 (1). pp. 62-84. ISSN 1473-7795

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

Abstract

The past 30 years have seen the development of ‘New Commonwealth’ forms of judicial review. These models of review are characterized by an emphasis on institutional dialogue over either legislative or judicial supremacy. Thus, instead of giving courts a strike down power, dialogic review grants courts the power to declare legislation ‘incompatible’ with human rights norms while leaving the fi nal say on the legislation with the legislature. This article explores the potential for controversy when such a non-binding mechanism is employed in the arena of the criminal law. In particular, it focuses on the Northern Irish case of R v McR and the Australian case of Momcilovic v the Queen. These cases demonstrate the diffi culties associated with the operation of dialogic review in the criminal law.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: dialogic review; democratic dialogue; criminal law; r v
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Social Sciences > School of Law
Depositing User: Pure Connector
Date Deposited: 04 Jul 2014 12:35
Last Modified: 21 May 2020 23:55
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/48437
DOI: 10.1350/clwr.2014.43.1.0265

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item