Skip to main content Skip to navigation


Select tags to filter on

New Book by CJC Member Ioana Vrăbiescu 'Deporting Europeans: The Racialized Mobility of Romanians in France'

Deporting Europeans reveals an unexpected feature of the political, institutional and cultural entanglement between two EU countries, Romania and France. Contemporary structural dependencies are rooted in a deeply neo-colonial predicament that perpetuates the inferior position of Romania vis-à-vis France and results in the implementation of policies that ultimately disadvantage and discriminate against some of the most vulnerable citizens in the EU. By analysing the deportation of Romanians from France, the book shows how policing the mobility of poor EU citizens, who are often identified as Roma, is effectively a racist policy. Deporting Europeans uncovers the justifications set forward by states in policing for deportation and in normalizing violence. The book argues that EU citizens deportation within the EU territory serves the reinforcement of state sovereignty in relation to processes of globalization. Curbing the freedom of movement, re-articulating borders and racializing the policing of certain EU citizens attest to neo-colonial patterns that structure power relations and legitimize hierarchy in Europe. This book is a compelling contribution to decolonial critique of state power in the European continent.”

CJC Member Jackie Hodgson Publishes Chapter in Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process

CJC member Professor Jackie Hodgson has published a book chapter with Dr Grace (Yu) Mou titled 'Empirical Approaches to Criminal Procedure'. The chapter appears in The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process edited by Darryl K. Brown, Jenia Iontcheva Turner, and Bettina Weisser.

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.

CJC Members publish new article in ‘Law & Human Behavior’

CJC Members Divya Sukumar, Dr. Kimberley Wade, and Professor Jacqueline Hodgson have co-authored a paper titled Truth-tellers stand the test of time and contradict evidence less than liars, even months after a crime in Law and Human Behavior. This paper looks at the impact of the phased disclosure of evidence to truth-tellers and liars, over time. This 'law-psychology' collaboration, with Ms. Sukumar’s doctoral research at its heart, has produced new and exciting insights, drawing on both disciplines, as well as a number of inter-disciplinary publications which in the past have been published in Criminal Law Review, Psychology Public Policy and Law, and the International Journal of Evidence and Proof.

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

Older news