Suchergebnisse

2011 was bookended by two significant speeches on the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. The first was delivered by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls; the second by Jonathan Sumption QC-in a final speech before being sworn in as a Justice of the UK Supreme Court. Both speeches were steeped in the traditions of the nineteenth century constitutional theorist, Albert Venn Dicey. Parliament was said to be supreme, although the possibility for dialogue between the courts and the legislature was acknowledged. Internationally such forms of 'dialogic review' have frequently been criticised for morphing into a kind of judicial monologue. However, this article will argue that the recent prisoner disenfranchisement debates demonstrate a renewed willingness on the part of the Parliament at Westminster to withstand judicial pressure. Adapted from the source document.

Abstract
The re-adoption of trial by jury in Russia in 1993 was heralded as a significant break with the discredited legal system of a crumbling regime. However, in less than twenty years the jury in Russian criminal trials has been significantly undermined; that process is particularly evident in the field of counterterrorism. This article examines the history of trial by jury in Russia, the constitutional and legislative provisions adopted in the 1990s, and the rolling back of these provisions in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Given the adoption of jury trial in a number of democracies in the early 1990s the underlying causes of the rapid Russian retrenchment are of significance beyond the Rus­sian Federation. The jury was not a legal transplant in Russia and it was hoped that conditions were fertile for the jury to flourish. This has not proven to be the case: Russian jury trial may have a long history but it has shallow roots.