Jos Mesu (Ministry of Security and Justice, Netherlands)
shared the Dutch experience concerning the legal status of a victim at the second Criminological Forum in Astana. More information is here: https://www.eucj.kz/en/press-center/press-releases/vtoroj-kriminologicheskij-forum-v-astane-proshel-pri-podderzhke-es
David’s presentation sets out the Law Commission’s work on legal reform of hate crime law, with reference to their review in 2014, terms of reference for the 2019 review and opportunities arising.
Jos Mesu (Ministry of Security and Justice, Netherlands)
shared the Dutch experience concerning the legal status of a victim at the second Criminological Forum in Astana. More information is here: https://www.eucj.kz/en/press-center/press-releases/vtoroj-kriminologicheskij-forum-v-astane-proshel-pri-podderzhke-es
David’s presentation sets out the Law Commission’s work on legal reform of hate crime law, with reference to their review in 2014, terms of reference for the 2019 review and opportunities arising.
Presentation by Denisa Fikarova, European Commission, DG Justice in conference "Supporting Victims of Crime in Latvia – Possibilities and Challenges" organised by Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS on February 21-22, 2013 in Riga.
Conference was organized in project "Conference is organized within framework of project Response to Crime Latvia and Beyond”.
Further information about project: http://www.providus.lv/public/26862.html
Further information about conference: http://www.providus.lv/upload_file/Projekti/Kriminalitesibas/Victim%20support/Conference_web.pdf
--------
Prezentācija "Cietušo vajadzību apzināšanās, kāpēc tā ir svarīga? Eiropas Savienības vīzija par pamatnostādnēm attiecībā uz noziedzīgos nodarījumos cietušajiem" (Denisa Fikarova, Eiropas Komisijas Tieslietu ģenerāldirektorāts) konferencē "Atbalsta sistēma noziedzīgos nodarījumos cietušajiem – Latvijas iespējas un izaicinājumi".
Konference tika organizēta 2013.gada 21.-22.februārī Rīgā projekta "Atbalsta sistēma noziegumos cietušajiem - Latvijā un citur" ietvaros.
Plašāka informācija par projektu: http://www.providus.lv/public/27560.html
Plašāka informācija par konferenci: http://www.providus.lv/public/27812.html
Seminari Justícia Restaurativa a Europa. Evolució i perspectives actuals. Frieder Dünkel
Centre d'Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada, 10 d'octubre de 2014
B8 Cross-cultural and comparative victimologyVSE 2016
(Eva Mulder & Antony Pemberton, Intervict. Also representatives from APAV and LINC will participate in this workshop)
To what extent do cultural differences and diverse historical trajectories lead to different understandings, valuation and experiences of victimisation and the reaction to victimisation? This is the topic of a second workshop. It presents and discusses key findings from project IVOR (Implementing Victim-Oriented Reform of the Criminal Justice System in the European Union) which sought to ascertain the progress made in the development of the position of victims of crime across Europe. This project was led by APAV, in cooperation with INTERVICT, the Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC) and VSE.
IVOR concerned three interrelated work-streams. The state of the art concerning the transposal of the EU-directive into legislation and practice, a review of the current empirical evidence base of the provisions of the Directive across Europe and an analysis of the different context in EU member states. The highlights of each of the results of the work-streams will be presented.
Subsequently we will invite participants to reflect with us, how given the diverse contexts in EU member states, and the relative lack of empirical research across large parts of the EU, we could best go about improving the position of victims, to achieve the Directive’s goal of minimum standards across the European Union. Can we advance on the current one-size-fits-all approach still underlying the EU’s efforts, and if so how?
Seminari internacional sobre la implementació de la Directiva de víctimes.
Plataforma de Justícia Penal
Centre d'Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada, 11 i 12 de març de 2015
B8 Cross-cultural and comparative victimologyVSE 2016
(Eva Mulder & Antony Pemberton, Intervict. Also representatives from APAV and LINC will participate in this workshop)
To what extent do cultural differences and diverse historical trajectories lead to different understandings, valuation and experiences of victimisation and the reaction to victimisation? This is the topic of a second workshop. It presents and discusses key findings from project IVOR (Implementing Victim-Oriented Reform of the Criminal Justice System in the European Union) which sought to ascertain the progress made in the development of the position of victims of crime across Europe. This project was led by APAV, in cooperation with INTERVICT, the Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC) and VSE.
IVOR concerned three interrelated work-streams. The state of the art concerning the transposal of the EU-directive into legislation and practice, a review of the current empirical evidence base of the provisions of the Directive across Europe and an analysis of the different context in EU member states. The highlights of each of the results of the work-streams will be presented.
Subsequently we will invite participants to reflect with us, how given the diverse contexts in EU member states, and the relative lack of empirical research across large parts of the EU, we could best go about improving the position of victims, to achieve the Directive’s goal of minimum standards across the European Union. Can we advance on the current one-size-fits-all approach still underlying the EU’s efforts, and if so how?
Presentation by Denisa Fikarova, European Commission, DG Justice in conference "Supporting Victims of Crime in Latvia – Possibilities and Challenges" organised by Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS on February 21-22, 2013 in Riga.
Conference was organized in project "Conference is organized within framework of project Response to Crime Latvia and Beyond”.
Further information about project: http://www.providus.lv/public/26862.html
Further information about conference: http://www.providus.lv/upload_file/Projekti/Kriminalitesibas/Victim%20support/Conference_web.pdf
--------
Prezentācija "Cietušo vajadzību apzināšanās, kāpēc tā ir svarīga? Eiropas Savienības vīzija par pamatnostādnēm attiecībā uz noziedzīgos nodarījumos cietušajiem" (Denisa Fikarova, Eiropas Komisijas Tieslietu ģenerāldirektorāts) konferencē "Atbalsta sistēma noziedzīgos nodarījumos cietušajiem – Latvijas iespējas un izaicinājumi".
Konference tika organizēta 2013.gada 21.-22.februārī Rīgā projekta "Atbalsta sistēma noziegumos cietušajiem - Latvijā un citur" ietvaros.
Plašāka informācija par projektu: http://www.providus.lv/public/27560.html
Plašāka informācija par konferenci: http://www.providus.lv/public/27812.html
Seminari Justícia Restaurativa a Europa. Evolució i perspectives actuals. Frieder Dünkel
Centre d'Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada, 10 d'octubre de 2014
B8 Cross-cultural and comparative victimologyVSE 2016
(Eva Mulder & Antony Pemberton, Intervict. Also representatives from APAV and LINC will participate in this workshop)
To what extent do cultural differences and diverse historical trajectories lead to different understandings, valuation and experiences of victimisation and the reaction to victimisation? This is the topic of a second workshop. It presents and discusses key findings from project IVOR (Implementing Victim-Oriented Reform of the Criminal Justice System in the European Union) which sought to ascertain the progress made in the development of the position of victims of crime across Europe. This project was led by APAV, in cooperation with INTERVICT, the Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC) and VSE.
IVOR concerned three interrelated work-streams. The state of the art concerning the transposal of the EU-directive into legislation and practice, a review of the current empirical evidence base of the provisions of the Directive across Europe and an analysis of the different context in EU member states. The highlights of each of the results of the work-streams will be presented.
Subsequently we will invite participants to reflect with us, how given the diverse contexts in EU member states, and the relative lack of empirical research across large parts of the EU, we could best go about improving the position of victims, to achieve the Directive’s goal of minimum standards across the European Union. Can we advance on the current one-size-fits-all approach still underlying the EU’s efforts, and if so how?
Seminari internacional sobre la implementació de la Directiva de víctimes.
Plataforma de Justícia Penal
Centre d'Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada, 11 i 12 de març de 2015
B8 Cross-cultural and comparative victimologyVSE 2016
(Eva Mulder & Antony Pemberton, Intervict. Also representatives from APAV and LINC will participate in this workshop)
To what extent do cultural differences and diverse historical trajectories lead to different understandings, valuation and experiences of victimisation and the reaction to victimisation? This is the topic of a second workshop. It presents and discusses key findings from project IVOR (Implementing Victim-Oriented Reform of the Criminal Justice System in the European Union) which sought to ascertain the progress made in the development of the position of victims of crime across Europe. This project was led by APAV, in cooperation with INTERVICT, the Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC) and VSE.
IVOR concerned three interrelated work-streams. The state of the art concerning the transposal of the EU-directive into legislation and practice, a review of the current empirical evidence base of the provisions of the Directive across Europe and an analysis of the different context in EU member states. The highlights of each of the results of the work-streams will be presented.
Subsequently we will invite participants to reflect with us, how given the diverse contexts in EU member states, and the relative lack of empirical research across large parts of the EU, we could best go about improving the position of victims, to achieve the Directive’s goal of minimum standards across the European Union. Can we advance on the current one-size-fits-all approach still underlying the EU’s efforts, and if so how?
SLSA 2013 - Using vps to identify vulnerable and intimidated victimsLouise Taylor
PowerPoint slides from my conference paper delivered with Jo Boylan-Kemp at the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice stream of the SLSA Annual Conference 2013.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the Netherlands
Improving access to justice for vulnerable and intimidated victims: Analysing the impact of the EU victims directive.
1. Improving Access to Justice for Vulnerable
and Intimidated Victims: Analysing the
Impact of the EU Victims Directive.
Louise Taylor, Nottingham Trent University
Louise.Taylor@ntu.ac.uk
10th
April 2014
2. The status of crime victims in English
domestic law.
• Bipartisan adversarial
system of justice.
• No special party status
beyond that of witness.
• No legally enforceable
victims’ rights, only
service standards.
3. The Code of Practice for Victims of
Crime (2013) – service standards.
• Service standards put on a statutory
basis for the first time under the
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims
Act 2004.
• Overview.
4. The Code of Practice for Victims of
Crime (2013) – complaints procedure.
• S 34(1) - a breach of the Code does not give rise
to criminal or civil liability.
• Overview of the Code’s complaint mechanism.
• Effect of s 34 + complex complaints procedure
means ineffective access to civil justice for crime
victims who have received inadequate services
under the Code.
5. EU Directive establishing minimum
standards on the rights, support and
protection of victims of crime
(29/2012/EU).
• Adopted in October 2012.
• UK has until November 2015 to transpose the
Directive into domestic law.
• Provisions will have direct effect, meaning that
victims will be able to rely on rights enshrined
in the Directive before domestic courts.
• Directive is also subject to full jurisdiction of
CJEU.
6. Article 22: Identification of victims with
specific protection needs.
Directive:
•Member States shall ensure that
victims receive a timely and
individual assessment…to identify
specific protection needs and to
determine whether and to what
extent they would benefit from
special measures in the course of
criminal proceedings…due to
their particular vulnerability to
secondary and repeat
victimisation, to intimidation and
to retaliation.
English provision:
•Revised Code places an
obligation on police to conduct an
early needs assessment.
•Ss 16 and 17 Youth Justice and
Criminal Evidence Act 1999
(YJCEA 1999) – identification of
vulnerable and intimidated
witnesses.
•Revised Code allows for
enhanced services for certain
victims.
•Identification deficit.
7. Article 23: Special measures of
protection.
Directive:
•Measures to be available during
criminal investigations:
– Interviews to be carried out in
specially designed or adapted
premises.
– Interviews to be carried out by or
through trained professionals.
– Interviews to be conducted by the
same person.
– For cases involving sexual
violence, gender based violence,
or violence in a close relationship,
interviews to be conducted by
someone of the same sex as the
victim.
English provision:
•Achieving Best Evidence in
Criminal Proceedings.
•ACPO National Investigative
Interviewing Strategy 2009.
•The revised Code.
8. Article 23: Special measures of
protection.
Directive:
•Measures to be available during
court proceedings:
– measures to avoid visual contact
between victims and offenders;
– measures to ensure that the
victim may be heard in the
courtroom without being present;
– measures to avoid unnecessary
questioning concerning the
victim’s private life not related to
the criminal offence; and,
– measures allowing a hearing to
take place without the presence
of the public.
English provision:
•Special measures available
under YJCEA 1999.
•S28 YJCEA 1999 pilot of video-
recorded cross-examination
evidence.
9. Article 24: Special measures of
protection for children.
Directive:
•All interviews conducted with
child victims during the criminal
investigation may be audio-
visually recorded and such
recordings may be available as
evidence in criminal proceedings.
•Provision of special
representative.
•Provision of legal
representative.
English provision:
•Achieving Best Evidence in
Criminal Proceedings.
•Children’s advocates.
10. Where English provision may fall short:
•Overall the English provision looks well-placed in
meeting the standards required by Articles 22-24,
but…
–Exploitation of Directive’s discretionary language.
–Government targeting of resources towards specific
victim groups.
–Local commissioning of victims’ services by Police and
Crime Commissioners.
My aim today is to give you a brief overview of the provisions of the EU Directive as they relate to victims with specific protection needs. But also to demonstrate that the EU Dir improves access to justice for such victims, not only by making the criminal proceeding more accessible and less traumatic, but also by providing an avenue in which to access civil justice when standards of service for such victims have not been adequately met by the state.
Discuss previous 2006 Code, and significant revisions in the 2013 version.
Explain that I wont be going into a great deal of detail about the Code at this stage because I will be doing so in the context of the Directive Articles relevant to vulnerable and intimidated victims.
But a general overview of the types of issues covered by the revised Code will be explained here. As will, the key changes from the previous version.
Discuss ineffective nature of this mechanism, highlighting the stats from Manikis article on the numbers of PO applications made, and the number that were successful.
Table 1. Case outcomes received by the Parliamentary Ombudsman from 1 April 2006 until July 2010
48 closed without investigation 2 accepted for investigation Out of remit 16 Discontinued 1 Premature (local) 8 Upheld complaint 1 No MP referral 13 Closed after withdrawn/referred back to complainants 6 (eg. Failure to return after being told to get an MP referral) (4) General discretion to decline 5
Explain the context of the Directive, in the field of justice etc… and that under Lisbon Treaty arrangements, UK could have chosen to opt out of this Directive, but that the chose to opt in.
Focus today will be on the key Articles relevant to victims with specific protection needs, what, in the UK context we would call vulnerable and intimidated victims.
Child victims are the only group presumed to have specific protection needs but the Directive makes it clear that an individual assessment of child victims is still required to ascertain the type and extent of measures required.
The directive is clear that certain other victims should be given particular attention during this assessment – i.e. trafficking victims.
Politicisation of the commissioning process.
Creation of a postcode lottery for victims’ services.
Providing justiciable victims’ rights under the Directive should compel the state to observe its obligations in practice and not just on paper.
Improving support and protection for victims with special protection needs increases the likelihood that they will engage with the criminal justice process and feel more able to give their best evidence in court. This improves their access to criminal justice.
Providing legal redress for victims where their rights under the Directive have not been observed improves their access to civil justice.
Manikis article – Jackson 2003 argues that in order for criminal justice agencies to take their duties seriously, consequences must be attached to non-compliance.
Problems associated with JR however, such as short time limit for application - 3 months and in any event promptly. Also, cost and procedural barrier + discretionary remedies. Also, standing – may be that victims groups raise JR action on behalf of a particularly disadvantaged victim group.
What will hopefully come about is a reworking of complaints procedure under the Code, rather than victims having to rely on JR.