Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-r8w4l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-04T09:21:16.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Evidential Remedies for Procedural Rights Violations

Comparative Criminal Evidence Law and Empirical Research

from Part II - Convergences between Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2022

By
Sarah Summers
Edited by
Jordi Ferrer Beltrán  and
Carmen Vázquez
Jordi Ferrer Beltrán
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Carmen Vázquez
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Get access

Summary

The purpose of this paper is not to suggest that there are no differences between the different legal systems, but rather to argue that these differences are not necessarily accurately reflected in the accusatorial - inquisitorial typology. By engaging more with the realities of criminal process, it should be possible to overcome the traditional adherence to the exclusionary rules versus free proof dogma and provide new insights into comparative criminal evidence. These arguments will be illustrated with reference to the evidential consequences of a violation of the right to counsel in Switzerland. This chapter will draw from data collected in the course of a large empirical study of criminal trials, the Trial Observation Project, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The study set out to document the nature of the implementation of trial rights in practice in order to challenge some of the principal assumptions underlying normative theorising on trial rights. The chapter will begin by challenging the assumption that the Swiss criminal procedure system, which clearly falls within the ‘continental European’ tradition, gives the fact-finder total freedom of proof in considering the evidence.

Keywords

Accusatorial systeminquisitorial systemcomparative lawcriminal processtrial rights.
Type
Chapter
Information
Evidential Legal Reasoning
Crossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions
 , pp. 84 - 97
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Damaška, M. (1997). Evidence Law Adrift, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Donatsch, A. and Cavegn, C. (2008). Ausgewählte Fragen zum Beweisrecht nach der schweizerischen Strafprozessordnung, ZStrR, 126, 158–66.Google Scholar
Gless, S. (2014). Art 141 N 72, in Niggli, M. A., Heer, M. and Wiprächtiger (eds.), H., Basler Kommentar, Schweizerische Strafprozessordnung/Jugendprozessorndung, 2nd ed., Basel, Helbling and Lichtenhahn, 2014.Google Scholar
Häring, D. (2009). Verwertbarkeit rechtswidrig erlangter Beweise gemäss schweizerische Strafprozessordnung – alter Zopf oder substanzielle Neuerungen?, ZStrR 127, 225–48.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. and Summers, S. (2012). The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. and Summers, S. (2013). Confrontation with Strasbourg: UK and Swiss Approaches to Criminal Evidence, Criminal Law Review, 60 (2), 115–31.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B. (2000). Der Richter im Strafverfahren als manipulierter Dritter? Zur empirischen Bestätigung von Perseveranz- und Schulterschlusseffekt. 3 Strafverteidiger 159–65.Google Scholar
Summers, S. (2014). Observing Criminal Trials, in Anderson, R., Chalmers, J. and MacLeod, J. (eds.), Glasgow Tercentenary Essays: 300 Years of the School of Law, Edinburgh: Avizandum Publishing, 217–32.Google Scholar
Summers, S. and Studer, D. (2016). Fairness im Strafverfahren? Eine empirische Untersuchung, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 134 (1), 45–72.Google Scholar
Summers, S., Garland, L. and Studer, D. (2016). Das Recht auf Verteidigung – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 134(2), 133–70.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. (2010). Are Juries Fair?, Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/10 www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research.htm.Google Scholar
Wohlers, W. (2014). Art 141 N 19ff, in Donatsch, A., Hansjakob, T. and Lieber (eds.), V., Kommentar zur Schweizerischen Strafprozessordnung, 2nd ed., Zurich: Schulthess.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×