In the end, that judge, along with the prosecutor and defense lawyer, failed Sullivan so deeply that we have to wonder whether his sentence reflects a deep and basic failure of
ordinary criminal justice.
Not exact matches
Global Witness has previously shown how anonymously - owned American companies allow a wide range of
criminals to cheat
justice and rip off
ordinary people — from forcing vulnerable families into foreclosure to luring individuals from overseas into a human trafficking scheme that stretched across the U.S.
If they would not give evidence, dangerous
criminals would walk free and both society and the administration of
justice would suffer; (ii) it was settled law that the paramount object had always been to do
justice and that if, in order to do
justice, some adaptation of
ordinary procedure was called for, it should be made, so long as the overall fairness of the trial was not compromised; (iii) recent case law supported the adoption of protective measures; (iv) the Strasbourg jurisprudence, properly understood, did not condemn the use of protective measures; and (v) the defendant was protected from the risk of unfairness by the prosecutor's duty of disclosure.
There could be no doubt about the governing principle or its importance, since the control order regime was not intended to be an alternative to the
ordinary processes of
criminal justice, with all the safeguards they provided for those accused, in cases where it was feasible to prosecute with a reasonable prospect of success.