accused’s confession [ confession of the accused ]

spousal assault charging policy [ wife-assault charging policy ]

facts material to the charge

Since 2007 a number of MPs, including a former Prime Minister, have been shielded from criminal investigation by the Parliament’s refusals to allow the opening of criminal investigations.[47] The fact that Parliament does not motivate refusals to allow the opening of criminal investigations makes it difficult to establish the objectivity of decisions.[48] In addition, the fact that parliamentarians can still sit whilst also convicted of serious offences like corruption damages the reputation of Parliament – many parliamentary systems have the practice of suspending parliamentarians at indictment in such cases, and exc ...[+++]lusion on conviction.[49]

For 2014 and 2015, BG reports that there were respectively four (4) indictments and one (1) conviction and five (5) indictments and two (2) convictions.

The presumption of innocence would be infringed if the burden of proof were shifted from the prosecution to the defence, without prejudice to any ex officio fact-finding powers of the court, to the independence of the judiciary when assessing the guilt of the suspect or accused person, and to the use of presumptions of fact or law concerning the criminal liability of a suspect or accused person.

Is a national law compatible with the obligation of a Member State to provide for the effective prosecution of criminal offences by customs officials if that law provides for criminal proceedings brought against customs officials — for participation in a conspiracy to commit corruption offences while performing their professional duties (accepting bribes for non-performance of customs inspections), and for specific bribery offences and concealment of bribes received — to be terminated, without the court having examined the charges brought, under the following conditions: (a) two years have elapsed since the ...[+++]accused was charged; (b) the accused has lodged a request for the pre-trial investigation to be concluded; (c) the court has given the prosecutor a period of three months to conclude the pre-trial investigation; (d) during that period, the prosecutor has committed ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ (failure properly to notify a supplementary charge, failure to disclose the investigation file, contradictory indictment); (e) the court has given the prosecutor a further period of one month to remedy those ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’; ([f]) the prosecutor has failed to remedy the ‘infringements of essential procedural requirements’ within that time-limit — albeit that the infringements committed within the first three-month period and the failure to remedy them within the subsequent one-month period are attributable both to the prosecutor (failure to remove contradictions in the indictment; failure to take real action for most of those periods) and also to the defence (breach of the duty to cooperate with respect to notification of the charge and inspection of the investigation file due to the hospitalisation of the accused and claims regarding the lawyers’ other professional commitments); ([g]) the accused has acquired a subjective right to the termination of the criminal proceedings on account of the failure to reme ...