Prof. Dr. Sam McIntosh

Prof. McIntosh forscht zu Rechtsverfahren und Justizöffnung im Kontext von Todesfällen durch staatliche Gewalt, insbesondere zu Inquests (britische Untersuchungsverfahren) und deren Rolle bei der Gewährleistung von Transparenz und Gerechtigkeit. Seine Arbeiten untersuchen, wie offene Justizprinzipien in Fällen von Polizei- oder Gefängnistodesfällen praktiziert werden und welche Bedeutung diese für die Anerkennung von Opfern und deren Angehörigen haben. Die Forschung verbindet rechtsvergleichende Perspektiven (Großbritannien, Australien) mit Fragen der Verfahrensfairness und des Zugangs zu Informationen. Für öffentliche Institutionen, Justizministerien und Behörden sind diese Erkenntnisse relevant, um Untersuchungsverfahren transparenter und gerechter zu gestalten.

🔒 Das System hat 102 mögliche Industrie-Partner gefunden — Firmen, Scores und Begründungen sind nur für eingeloggte Nutzer:innen sichtbar. Anmelden

• Internationale wissenschaftliche Veranstaltung: Großbritannien im Wandel

  Quelle ↗

  Förderer: DFG sonstige Programme Zeitraum: 05/2019 - 05/2019 Projektleitung: Dr. phil. Marius Martin Guderjan, Prof. Dr. Sam McIntosh

• Taken lives matter: open justice and recognition in inquests into deaths at the hands of the state

  2016

  International Journal of Law in Context · DOI

  Abstract Lord Neuberger describes open justice as a procedural principle requiring that ‘what goes on in court and what a court decides is open to scrutiny’ (Neuberger, 2011). The prime rationale given for this principle is that it is a safety check on procedural fairness. Such a conception of open justice applies on only a superficial level in inquests into use-of-force deaths at the hands of the state. This paper examines the practice of, and rationales behind, opening up use-of-force deaths at the hands of the state to scrutiny through inquests. They suggest a primarily intrinsic rather than instrumental link between openness and inquests’ purposes, which requires a reframing of traditional conceptions of open justice in this context. It is further argued that recognition theory can provide the normative link between openness and justice in these circumstances – a link that is implicit in the term ‘open justice’ but rarely explored in inquests.

• Fulfilling their purpose: inquests, article 2 and next of kin

  2012

  Public law

• Confidential Sources and the Legal Rights of Journalists: Re-thinking Australian Approaches to Law Reform

  2010

  CentAUR (University of Reading)

  This article examines Australian approaches to 'shield laws' for journalists, focusing on the Commonwealth's 2009 reform proposals that look to increase protection. Using a comparative analysis with the United Kingdom, it seeks to introduce a new approach to the Australian shield law debates. First, it argues that the proposed recent changes are unlikely to give journalists or sources any greater in-court protection. The article then addresses the laws relating to criminal investigations where the Australian Parliament has refused to even consider protections for the media. In contrast, UK laws impose significant limits on police powers to obtain media material, including information relating to confidential sources. The article argues that meaningful reform debate must consider the vulnerability of journalists and sources, not only in criminal and civil trials but also in the investigatory stages of the criminal justice process, and that these two contexts must be reconceptualised as component elements of wider protections from coercive state powers.