Rogers, JW; (2002) A Criminal Lawyer's Response to Chastisement in the European Court of Human Rights. Criminal Law Review , 2002 98 - 113.
Full text not available from this repository.
I argued that in order to avoid a further finding of state violation of Article 3 ECHR, judges must decide as a question of law whether any abuse suffered by a child meets the threshold of Article 3 and they should withdraw any defence of chastisement from the jury if this is thought to be the case. I examined further the rationale of the defence of chastisement and proposed further limits for those cases which should still go to the jury.
|Title:||A Criminal Lawyer's Response to Chastisement in the European Court of Human Rights|
|Additional information:||This article has been cited by Professor Ashworth as a leading piece on the role of the judiciary in developing defences, and was the subject of analysis in a later piece in Legal Studies.|
|Keywords:||Article 3 ECHR, chastisement, disciplinary motive, european, Human Rights, response, rights|
|UCL classification:||UCL > School of Arts and Social Sciences > Faculty of Laws|
Archive Staff Only: edit this record