Judge Malcolm Simmons Explains the Basic Principles of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Venice 2018

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that while removing border controls in the EU has made it easier for EU citizens to travel around freely it has also made it easier for criminals to operate across borders.


Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that the rules on gathering evidence in criminal matters in the EU are based on ‘mutual assistance’ agreements. Specifically (1) the European Conveyance on Common Help with Criminal Issues (20 April 1959) and its extra conventions, in addition to two-sided understandings finished up under Article 26; (2) the Conveyance implementing the Schengen Agreement and its additional protocols and (3) the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (2000) and its protocol.

Since 22 May 2017, acquiring proof in the EU has been administered by the Mandate on the European Analytical Order.The new order depends on shared acknowledgment and replaces the relating measures in the above shows.
It applies between the EU countries bound by the Directive.

After the appropriation of the Mandate, the System Choice on the European Proof Warrant(2008) (which had a progressively restricted degree) was revoked by Guideline 2016/95 of 20 January 2016.

Conveyance on shared help with criminal issues of 2000

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that the Convention is the most commonly used instrument for obtaining evidence.
It covers mutual assistance in areas such as:

•    taking statements from suspects and witnesses
•    the use of videoconferencing
•    using search and seizure to obtain evidence
•    telecommunications.

Its protocol contains rules on obtaining information on bank accounts and banking transactions.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that the requesting authority can contact the issuing authority directly.

Except if the executing authority has grounds to decline a solicitation, the solicitation ought to be executed at the earliest opportunity – and by the cutoff time given by the mentioning authority, if doable.

Judge Malcolm Simmons disclosed that to guarantee that the proof got is acceptable, the specialists of the executing nation must conform to any methods indicated by the experts in the mentioning nation – if they are not in opposition to basic standards of law in the executing nation.

Malcolm Simmons EULEX

Malcolm Simmons EULEX Talks About Fighting Corruption Wherever We Find It

Malcolm Simmons EULEX portrayed how defilement disproportionaty affects poor people and generally helpless, expanding expenses and decreasing access to administrations, including wellbeing, instruction and equity.

Debasement disintegrates trust in government and undermines the implicit understanding. This is cause for worry over the globe, however especially in settings of delicacy and viciousness, as debasement fills and propagates the imbalances and discontent that lead to delicacy, savage radicalism, and struggle.

Malcolm Simmons EULEX portrayed how defilement blocks venture, with resulting impacts on development and employments. Nations equipped for going up against defilement utilize their human and monetary assets all the more productively, draw in greater speculation, and develop all the more quickly.

Malcolm Simmons EULEX clarified that debasement comes in various structures. It may affect administration conveyance, for example, when cops request influences to perform routine administrations. Defilement may unjustifiably decide the champs of government contracts, with grants preferring companions or family members of government authorities. Debasement may influence increasingly principal issues including how foundations work and who controls them.

 

Malcolm Simmons EULEX clarified that effective enemy of debasement endeavors require a comprehensive methodology including legislators and senior government authorities, the private segment, residents, networks, and common society. The techniques utilized to battle debasement must be custom fitted to make the most noteworthy effect.

Judge Malcolm Simmons Talks About Poor and Minimized Individuals, Dishonesty | Corruption

Judge Malcolm Simmons was a well-respected judge with flawless career on the bench. From 2014 to 2017 he worked as an employee of the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office and also as an international criminal judge. He also worked as an International Judge of the EU Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo from 2008 to 2017. He was a well-regarded judge who had an unsullied profession on the seat. He also worked as a President of EULEX Judges from 2014 to 2017. In 2016 Judge Simmons was met by a board of senior judges from The Hague and choose as a judge of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers.



Poor and minimized individuals who can’t manage the cost of attorney administrations, in such cases Judge Malcolm Simmons give the lawful assistance in common and criminal issues to support those individuals. Judge Malcolm Simmons offer the lawful help re-appropriating administrations and cause them to lessen the expense and time spent on non-center procedures. Judge Malcolm Simmons offers proficient and secure lawful help administrations to help lessen costs and improve benefits. Judge Malcolm Simmons is a gathering of master legal counselors and legitimate experts that works hand Check out the various territories in UK inside Legal Services.

Judge Malcolm Simmons clarified that dishonesty comes in various structures. It may affect administration conveyance, for example, when cops request influences for bribe to perform routine administrations. Dishonesty may unreasonably decide the victors of government contracts, with grants preferring companions or family members of government authorities. Dishonesty may influence progressively key issues including how organizations work and who controls them.

If you want to know the information about How a judge Assesses Disputed Evidence, then read Judge Malcolm Simmons Article.

Judge Malcolm Simmons is one of the leading law firm in the UK. We provide presided in war crime and serious organised crime cases.

Judge Malcolm Simmons Explains The Role of the Judge

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that the role of the judge is to decide whether, as between two opposing parties, the party that is advancing a claim has discharged the evidential and legal burden incumbent upon him if he is to win. 

A judge has to decide what happened, to piece together the story and attempt, on the basis of all evidence available produced in court, to reach a sound factual conclusion.

It is crucial to make positive findings of fact.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that the judge will be faced with subjectivity, chance, perjury, a risk of bias, the danger of false impression, the honest witness who might be frightened or irascible; the false witness who appears credible; the honest but mistaken witness; deal with dead or missing witnesses, missing or destroyed documents.

Hearings should be conducted in public and reasoned decisions given.

Under Article 6 of the ECHR all courts are required to give reasons for their rulings and judgments to demonstrate that a fair hearing has been conducted before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that reasoned decisions should be in plain language in order to demonstrate that the judge has used a process of structured decision-making rather than reaching a decision arbitrarily.

Reasoned judgments assist the losing party in understanding the judges decision.  They also assist the appellate court that may hear an appeal.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained how judges assess the credibility and reliability of evidence by asking how probable an account is in light of agreed facts or uncontentious evidence, of contemporary documents and of the evidence of independent witnesses whose impartiality is not in question.

At the outset of the decision-making process the judge must have in mind which facts are agreed and which are significantly in dispute.  The judge must be able to formulate a sufficiently detailed reason for preferring one witness to another. 

So, how do judges set about their fact-finding role? Most judges will first determine what facts are agreed. Agreed facts form the basis from which to establish the truth between conflicting events.  Assertions of fact are not evidence unless admitted or supported by evidence.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that if the judge has read the pleadings and is familiar with the case he will be consciously looking for omissions, conflicts and ambiguities in the documentary evidence.  This will show the judge the margin of dispute and the materiality of the evidence.

Inferences of fact may properly be drawn from findings of fact.  For example, the absence, without proper explanation, of a document usually available to a party to prove a contested matter would create a legitimate adverse inference.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that some judges claim to decide intuitively what should be the outcome of a case and then go on to analyse the law in such a way as to justify that intuitive decision. Other judges will start from the anchor point of agreed facts and proceed to a logical development of the necessary findings.  They do this by establishing a pattern of decision-making in which they decide each conflicting fact and apply the law to it separately and then move on.

Judge Malcolm Simmons has been a judicial trainer for more than 15 years and has lectured around the world.

Judge Malcolm Simmons and Independence of the Judiciary in the Philippines

In 2000, the Supreme Court commenced the implementation of the Action Program for Judicial Reform (‘APJR’), a multi-year plan (2000–2006) that identified, prioritized, and implemented judicial reform.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that the APJR received significant external support for a wide range of projects that focused on improving judicial efficiency, judicial independence, fiscal autonomy and accountability, and access to justice.

After the APJR ended in 2006, the implementation of the reforms began and continued focusing on (i) making case resolution more efficient (the establishment of case management information systems in the Supreme Court and appellate courts and revision of the rules of procedure); (ii) improving court integrity (the conduct of an integrity review of court operations); and (iii) increasing access to justice (establishment of small claims courts and deployment of mobile courts).

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that decision-making in the judiciary has been highly centralized. The inefficiencies and delays inherent in this system of centralized decision-making and resource allocation are often associated with poor infrastructure and inadequate operating systems. Decisions that can be more effectively handled in the regions, such as personnel and procurement of supplies, have to pass through the bureaucracy in the central offices, causing bottlenecks and unwarranted delays in the delivery of services to court personnel in the regions. In response to this problem, the judiciary began decentralizing court administration in 2007 through a pilot Regional Court Administration Office (‘RCAO’) in judicial region 7. Utilizing RCAO as a tool of decentralization, it is expected that court personnel in the regions will be provided with better services, which should in turn result in better administration of justice to court end-users. Currently, the Office of the Court Administrator is committed to incremental decentralization starting with procurement responsibilities.
 
Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that courts in the Philippines have a significant backlog of cases. On average, the annual caseload of lower courts from 2004 to 2009 was approximately 700,000 cases. Given the resources, including the number of judges, courts staff, availability of courtrooms, etc it is estimated that it will take approximately twenty years to clear that backlog while new cases continue to enter the system. A backlog reduction strategy should be considered.

Because of the backlog of cases pre-trial detention often exceeds five years. Approximately 95% of those in detention are awaiting trial.  This situation cannot be allowed to continue. As well as a backlog reduction strategy courts should consider alternative measures to detention for those awaiting trial.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that in order to meet some of these challenges the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), 2011–2016 envisions reforms to: (i) strengthen the oversight bodies; (ii) foster effective and speedy resolution of cases in courts and quasi-judicial bodies; (iii) reduce the cost of litigation; (iv) avoid law suits involving Government contracts; (v) enhance the integrity and competence of justices, judges, court personnel, and all other officers of the judiciary and quasi-judicial bodies; (vi) increase resources for justice sector agencies and quasi-judicial bodies; (vii) improve access to justice of all sectors of society, particularly vulnerable groups; (viii) promote the use of alternative dispute resolution; and (ix) institutionalize existing justice sector coordination mechanisms.

Judge Malcolm Simmons has been a judicial trainer for more than 15 years and has lectured around the world. 

For further details Visit our website: https://edward-montague.com

Judge Malcolm Simmons Explains Anonymity Orders Under the Pakistan Criminal Code, Islamabad June 2018

“Judge Malcolm Simmons is an accomplished speaker”

                                                                            

                                                                                                     High Court Judge

Every defendant has a right to a fair trial. An important aspect of a fair trial is the right of the defendant to be confronted by, and to challenge, those who accuse him or her.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that an Anonymity Order is therefore a draconian step and should only be issued if there are grounds to believe that the court would not otherwise hear evidence that should be available to it in the interests of justice; that other measures falling short of anonymity would not be sufficient; and that the defendant will have a fair trial if the order is made.

Anonymous witness testimony is not necessarily incompatible with the defendants’ right to a fair trial - even when it is the sole or decisive evidence against the defendant. 

Whether the measures used to allow a witness to give evidence anonymously in any particular case would make the trial unfair has to be evaluated with care on the facts of each case.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that the effect of a Witness Anonymity Order is to prevent the defendant from knowing the identity of a witness. Without this information the defendant’s ability to investigate and challenge the accuracy or credibility of the witness’s evidence may be limited.

Judge Malcolm Simmons explained that when considering whether to make a Witness Anonymity Order the court will consider to what extent the defendant needs to know the identity of the witness in order to challenge the witness’s evidence effectively. This question will often be central to the question of whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the Witness Anonymity Order sought would be consistent with a fair trial.

The interests of justice include the interests of the victim or victims, the interests of the witness or witnesses, the interests of the defendant and any co-defendants and the wider public interest.

Judge Malcolm Simmons has been a judicial trainer for over 15 years.  He has lectured around the world.

An extract from a seminar presented by Judge Malcolm Simmons.