Skip to main content Skip to navigation


Select tags to filter on

CJC members Jackie Hodgson, Juliet Horne and Laurene Soubise publish research report ‘The Criminal Cases Review Commission – Last resort or first appeal?’

CJC members, Professor Jackie Hodgson, Dr Juliet Horne and Dr Laurene Soubise, have recently published their research report ‘The Criminal Cases Commission – Last resort or first appeal?’. The research was funded by the ESRC Impact Acceleration Account.

Laurène Soubise presents paper at the Fordham Law School

On 8 and 9 December, Laurene Soubise attended an international legal ethics conference that brought more than 50 law scholars and lawyers to Fordham Law School (in New York) from around the world. The theme of the conference was “Regulation of Legal and Judicial Services: Comparative and International Perspectives” and it was hosted by the Stein Center for Law and Ethics. Laurene presented a paper with Prof Alice Woolley from Calgary University (Canada) entitled 'Prosecutors in Pursuit of the Public Interest: Challenges Across Jurisdictions'. The paper will be published next year in the Fordham International Law Journal.
Wed 27 Dec 2017, 00:39 | Tags: Conference, Laurène Soubise

CJC member Laurène Soubise's paper published in Criminal Law Review

Laurène Soubise's new article on prosecutions in the magistrates' courts has been published in the November edition of the Criminal Law Review. Titled 'Prosecuting in the Magistrates' Courts in a Time of Austerity', the paper is based on Laurène's doctoral research project. The following is a brief blurb describing the paper:
Summary proceedings in the magistrates’ courts have always been a quicker and cheaper way to process minor criminal cases, compared to trial by jury at the Crown Court. Research studies have shown how defence lawyers have made those cases routine so that they could be processed rapidly and cost-effectively through the system. However, there has been little research on how the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) deals with magistrates’ court cases. Basing its analysis upon direct observations and interviews with CPS staff, this paper examines the impact of efficiency concerns and recent budget cuts on the way cases are prosecuted by the CPS at the magistrates’ court. It shows how, taking advantage of routinised defence practices, most of the CPS magistrates’ court advocacy has been delegated to Associate Prosecutors (APs). This delegation to less-qualified personnel reinforces the bureaucratisation of summary justice as it is based on decisions being made in the prosecutor’s office, instead of open court. In practice, oversight by Crown Prosecutors is limited as the constraints of court advocacy run against the rules governing APs powers.
Fri 10 Nov 2017, 00:13 | Tags: Laurène Soubise, Publication