What has the echr done for victims? A United Kingdom perspective

International Review of Victimology

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 177-200

  Leverick, Fiona ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247671565     PISSN: 02697580     EISSN: 20479433     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/026975800401100201     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Ashworth A. (1993). Victim impact statements and sentencing. Criminal Law Review, pp. 498–509.
2. Burton M. (2001). Reviewing Crown Prosecution Service decisions not to prosecute. Criminal Law Review, pp. 374–384.
3. Chalmers J. (2001). Cross examination in sexual offence trials and the ECHR: some observations. Scots Law Times (News), 1, 1–4.
4. de Than C. (2003). Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: towards the human rights of victims and vulnerable witnesses? Journal of Criminal Law, 67 (2), 165–182.
5. Dennis I. (2000). Rethinking double jeopardy: justice and finality in criminal process. Criminal Law Review, pp. 933–951.
6. Doak J. (2003). The victim and the criminal process: an analysis of recent trends in regional and international tribunals. Legal Studies, 23, 1–32.
7. Ellison L. (2001). The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable Witness. Oxford University Press; Oxford, UK.
8. Emmerson B., Ashworth A. (2001). Human Rights and Criminal Justice. Sweet and Maxwell; London.
9. Fenwick H. (1997). Procedural rights of victims of crime: public or private ordering of the criminal justice process? Modern Law Review, 60 (3), 317–333.
10. Gillespie A. (2000). Child abuse prosecutions and the Human Rights Act 1998. New Law Journal, 150, 620–621.
11. Home Office (2003). A New Deal for Victims and Witnesses. HMSO; London.
12. Klug F. (2004) Human rights and victims. In Reconcilable Rights? Analysing the Tension between Victims and Defendants (Cape E., ed.) pp. 111–124. Legal Action Group; London.
13. Leverick F. (2002a). Is English self-defence law incompatible with Article 2 of the ECHR? Criminal Law Review, pp. 347–362.
14. Leverick F. (2002b). The use of force in public or private defence and Article 2: A reply to Professor Sir John Smith. Criminal Law Review, pp. 961–965.
15. Rogers J. (2003). Applying the doctrine of positive obligations in the European Convention of Human Rights to domestic substantive criminal law in domestic proceedings. Criminal Law Review, pp. 690–708.
16. Sanders A. (2004). Involving victims in sentencing: a conflict with defendants' rights? In Reconcilable Rights? Analysing the Tension between Victims and Defendants (Cape E., ed.) pp. 97–110. Legal Action Group; London.
17. Scottish Executive (2000). Scottish Strategy for Victims. Scottish Executive; Edinburgh.
18. Scottish Executive (2003). Progress on the Scottish Strategy for Victims. Scottish Executive; Edinburgh.
19. Smith John Sir (2002). The use of force in public or private defence and Article 2. Criminal Law Review, pp. 958–962.
20. Wadham J., Arkinstall J. (2000). Rights of victims of crime. New Law Journal, 150, 1023–1024 (part 1) and 1083–1084 (part 2).