Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice – serie

Criminal Fraud and Election Disinformation is about the state's approach to fraud and distortion of the truth in politics, especially during election campaigns. Deliberate mischaracterisation of political opponents and their policies has always been a part of politics; however, lying, dishonesty, and distortion of the facts remain morally wrong and have the potential to obstruct important political interests. For example, a false or misleading claim publicised about an election candidate may lead someone to lose an election that they might otherwise have won. So, does-and should-the law seek to provide protection from the risk of this happening, by directly prohibiting the making of false or misleading political claims, or by obliging internet platforms to censor such content? In attempting to answer this question, Jeremy Horder draws a key distinction between what is called 'political viewpoint' fraud and 'electoral participation' fraud. In the interests of protecting freedom of speech, false or misleading claims (disinformation) involving political viewpoint content should be tolerated, not only by the criminal law but also by the internet platforms which host political content. By contrast, in the interests of preserving the integrity of democratic electoral processes, disinformation involving electoral participation information should be prohibited by the criminal law and censored by internet platforms. This book explains how the criminal law in various jurisdictions frequently prohibits false or misleading political claims falling into both categories of disinformation, instead of concentrating on electoral participation fraud. By contract, the right response to political viewpoint disinformation is the provision of more information that challenges people to question their beliefs and prejudices.

The majority of common law jurisdictions, and some civil law jurisdictions, use juries composed of citizens drawn from the general population to deliberate and reach collective verdicts in criminal cases. Juries are relied on to use their collective judgment to reach verdicts that accord with normative legal goals; for example, by being accurate and fair. How Juries Worksuggests that, though important symbolically, the current jury system is not necessarily well designed to meet the demands of modern society, which increasingly requires evidence-based procedure that is carefully designed to achieve normative goals. Rebecca K. Helm proposes new models of how jurors and juries function in practice, informed by psychological theory and empirical research, which provide a framework to interpret and integrate the large body of existing work on jury decision-making. Drawing on this framework, Helm highlights the deficiencies and strengths of the jury as a legal fact-finder, providing key insights into how to minimize deficiencies and maximize strengths through trial procedure. The book concludes with a set of timely evidence-based suggestions as to how procedure surrounding trial by jury might be altered to enhance the administration of justice in the many jurisdictions where the criminal law jury is utilized.How Juries Workintegrates legal and psychological theory and research to present a comprehensive assessment of the modern criminal law jury, and of how evidence-based research can improve jury performance.

Starting in the latter part of the 20th century, the law of sexual offenses, especially in the West, began to reflect a striking divergence. On the one hand, the law became significantly more punitive in its approach to sexual conduct that is nonconsensual, as evidenced by a major expansion in the definition of rape and sexual assault, and the creation of new offenses like sex trafficking, child grooming, and revenge porn. On the other hand, it became markedly more permissive in how it dealt with conduct that is consensual, a trend that can be seen, for example, in the legalization or decriminalization of sodomy, adultery, and adult pornography. This book explores the conceptual and normative implications of this divergence.At the heart of the book is a consideration of a deeply contested question: How should a liberal system of criminal law adequately protect individuals in their right not to be subjected to sexual contact against their will, while also safeguarding their right to engage in (private consensual) sexual conduct in which they do wish to participate? The book develops a framework for harmonizing these goals in the context of a wide range of nonconsensual, consensual, and aconsensual sexual offenses (hence, the "unified" nature of the theory) -- including rape and sexual assault in a variety of forms, sexual harassment, voyeurism, indecent exposure, incest, sadomasochistic assault, prostitution, bestiality, and necrophilia. Intellectually rigorous, fair-minded, and deeply humane, Criminalizing Sex offers a fascinating discussion of a wide range of moral and legal puzzles, arising out of real-world cases of alleged sexual misconduct - a discussion that is all the more urgent in the age of #MeToo.

The U.S. Supreme Court maintains that prosecutorial discretion to charge different offenses authorized by the penal code is practically limited only by the penal code itself. Because typical offense conduct violates multiple statutes carrying different maximum – and minimum – sentences, by choosing the charge, the prosecution commonly also chooses the sentence. The Court, however, holds that when judges exercise sentencing discretion, due process requires impeccable neutrality and adversary hearings. Sentencing Discretion and the Constitution: Due Process of Time addresses the fundamental incompatibility of the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to the sentencing power of judges as compared to prosecutors. The Court says that when prosecutors induce a guilty plea by filing lesser charges than the code allows, the defendant is getting a break rather than being strong-armed. This doctrinal fiction persists because neither dissenting justices nor academic critics have yet justified a baseline by which the infliction of years – or even decades – in prison for refusing to plead guilty or to provide information, should be treated as a coercive threat rather than an offer permitted in the "give and take" of plea bargaining. In theory, the charges filed should be proportional to culpability, not the most severe the code permits. This raises another hard problem: theorists have not to date advanced a persuasive account of proportionate punishment.Unlike prior works, Sentencing Discretion and the Constitution exposes the connections between these problems and proposes a unified solution. The right against excessive punishment, like the right against erroneous conviction, is best understood as a right to procedural justice. More broadly, curtailing prosecutorial sentencing is an essential step toward curtailing mass incarceration – a problem that otherwise is more likely to get worse than better. This book will be of interest to readers concerned with plea bargaining, sentencing, constitutional law, legal history, and criminal law theory.

Provocation and Responsibility breaks new ground by drawing on historical and philosophical sources not normally linked in analysis of the criminal law, to provide the first detailed study of the effect of provocation on culpability in morality and law. It traces the fascinating history and colourful development of the legal doctrine of provocation, right up to present-day controversies over the scope of the doctrine's application in murder cases. These developments are illuminated throughout by setting them in the context of the changing moral and philosophical understanding of anger, its effect on responsibility, and the role it plays in the human character.

This book descibes in detail the development of substantive criminal law during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The author examines the forces which shaped criminal jurisprudence throughout the course of this period, paying particular attention to the activities of legislators and reformers, to parallel developments in the study of punishment and human psychology, to general social and political changes and to the growth of an organised police force and its reliance upon formal rules of proceedure and evidence.

Criminal cases are commonly seen as a fight between adversaries of equal strength: the intrusive power of the State versus skilled defence lawyers advocating their clients' cause. The reality, according to this major new study, is rather different. The provision of defence counsel is often rudimentary and unsatisfactory.Based on one of the largest studies of legal professional practice ever undertaken, involving nearly fifty solicitors' firms, this book offers a critical examination of the practices and organization of defence lawyers in Britain. The authors show how defence lawyers discharge their obligations to clients from the moment of initial contact with clients through to the routine preparation and representation of defendants in both Magistrates' and Crown Courts. For the first time, this study reveals the role of paralegals and unqualified staff in providing defence assistance, and highlights how their inexperience and assumption of the client's guilt can critically undermine defendants' rights.The deficiencies highlighted by their research lead the authors to question the effectiveness of recent liberal and managerial reforms, with their excessive reliance on market-led considerations. The authors propose a cultural transformation in criminal defence work, a reassertion of the defendants' rights within an adversarial system, and offer constructive suggestions for improving defence services.Extensively researched and documented, this study is a major contribution to current debates about the criminal justice system, and as such will be required reading for all lawyers, scholars, and professionals interested in the administration of justice.

Professor Robinson provides a new critique of the often neglected problem of classification within the criminal law. He presents a discussion of the present conceptual framework of the law, and offers explanations of how and why formal structures do not match the operation of law in practice. In this scholarly exposition of applied criminal theory, Robinson argues that the current operational structure of the criminal law fails to take account of its different functions. He goes on to suggest new sample codes of criminal conduct and criminal adjudication which mark a real departure from the pragmatic approach which presently dominates code-making. This rounded exploration of the structure of systems of criminal law is an important work for law teachers and policy makers world-wide.

Cases connected with the troubles in Northern Ireland have been tried by a judge sitting without a jury in `Diplock Courts'. Given the symbolic importance of the jury within the common law tradition, this study offers the first systematic comparison of the process of trial by judge alone with that of trial by jury. The authors determine the impact of the replacement of jury trial with trial by a professional judge on the adversarial character of the criminal trial process.

The law of Criminal Hearsay is one of the most controversial and topical areas of English law today. Following closely on the heels of the publication of the Law Commission's consultation paper on Criminal Hearsay, this timely book takes a critical look at the operation of the Hearsay rule in criminal trials on indictment in England. In addition, an examination of the legal position in a number of other jurisdictions (especially Canada, Australia, and the United States) is undertaken at appropriate points in the text. The author examines possible rationale for the Hearsay rule, challenging traditional notions that the rule in criminal proceedings exists simply to safeguard the reliability of evidence. A critical review of some of the relevant psychological research is also undertaken. Included in the book, too, is a discussion of some possible options for reform, including the suggestions made by the Law Commission in its consultation papers.

The role of the public prosecutor in sentencing has become the subject of intense debate in recent years. Experts recognize that their influence on sentencing practice is profound, and that the implications of their influence is far reaching. In this original study the author assesses the influence of the public prosecutor in Scotland, the Netherlands, England and Wales and Germany over the process of sentencing offenders in the criminal justice system. This study offers a detailed analysis of prosecutorial power to issue sanctions, such as fines, warnings and referrals to rehabilitation at the pre-trial stage, and develops three new models of justice seeking to analyse and explain the increasing use of prosecutorial power. The overlap between the role of prosecutor and judges is also discussed. This book is an original enquiry into an aspect of the role of the prosecutor which is increasingly important in major criminal justice systems, and will be of great interest to all those interested in the criminal justice system and the sentencing of offenders, and in comparative criminal justice policy and practice.

Punishment, Responsibility and Justice builds on Alan Norrie's previous work in the philosophy of punishment and criminal law to develop a challenging and ground-breaking critique of Kantian justice thinking. It casts a bold new light on recent debates about punishment and the criminal law in a period when traditional thinking has undergone opposition, crisis and change. The retributive and 'orthodox subjectivist' approaches, which have driven the textbook tradition and law reform for forty years, have been doubly challenged. A 'revisionist' critique opposes their Kantian insistence on formal individual autonomy from both a communitarian position on punishment and a 'morally substantive' view of responsibility. A 'postmodern' critique opposes orthodoxy for its failure to see how the Kantian subject is constructed in relations of power and domination. Against both orthodox subjectivist and revisionist views, Norrie develops a relational or dialectical critique to argue that they in fact both work in the same Kantian problematic. He establishes the concept of a 'blaming relation' as the basis for a critique of both, and to challenge the standard analytical account of criminal justice thinking. Moving from the legal theory of Ashworth, Duff, Fletcher, Moore, Smith and Williams to the jurisprudence of the courts, Norrie analyses the seemingly irresolvable problems of punishment, responsibility and justice in the criminal law from a relational point of view. Against the postmodern approach, he argues for the need to retain what remains of moral value in Kantianism by seeking 'a non-Kantian answer to the Kantian question' of individual justice. The result is a relational critique of punishment, responsibility and justice, which recognises the ambiguity and ambivalence that accompany judgment of wrongdoing, and which asserts both the real moral value and the fundamental limits of Kantian justice thinking.

Mental condition defences have been used in several high-profile and controversial criminal trials in recent years. indeed, mental abnormality is increasingly an important yet complex source of defence within the criminal trial process.The author offers a detailed critical analysis of those defences within the Criminal Law where the accused relies on some form of mental abnormality as a source of defence. Topics covered include: the defences of automatism, insanity, diminished responsibility, and infanticide; self-induced incapacity; and the doctrine of fault. It also includes a chapter on unfitness to plead, which although not a defence has been included because of its important relationship to mental disorder within the criminal process.Drawing upon a wide variety of legal, psychiatric, and philosophical sources, this is a timely contribution to a controversial and complex topic.

The present volume draws together original and significant essays from a number of leading authorities which identify areas of the modern criminal law where there are significant conceptual difficulties. The project developed from a series of seminars in cambridge University, in which leading Anglo-American philosophers, criminal lawyers and legal theorists explored subjects such as attempts, intention, justification, excuses, coercion, complicity, drug-dealing and criminal harm. The topics covered in this impressive collection were chosen for their topicality as well as their theoretical and practical significance.

A number of jurisdictions, including England and Wales after their adoption of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, require that sentences be `proportionate' to the severity of the crime. This book, written by the leading architect of `just deserts' sentencing theory, discusses how sentences may be scaled proportionately to the gravity of the crime. Topics dealt with include how the idea of a penal censure justifies proportionate sentences; how a penalty scale should be `anchored' to reduce overall punishment levels; how non-custodial penalties should be graded and used; and how political pressures impinge on sentencing policies.

The Oxford Monographs On Criminal Law And Justice series aims to cover all aspects of criminal law and procedure including criminal evidence. the scope of the series is wide, encompassing both practical and theoretical works. Series Editor: Professor Andrew Ashworth, Vinerian Professor of English Law, All Souls College, Oxford. This volume is a thematic collection of essays on sentencing theory by leading writers. The essays fall into three groups. Part I considers the underlying justifications for the imposition of punishment by the State, and examines the relationship between victims, offenders and the State. Part II addresses a number of areas of sentencing policy that have given rise to particular difficulty, such as the sentencing of drug offenders, the rationale for discounting sentences for multiple offenders, the existence of special sentencing for young offenders, and cases where the injury done to the victim is of a different magnitude from what might have been expected. Part III raises various questions about the unequal impact on offenders of different sentencing measures, and examines the extent to which sentences should be adjusted to take account of these different impacts and of broader social inequalities. This volume is dedicated to Professor Andrew von Hirsch, whose continuing work on sentencing theory provided the stimulus for the collection.

This book reflects the belief that a careful study of the Law of Attempts should be both interesting in itself, as well as being a productive route into a number of larger and deeper issues in criminal law theory and in the philosophy of action. By identifying the legal doctrines which courts and legislatures have developed or adopted, the author goes on to ask whether and how they can be rationalized or rendered persuasive. Such an approach involves paying detailed attention to cases. The book is also unusual in that it grapples with English, Scots and US law, showing great breadth of research as well as philosophical sophistication. This is a work which is likely to become a seminal study and a major contribution to the study of law and legal philosophy.

This important new book examines in some detail the law relating to confessions, unlawful evidence, and the 'right to silence' in the police station. The author also looks at the principles which lie behind this branch of the law. As well as his close examination of the English position, the author also looks at alternative approaches taken by Scottish, Irish, Australian, Canadian, and American legal systems. There is no other book written in English which gives such systematic treatment to this subject.

When should someone who may have intentionally or knowingly committed criminal wrongdoing be excused? Excusing Crime examines what excusing conditions are, and why familiar excuses, such as duress, are thought to fulfil those conditions. The 'classical' view of excuses sees them as rational defects (such as mistake) in the motive force behind an action, but contrasts them with 'denials of responsibility', such as insanity, where the rational defect in that motive force is attributable to a mental defect in the agent him- or herself. This classical view of excuses has a long heritage, and is enshrined in different forms in many of the world's criminal codes, both liberal and non-liberal; however, in this book, Jeremy Horder contends that it is now time to move beyond it.Horder develops a 'liberal' account of excuses, arguing that the 'classical' distinction between rational defects and 'denials of responsibility' is too sharp, and also that the classical view of excuses is too narrow. He contends that it can be right to treat claims as excusatory even if they rely on a combination of elements of rational defect in the motive force behind the action, even if that defect is in part attributable to a mental deficiency in the agent him or herself ('diminished capacity'). Further, he argues that there can be a sound case for excuse even when people can give full rational assent to their actions, such as when they could not reasonably have been expected to do more than what they did to avoid committing wrongdoing ('due diligence'), or, more rarely, when their conscience understandably left them with no moral freedom to do other than commit the wrong ('demands-of-conscience').

As an increasing range of expert evidence becomes available to it, the criminal justice system must answer a series of challenging questions: should experts be permitted to give evidence on the credibility of witnesses? How should statistical evidence be presented to juries? What relevance does syndrome evidence have to questions of criminal responsibility? In `Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice', Mike Redmayne explores these issues. His exposition utilizes work in a number of disciplines, and draws comparisons with the law and procedure in several different jurisdictions. While developing a general overview of the use of scientific evidence in the criminal process, Redmayne makes use of detailed examinations of particular issues, such as battered women syndrome, fingerprinting, and eyewitness expertise. Through an analysis of expert evidence, he also invites reflection on a series of wider issues, among them the function of exclusionary rules and the nature of case construction.

Contemporary concern about technological hazards posed by business enterprises has intensified interest in the criminality of corporations. Incorporating ideas from a wide range of literature, the book argues that there is no magic answer to corporate power, to issues of personal safety and their inter-relationship with criminal law and justice. The attention paid to corporate criminal liability by courts, legislatures, law reform bodies and international organizations has increased markedly in the past decade. As in the first edition, the book takes what might be called a panoptic approach to the subject. Corporations and their susceptibility to criminal law are examined from sociological, psychological, philosophical and organizational perspectives as the book progresses. This edition has been revised and updated to take account of the burgeoning scholarly literature. Detailed analysis of judicial and legislative movements in England and Wales, in other national jurisdictions and at the level of international organizations follows. Two new chapters, on corporate manslaughter and on comparative and international responses to corporate crime, accommodate these changes. The book is distinctive in combining legal analysis and discussion of law reform debates with a theoretical account of the relationship between legal institutions and the role of risk and blame in shaping criminal law and the practices of the criminal justice system.

Understanding Miscarriages of Justice explores a paradox. In a society in which justice is uncertain and contested, how can we talk meaningfully about miscarriage of justice? The book examines the structural conditions that inevitably produce high-profile miscarriages of justice. The thesis of the book is that there is a tension between the rhetoric of justice as understood outside of law, particularly in the media, and legal practice. Despite evidence that miscarriages of justice must be a normal and expected consequence of imperfect arrangements for investigations, prosecutions, and trials, they are ordinarily understood as exceptional and unacceptable events. Periodically, however, miscarriages are seen not as exceptional, but widespread and normal. At such moments, the legitimacy of the criminal justice process is called into question in the media. These moments are constructed in the media as a crisis of public confidence in criminal justice. With the mass media's vivid interest in crime and punishment and their relentless reconstruction of relevant facts, the courts fact-finding monopoly is fundamentally contested. While this happens in all phases of a criminal process, the contest becomes particularly dramatic when after a criminal conviction the mass media continue their investigation and discover, according to their criteria of truth, a miscarriage of justice. But there is no set of common criteria that would allow for the design of rational procedures to end the contest. There is no forum, no procedure, and no set of criteria that would make possible a common search for truth.

The law of homicide is probably the most high-profile area of the criminal law, and yet in recent years it has been relatively neglected by law reform agencies. Rethinking English Homicide Law brings together six top English criminal lawyers to discuss the future shape of the English law of homicide and deals with such important topics as the definition of murder, the relevance of mental abnormality provocation, unintentional killings, defences, and sentencing. The book also considers broad policy choices and matters of detail, in their contemporary social and legal context, and highlights the difficult issues that need to be tackled if we are to have an up-to-date law of murder and manslaughter.

Until quite recently it was commonplace to describe the witness as the 'forgotten man' in the criminal justice system. The last few years have seen a dramatic shift in thinking with an increasing recognition of the legitimate expectations and rights of witnesses within the criminal process. At the same time research has drawn attention to a host of factors that conspire to deny the courts access to the best evidence potentially available when so-called vulnerable and intimidated witnesses are called upon to testify in accordance with conventional adversarial trial procedures and methods.The official response so far embodies an approach best described as one of accommodation. Efforts have centred on improving the treatment of witnesses within the established trial framework while preserving an overall commitment to key tenets of adversarial theory. The latter include the principle of orality with its general insistence upon direct evidence and the use of cross-examination as a device for testing the credibility of witnesses.The central contribution of this book lies in its demonstration of the significant limitations of the prevailing approach, most recently manifest in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. By providing a broader theoretical framework for understanding the treatment of vulnerable witnesses it signals the need to extend the search for solutions beyond the boundaries of the paradigmatic adversarial model. Drawing upon modern psychological, socio-linguistic, and victimological study across common law jurisdictions, the book provides a systematic critique of the special measures of the 1999 Act and of adversarial trial procedure more generally.As a point of contrast the book also explores the contended advantages inherent within inquisitorial style criminal proceedings for witnesses, drawing on the author's own experience of rape proceedings in the Netherlands. Throughout due account is taken of significant recent developments at national, European, and international levels which have ensured the place victims and witnesses, once excluded, in any discussion of criminal trial fairness.

The law of homicide is probably the most high-profile area of the criminal law, and yet in recent years it has been relatively neglected by law reform agencies. Rethinking English Homicide Law brings together six top English criminal lawyers to discuss the future shape of the English law of homicide and deals with such important topics as the definition of murder, the relevance of mental abnormality provocation, unintentional killings, defences, and sentencing The book also considers broad policy choices and matters of detail, in their contemporary social and legal context, and highlights the difficult issues that need to be tackled if we are to have an up-to-date law of murder and manslaughter.

This book arises from a three-year study of Preventive Justice directed by Professor Andrew Ashworth and Professor Lucia Zedner at the University of Oxford. The study seeks to develop an account of the principles and values that should guide and limit the state's use of preventive techniques that involve coercion against the individual.States today are increasingly using criminal law or criminal law-like tools to try to prevent or reduce the risk of anticipated future harm. Such measures include criminalizing conduct at an early stage in order to allow authorities to intervene; incapacitating suspected future wrongdoers; and imposing extended sentences or indefinate on past wrongdoers on the basis of their predicted future conduct - all in the name of public protection and security. The chief justification for the state's use of coercion is protecting the public from harm. Although the rationales and justifications of state punishment have been explored extensively, the scope, limits and principles of preventive justice have attracted little doctrinal or conceptual analysis. This book re-assesses the foundations for the range of coercive measures that states now take in the name of prevention and public protection, focussing particularly on coercive measures involving deprivation of liberty. It examines whether these measures are justified, whether they distort the proper boundaries between criminal and civil law, or whether they signal a larger change in the architecture of security. In so doing, it sets out to establish a framework for what we call 'Preventive Justice'.

This book arises from a three-year study of Preventive Justice directed by Professor Andrew Ashworth and Professor Lucia Zedner at the University of Oxford. The study seeks to develop an account of the principles and values that should guide and limit the state's use of preventive techniques that involve coercion against the individual. States today are increasingly using criminal law or criminal law-like tools to try to prevent or reduce the risk of anticipated future harm. Such measures include criminalizing conduct at an early stage in order to allow authorities to intervene; incapacitating suspected future wrongdoers; and imposing extended sentences or indefinate on past wrongdoers on the basis of their predicted future conduct - all in the name of public protection and security. The chief justification for the state's use of coercion is protecting the public from harm. Although the rationales and justifications of state punishment have been explored extensively, the scope, limits and principles of preventive justice have attracted little doctrinal or conceptual analysis. This book re-assesses the foundations for the range of coercive measures that states now take in the name of prevention and public protection, focussing particularly on coercive measures involving deprivation of liberty. It examines whether these measures are justified, whether they distort the proper boundaries between criminal and civil law, or whether they signal a larger change in the architecture of security. In so doing, it sets out to establish a framework for what we call 'Preventive Justice'.

This book presents a theoretical examination of the rise and expansion of preventive criminal offences that has gained momentum in Anglo-American criminal justice since the late-twentieth century. It shows how recent transformations in criminal law and justice are intrinsically related to and embedded in the way liberal society and liberal law have been imagined, developed and conditioned by their social, political and historical contexts. The book starts by identifying a tension, within contemporary criminal law, between the importance given to the expression of individual autonomy and responsibility, and the perceived need for prevention as a condition for the security of autonomy and the promotion of welfare. The book then traces this tension back to an intrinsic ambivalence within the modern conception of individual liberty, which is both repressed and preserved by liberal conceptions of responsibility and punishment. It finds that it is this tension that ultimately grounds the rise of preventive criminal offences in recent times. The Preventive Turn in Criminal Law engages with the main contemporary literature on criminal law, prevention, risk, security and criminalisation, by deploying a theoretical perspective from both classical and contemporary works of social and political theory, including the works of Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, and Bentham. It does so in order to reveal that the pervasiveness of prevention in twenty-first century criminal law not only represents the consequence of new and unprecedented features of contemporary politics and society, but also embeds long-established features of the liberal legal and political tradition.

The fallout from the financial crisis of 2007-8, HSBC Suisse in 2015, and the Panama Papers in 2016 has generated calls for far more vigorous and punitive responses to tax evasion and greater international co-operation against mechanisms for giving anonymity to the ownership of property. One mechanism to ensure compliance is the use of the criminal justice system. The announcement in 2013 by the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, of a policy of increasing rates of prosecution for tax evasion raised squarely the issue of whether increased involvement of criminal law and criminal justice in tax evasion would be justifiable or not. The relationship between tax evasion and the proceeds of crime is taking on increasing importance: treating the 'proceeds of criminal tax evasion' as falling within the 'proceeds of crime' regime inevitably expands the scope of both.In this book, Peter Alldridge considers the development of the offences and the relationship between tax evasion offences and other criminal offences; the relevant rules of evidence; prosecution structures, decision-making processes, and alternatives to prosecution. Specific topics include offshore evasion and the relationship of tax evasion with other crimes and aspects of the criminal justice system. A topical and lively discussion of a heated debate.