By Guyora Binder,and Ekow Yankah

The widely applauded conviction of officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd employed the widely criticized felony murder rule. Should we use felony murder as a tool to check discriminatory and violent policing? The authors object that felony murder—although perhaps the only murder charge available for this killing under Minnesota law—understated Chauvin’s culpability and thereby inadequately denounced his crime. They show that further opportunities to prosecute police for felony murder are quite limited. Further, a substantial minority of states impose felony murder liability for any death proximately caused by a felony, even if the actual killer was a police officer, not an “agent” of the felony. In these “proximate cause” jurisdictions, felony murder is far more often used to prosecute the (often Black) targets of police violence, than to prosecute culpable police.

Previous scholarship on prosecution of felons for killings by police criticized such proximate cause rules as departures from the “agency” rules required by precedent. But today’s proximate cause felony murder rules were enacted legislatively during the War on Crime and are thus immune to this traditional argument. The authors instead offer a racial justice critique of proximate cause felony murder rules as discriminatory in effect, and as unjustly shifting blame for reckless policing onto its victims. Noting racially disparate patterns of charging felony murder, and particularly in cases where police have killed, the authors call on legislatures to reimpose “agency” limits on felony murder as a prophylactic against discrimination. Finally, the authors widen this racial justice critique to encompass felony murder as a whole, urging legislatures to abolish felony murder wherever racially disparate patterns of charging can be demonstrated.

17 Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev. 157 (2022).

By The ACLU of Northern California

California was once the nation’s leader in public defense. Long before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state must provide a lawyer to poor people charged with crimes, many counties in California already did so. Yet today, after years of neglect by the state, California is in the midst of a decades-long public defense crisis. A main cause is the reliance on “flat-fee” contracts with for-profit private attorneys and firms, where lawyers are paid a set amount for a limitless number of cases. These agreements lock attorneys and their clients in a financial conflict of interest where the lawyers’ fees are pitted against quality, zealous representation for those accused of crimes. Flat-fee systems have a well-documented history of providing worse representation and fueling mass incarceration and California has been called out, decade after decade, for allowing them to flourish.

This report examines the actual contracts California counties use and finds that they are woefully deficient in providing necessary resources to private contractors in order for them to adequately represent their clients, they uniformly fail to limit the number of cases attorneys can handle at once, and they provide little to not oversight or supervision for the lawyers who defend people when their lives are on the line. We synthesize the decades of research from within the state and around the country that show these systems should be eliminated and recommend that California finally do just that

San Francisco: ACLU of Northern California, 2025. 27p.

By David Spencer

New guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council for judges and magistrates to follow when sentencing offenders are both significant and controversial. The Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline, due to come into effect on the 1st April 2025, sets out the considerations for judges and magistrates when sentencing an offender who has been found or pleaded guilty in the criminal courts. The Imposition of community and custodial sentences guideline instructs courts to request and consider, prior to sentencing, a pre-sentence report before forming an opinion about sentencing. Pre-sentence reports enable the court to have as much information as possible about the offender, including the risk they pose to the public, before passing sentence. Judges and magistrates are instructed that they need not order a pre-sentence report only if they consider it unnecessary. The new guideline requires that from the 1st April 2025 a presentence report will “normally be required” when sentencing offenders from one of a whole host of different and specified groups – while some groups are included, others are excluded. In particular, those within the cohort where a pre-sentence report will “normally be required” include individuals who are from an ethnic, faith or cultural minority group. While there is nothing specifically preventing a court requesting a pre-sentence report for other offenders, those who are white or male will not, unless they can fit themselves into one of the other groupings available, qualify under the criteria that “a pre-sentence report will normally be considered necessary”. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP, has made clear that she does not agree with the new Imposition guideline and, given the Sentencing Council have refused to withdraw it, she is willing to legislate to prevent “two-tier justice”. On the 28th March 2025 the Lord Chancellor said: “I have been clear in my view that these guidelines represent differential treatment, under which someone’s outcomes may be influenced by their race, culture or religion. This is unacceptable, and I formally set out my objections to this in a letter to the Sentencing Council last week. I am extremely disappointed by the Council’s response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary.” The Lord Chancellor is right. There must be no two-tier justice – which the new guideline represents – and the government should legislate without delay to correct the Sentencing Council’s error. In conversation with the authors at Policy Exchange, the Rt Hon Jack Straw – the former Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice who created the Sentencing Council – has expressed his strong support for Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood MP. He said: “I strongly support the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood MP, in the position she is taking relating to the new Imposition Guideline that the Sentencing Council have published. It is clear that the Government will need to take steps to correct the error. Given the crossparty support for this to be resolved, as shown by the position of the Shadow Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, I hope that this can be done quickly.” Pre-sentence reports, typically written by a probation officer, are key to judges and magistrates deciding whether to sentence an offender to prison or to a non-custodial community order – particularly in borderline cases. As a result, deciding which defendants are to be included in the cohorts where a pre-sentence report will “normally be required”, and which don’t, can be key in deciding who goes to prison and who doesn’t. The Sentencing Council, which produced the new guideline, is an independent non-departmental body that is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. The Labour government, under Prime Minister the Rt Hon Gordon Brown, created the Sentencing Council through section 118 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Council commenced operations in April 2010. The framework for the creation of sentencing guidelines evolved during the period of Labour in office between 1997 – 2010. Two bodies associated with the production of guidelines for the sentencing of offenders – the Sentencing Advisory Panel and Sentencing Guidelines Council – were created (and subsequently abolished). We outline the history of this period in chapter 2 of this report. The Sentencing Council is responsible for the preparation of sentencing guidelines for judges and magistrates to follow when sentencing offenders. Section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 specifies that the Sentencing Council must prepare: “(a) sentencing guidelines about the discharge of a court’s duty under section 73 of the Sentencing Code (reduction in sentences for guilty pleas), and (b) sentencing guidelines about the application of any rule of law as to the totality of sentences” and may prepare sentencing guidelines about any other matter. We outline how the Sentencing Council is required to operate, under statute, in chapter 3 of this report. The membership of the Council is made up of both judicial and non-judicial members. Eight members of the Council are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor (“judicial members”) and six members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice (“non-judicial members”). We outline the current membership of the Sentencing Council, how members (continued_

London: Policy Exchange, 2025. 43p.

Angela R. Riley & Sarah Glenn Thompson

The Double Jeopardy Clause guarantees no individual will be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. But, pursuant to the dualsovereignty doctrine, multiple prosecutions for offenses stemming from the same conduct do not violate the Clause if the offenses charged arise under the laws of separate sovereigns, even if the laws are otherwise identical. The doctrine applies to tribal prosecutions, but its impact in Indian country is rarely studied. Such an inquiry is overdue, particularly as the scope of crimes potentially subject to dual tribal and federal prosecutions has broadened in recent years. This Article is the first to undertake a preliminary examination of the dual-sovereignty doctrine in the tribal–federal context and describe the complex interplay between the doctrine and the rest of the criminal law fabric in Indian country. Perhaps most significantly, it includes an original typology highlighting when a defendant may be subject to the doctrine, which sovereigns have the authority to prosecute, pursuant to what source of power each sovereign operates, and when and how the sequence of prosecutions matters, if at all. This leads to the Article’s central thesis: Indian tribes are separate sovereigns with inherent sovereignty, and, under current conditions, the dual-sovereignty doctrine plays a central role in ensuring safety in Indian country. The doctrine’s application in Indian country, however, creates unique complexities that may threaten tribal sovereignty and raise issues of unfairness for defendants. This Article offers numerous reforms—some highly ambitious and others more modest—to address these issues.

122 Colum. L. Rev. 1899 (2022).

By Hayli Millar, Megan Capp, Raelyn O’Hara

Bail law reform has become a highly politicized issue in Canada, reflecting polarizing demands to both lessen and increase restrictions in granting bail. While some scholarly literature assesses and critiques bail and remand law and processes, there is exceptionally limited gender-disaggregated data and research on adult women’s bail and remand experiences.1 When assessing women’s interactions with the criminal justice system (CJS), most scholarly research and government publications speak about women’s unique offence patterns and gendered pathways to criminalization and then jump to assessing women’s imprisonment experiences, largely excluding any consideration of women’s pre-trial and trial experiences. In 2023-2024, we gathered and assessed the available literature on women and bail and women and remand in Canada. We engaged with primary data in the form of government-published statistics, select case law and secondary research, reviewing more than 250 sources including some comparative international research. With this literature review, we present our key findings. The annotated bibliography below captures some of what we know about women’s bail and remand experiences within the Canadian context. Our contribution builds on the work we have previously done through the International Center for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (ICCLR) on the rights of criminal justice-involved parents, especially women and their children. In brief, the 31 annotations focus attention on the urgent need for primary research on how seemingly neutral bail laws and practices uniquely impact women, especially due to intersecting identities such as race, parenthood, and other social factors. Our contribution is crucial and timely. In Canada, the national remand rate for women now surpasses that of men, with women making up over 75% of provincial and territorial custody admissions in 2022/2023. Our literature review and the annotations illustrate the importance of not only addressing the social determinants of women’s criminal justice involvement but also investing in more effective community-based alternatives for women, with a focus on mental health and substance use services. This is of particular importance when one considers the mainly non-violent offences that women commit and that many justiceinvolved women have complex, overlapping, and unmet social, economic, parenting, and physical and mental health needs, which are often compounded by trauma.

Vancouver, BC: International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy , 2025. 59p.

By Roseanna Sommers and Kate Weisburd

Fifth Amendment case law (including Miranda v. Arizona) requires that individuals assert their right to counsel or silence using "explicit," "clear," and "unambiguous" statements - or, as some dissenting judges have lamented, using "legally magic" words. Through a survey of 1,718 members of the U.S. public, we investigate what ordinary people believe it takes to assert the right to counsel and the right to silence. We then compare their perceptions against prevailing legal standards governing invocation.

With respect to the right to counsel, the survey results indicate that members of the public have a uniformly lower threshold for invocation than do courts. Statements that courts have deemed too ambiguous (e.g., "I'll be honest with you, I'm scared to say anything without talking to a lawyer.") are perceived by a large majority of survey respondents as invoking the right to counsel. With respect to the right to silence, the survey results suggest that people overwhelmingly believe that remaining silent for several hours constitutes invocation of the right to silence and expect that their silence cannot be used against them - including in situations where, in fact, it can be. Across an array of fact patterns and demographic subgroups, respondents consistently set the bar for invoking Fifth Amendment rights lower than courts.

The stark disconnect between what the public takes as sufficient to invoke these rights and what courts hold as sufficient suggests that the rights to counsel and silence are largely inaccessible to ordinary people. Notably, standard Miranda warnings do not include instructions regarding how one must speak in order to invoke those rights. We conclude that when courts set the threshold for invocation above where the average citizen believes it to be, they effectively place key procedural rights out of reach.

119 Northwestern University Law Review 637 (2024), 52p.

By Adam M. Gershowitz  

Prosecutors are often seen as the villains of the criminal justice system. And the most villainous thing a prosecutor can do is to commit an intentional Brady violation by withholding favorable and material evidence from the defense. Not surprisingly, there is a wide literature criticizing prosecutors for flagrant misconduct. But not all Brady violations are intentional. Prosecutors sometimes—perhaps often—commit accidental Brady violations by inadvertently failing to recognize favorable evidence. Because many prosecutors are inexperienced, overworked, and under-trained, they do not recognize exculpatory or impeachment evidence when it is in their files. Additionally, prosecutors also fail to disclose evidence that is in the hands of police, sheriffs, crime laboratories, and other government agencies. Because the criminal justice “system” is riddled with communication breakdowns, prosecutors are sometimes unaware of Brady evidence that they were obligated to disclose. The breadth of the Brady doctrine and the dysfunction of the criminal justice system do not make Brady violations acceptable or harmless. To the contrary, Brady errors are serious violations of a defendant’s constitutional rights. To reduce future violations, however, we cannot simply condemn prosecutors for intentional misconduct. Instead, it is important to understand why accidental Brady violations occur. Drawing on nearly two-dozen recent cases, this article builds a typology of situations where accidental Brady violations occur, and it sets forth solutions for reducing accidental violations in the future.   

  12 Tex. A&M L. Rev. 533 (2025)., 59p.

By Anna Skeels

This report is the first part of a two-part series based on research conducted by Dr Alicia Heys, a Senior Lecturer in Modern Slavery at the Wilberforce Institute at the University of Hull and – on behalf of it – a Co-Investigator of the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC) at the University of Oxford, as part of the research strand focused on the effectiveness of legal enforcement measures. The first part focuses on barriers to successful modern slavery prosecutions, whilst the second part focuses on financial investigations as a method of pursuing modern slavery offenders. Both reports, when published, will be available on the PEC website at modernslaverypec.org/resources/prosecutions-modern-slavery-act.  The Modern Slavery Act (MSA) 2015 was introduced to strengthen the UK’s response to human trafficking and modern slavery, providing comprehensive tools to identify offenders, secure convictions, and protect victims.1 However, while the number of victims identified and referred to the National Referral Mechanism2 has continued to increase, prosecution and conviction rates under the Act remain notably low, raising questions about barriers to its implementation. This report examines some of these barriers, drawing on insights from practitioners directly involved in modern slavery cases, as well as academic and grey literature on the subject. The original research informing this report aimed to explore how financial investigations could improve prosecution and conviction rates under the Modern Slavery Act. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted with specialists including seven police officers based in English forces, three lawyers, three financial experts, one international cyber-crime expert, and one NGO representative with lived experience of modern slavery. All interviews were anonymised, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Given the breadth and depth of the data collected, the key findings are presented in a two-part series. The first part, summarised in this report, focuses on identifying and analysing key barriers to successful prosecutions and convictions under the Modern Slavery Act. By integrating practitioner perspectives with academic and grey literature, this report aims to inform efforts to strengthen the enforcement of modern slavery legislation in the UK.3 The second part will build on the same interview data, but with a specific focus on financial investigations as a method of pursuing modern slavery offenders.4 

Oxford, UK: Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC) at the University of Oxford , 2025. 41p.

By Corwin,Edward S

L^he history of American liberty is far more complicated than most people would at first blush have imagined. Indeed, until Professor Corwin, out of a lifetime of study devoted to American public law, distilled into a volume of modest compass the essential ingredients of American liberty, there was, to my knowledge, no one book to which the citizen might turn to learn its fascinating story. The story starts, as do so many of the great things of life, with the Greeks and the Romans. The wisdom of the political philosophers, ancient and modem, in their search for the foundations of human liberty is presented in its relation to the crucial events of English and American political experience, particularly such great documents as Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the federal Constitution and our State constitutions.

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1948, 222p.

Barnbay C. Keeney

This monograph originated as a dissertation prepared under the patient and understanding direction of Professor Charles H. McIlwain at Harvard University. Although I had (and still have) the temerity to challenge his views on judgment by peers and institutions connected with it, the influence of his teaching and scholarship are apparent throughout.

For the fellowships that made my studies possible, I am deeply grateful to the Department of History at Harvard University, and to the donors of the funds for those fellowships. Unfortunately, the Sheldon Traveling Fellowship that was to have enabled me to search for unpublished documents was of little use for this purpose because of the outbreak of the European war in 1939, and I have had to depend almost entirely on published material. After the war, a John Simon Guggenheim Post-Service Fellowship enabled me to complete and revise this work in 1945-46.

Had the great work of Marc Bloch (La Societe jeodale, 2 vols., Paris, 1939-1940), as well as the studies of Sanchez-Albornoz (En torno a los origenes del jeudalismo, Mendoza, 1942) been available when I was preparing the first section, I should have been spared much labor.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, HARVARD HISTORICAL MONOGRAPHS, 1952, 198p.

By MAHESH K. NALLA, DAE H. CHANG, LISA SUTTER, and WAYNE W. DUNNING

In 2001, the Universidade Catolica Portuguesa3 published a report regard- ing victimization in the city of Lisbon. The survey was requested by the mayoral office as a means to examine crime rates in the city. Previous research had depended entirely on official police reports4, and it was felt that these failed to adequately measure victimization in the city. In a study of 3,505 residents, the victimization rate was relatively low; approximately 17% of the respondents had been victimized during 2001. Comparatively, the fear of crime was higher. Respondents were asked about how safe they felt in Lisbon and in their neighborhoods. More than 60% of respondents reported feeling unsafe to very unsafe in the city, and over one third of the respondents report- ed feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods. With such a low rate of victimiza- tion, what contributed to these feelings regarding respondents' safety? In their multi-level theory of victimization, Wilcox et al. (2003) posit that contextual factors, and more specifically measures of social disorganization in addition to victimization, influence an individual's fear of crime.

However, given the low victimization rate in Lisbon, where there is little racial heterogeneity° , it is arguable that conditions of social disorganization as stipulated by Shaw and MacKay (1942), Sampson and Groves (1989), and more recently Sampson et al. (1997) exist in Lisbon. Therefore, a different perspective needs to be adopt- ed to explain the observed relationship between victimization and fear of crime.

Official Journal for the American Society of Criminology, Division of International Criminology, Volume 30, Number 1, Spring 2006, 143p.

By HM Prison and Probation Service and Ministry of Justice (UK)

Why should the Criminal Justice System be concerned with the mental health of those passing through the system? We know that rates of mental ill-health are high among those who pass through the CJS. Around a third of people11 who find themselves in police custody have some form of mental health difficulty, as do 48 per cent of men and 70 percent of women in prison. Some 38 per cent: of people on probation supervision are recorded as having a mental health issue. But why does this matter? First, because people with a mental illness need and deserve treatment. Entry into the CJS can provide a second chance for people who have been missed by other services to access that treatment and an incentive for them to take up that offer. Second, because mental illness and the symptoms associated with it can trigger criminal behaviour and therefore bring a person into contact with the CJS. Decisions then need to be made on whether a criminal charge is in the public interest or whether an alternative disposal (such as diversion into mental health treatment) would be more appropriate. Third, mental illness, particularly the more severe forms, can affect an individual’s ability to understand and participate in the criminal justice process. They may need additional support to understand the questions put to them during an investigation or at trial or they may lack the mental capacity to plead or stand trial. Fourth, the criminal justice process itself, for example the experience of custody, can have a severe and negative impact on someone’s mental health, particularly if they are already suffering a mental illness. In these circumstances, there is a duty of care to try to mitigate these wherever possible. This includes a duty to reduce the risks of suicide and self-harm, which we know to be high in criminal justice populations. For all these reasons, it is essential that those with a mental health condition or disorder are identified as early as possible in their journey through the CJS, particularly where that problem is severe. Once the mental health issue is identified, information relevant to that issue must be shared between agencies so that appropriate support and treatment can be offered, and the right decisions made at each step of the journey from arrest to sentence and post-sentence supervision in custody or in the community. This inspection, the first on this topic to involve all of the criminal justice inspectorates, and to consider post-sentence supervision, as well as the period leading up to trial, focuses on these critical issues: • Are people with a mental illness identified when they first come into the CJS? • Is this information passed on through the rest of the system from the police and defence lawyers to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the courts or from the courts to the probation and prison services so that the right decisions can be made about next steps? • Are people with a mental illness entering the CJS being properly assessed and then referred for help or treatment where this is identified as necessary? • What is the quality of support they are getting? Is it timely and adequately resourced or are people having to wait many months to get it? • Are the most seriously mentally ill people being looked after in appropriate settings and places of safety, or is custody still having to be used?

Manchester, UK: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation November 2021 117p.

By Matthew DeMichele,  Ian Silver,  Ryan Labrecque

This study provides a rigorous assessment of the public safety outcomes of pretrial detention by estimating the criminogenic and punitive effects of spending at least one week in pretrial detention across three jail systems in two states. Jails are a unique criminal justice contact point because they hold individuals at different stages of case processing, including individuals awaiting trial, and those serving shorter sentences or waiting to be transferred to prison. Pretrial incarceration is arguably one of the most consequential decisions in case processing for an individual. A small body of research has emerged to show that pretrial detention is both criminogenic (i.e., leads to higher arrest rates) and punitive (i.e., leads to higher conviction rates). In this paper, we use a doubly robust difference-in-differences design to assess the relationship between pretrial detention with court appearances, new arrests prior to adjudication, and convictions for the instant offense. The findings of this research study provide strong evidence that pretrial detention leads to increased likelihood that individuals will miss court and be arrested for new crimes

Unpublished paper, 2023, 57p.

By Washington Office of Latin America. United States of America

Venezuela is the only country in Latin America with an open investigation before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The case has been the object of disinformation on behalf of Venezuelan authorities and the language surrounding the ICC can at times be confusing for those who are unfamiliar with international law. The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) believes that it is important to bring this process closer to the international community, to decision-makers in Washington D.C., to Venezuelans, and to those who follow what is happening in Venezuela. That is why, through a series of questions and answers written in plain English, we are bringing you an easy-to-understand publication on the ICC investigation on Venezuela.

The following sections describe what the International Criminal Court (ICC) is and answers each of the following questions:

1. What is the International Criminal Court?

   Why did the ICC initiate an investigation on Venezuela and what is the current status of the process?

   What decision did the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court adopt on May 4, 2023?

   The Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement about the decision of the Pre-Trial Chamber of May 4, 2023. Why is that statement false?

   Why did the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber authorize the Prosecutor to resume his investigation on Venezuela?

   What is actually happening then?

   What does the recent visit of ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan to Venezuela and the ICC’s decision to open an office there mean?

   What are the victims and human rights organizations working on these cases doing?

Washington Office of Latin America. United States of America 2023. 15p.

By Saba Kassa

Politics matters for the success of anti-corruption and asset recovery efforts. This report discusses the political and governance factors that affect the performance of the justice system in relation to anti-corruption and asset recovery. It also provides guidance on assessing these factors systematically with the goal of developing adaptive strategies to strengthen the justice chain in line with changing contexts. The Assessment and Monitoring Framework presented here is a state-of-the-art methodology to think and work politically to strengthen rule of law systems. It draws on the experience and insights of ICAR staff working with anti-corruption institutions across the globe. It responds to a gap in the existing toolbox of anti-corruption practitioners, given that existing political economy methodologies have not sufficiently focused on the contextual factors that impinge on the performance effectiveness of the different anti-corruption institutions constituting the justice chain.

Working Paper 52,

Basel, SWIT: Basel Institute on Governance, 2024. 24p.

By Scarlet Wannenwetsch

Since its first use by the World Bank in 2008, the concept of “anti-corruption Collective Action” has evolved into a well-established best practice to prevent corruption and strengthen business integrity. This paper captures the specific characteristics of anti-corruption Collective Action that have emerged over time and translates them into an easy-to-grasp typology that reflects both the variety and unifying principles that make up the Collective Action ecosystem. It aims to: • spark new impetus for engagement; • open the concept to new stakeholders, topics and environments; and • support existing initiatives in developing their long-term visions and aims. In addition to supporting practitioners, updating the typology will also help strengthen the case for Collective Action as a normative corruption prevention practice 

  This Working Paper presents an updated typology for anti-corruption Collective Action, a concept first defined by the World Bank in 2008. The new typology aims to reflect the realities and evolution of Collective Action, which is now becoming a well-established best practice for preventing corruption and strengthening business integrity. The paper seeks to enhance understanding, encourage broader stakeholder engagement and support the long-term visions of existing initiatives. The typology builds on the key characteristics of Collective Action that have developed into common denominators over time: • Private-sector engagement: Collective Action is primarily driven by businesses, often in collaboration with governments and civil society. • Focus on addressing corruption: Initiatives target corruption and corruption-related risks. • Commitment to raising integrity standards: Collective Action aims to level the playing field through sustained engagement and concrete actions. Using these common characteristics, the paper identifies three distinct categories of Collective Action initiatives: 1. Engagement-focused initiatives: Centered on trust building, knowledge sharing and collaborative efforts to strengthen business integrity. 2. Standard-setting initiatives: Developing industry- or country-specific anti-corruption frameworks, codes of conduct and best practices. 3. Assurance-focused initiatives: Incorporating external verification, compliance certification and monitoring mechanisms to ensure accountability. These categories operate within a Collective Action ecosystem, where initiatives are interconnected and capable of evolving and transitioning between categories. The paper highlights the importance of trust, commitment and private-sector leadership. It also identifies challenges, such as avoiding free riding and ensuring credibility. The paper finds that Collective Action has evolved into a dynamic and adaptable approach that must remain flexible and responsive to context. Rather than prescribing rigid methodologies, a broader focus on the Collective Action ecosystem is necessary to help stakeholders effectively engage. Currently, Collective Action faces a critical juncture: the growing number of high-level commitments is contrasted with challenges in translating them into practical collaboration between the public and private sectors. A key concern is preventing Collective Action from becoming a mere tick-box exercise rather than a meaningful mechanism to drive business integrity To safeguard its impact, a robust ecosystem anchored by an active community of practice must guide how governments, regional organisations and international bodies integrate Collective Action into their anti-corruption frameworks. To successfully “mainstream” Collective Action, the community must adopt a shared language and further provide clarity of concept. The typology presented in this paper serves as a building block. There is still a long way to go, requiring concerted efforts from the Collective Action community to come together to define and drive what meaningful progress looks like.   

Working Paper 56, 

Basel, SWIT: Basel Institute on Governance. 2025. 39p.

By Jonathan Fisher

. At its most simple, the disclosure of unused material is the process whereby information gathered during an investigation is passed from the prosecution to the defence. The information disclosed should assist the defence in arguing the most compelling version of their case. The obligation placed upon the prosecution to disclose certain pertinent material acts as an essential safeguard. We have learnt through bitter experience that disclosure errors, whether deliberate or through negligence, can lead to cases collapsing or worse, a miscarriage of justice. Such events are lamentable and erode the public’s trust in the criminal justice system.. When in the autumn of 1981 I started practice at the Bar, my Opinions, Advices and Pleadings were written in manuscript or dictated into a hand-held tape-recording machine. They were then typed by a professional typist, using an Imperial typewriter with carbon paper to produce a copy. Similarly, most business records were kept on paper and retained manually in files. Rules regarding disclosure of unused material generated in a criminal investigation were governed by the innate fairness of the common law which required a prosecutor to pass information to a defendant where the material assisted the defence case.. Fifteen years later, it was recognised that a more sophisticated approach to disclosure was required. This followed a series of cases in which failure to disclose information to a defendant was responsible for some grievous miscarriages of justice. At the same time, reliance on documentary evidence and expert witness testimony increased. When the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA)1 was enacted, the new statutory based rules of disclosure were regarded as state of the art, providing a sound foundation for criminal trials to proceed on a sure footing in the new millennium. Since then, the technological revolution has brought radical changes in work practices, and the position now looks rather different. Nearly 30 years have passed since the CPIA was enacted. At that time, internet connections were typically made via dial-up modems, with downloading speeds sufficient for basic web browsing and email, but little more. As technology improved and information could be stored electronically, the volume of unused material generated in a criminal investigation grew exponentially. This development occurred against a background in which the CPIA did not directly address the way in which digital information should be reviewed by a prosecutor and made available to a defendant when the test for disclosure of unused material was satisfied. Concern regarding the operation of this process is the reason why previous Reviews were established. Yet the world has not stood still since the last Independent Review on this subject over a decade ago. Indeed, society in the United Kingdom continues to embrace technological advancements, including artificial intelligence, in many aspects of our lives. Furthermore, the very nature of criminal offending, as it has done throughout history, continues to evolve, taking advantage of new online enablers. The rise in digital material across the whole gamut of criminal cases, and its implications for the disclosure regime, is the very reason why I was tasked to consider, once again, whether the regime is fit for the modern age. Today, the largest investigation case on the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) system has 48 million documents (6.5 terabytes of data). With this volume of digital material, it is inconceivable that the totality of unused material generated in the investigation can be accurately reviewed and scheduled by investigating officers manually, in the traditional way. It is also a gross waste of resource for investigating officers to spend time on banal and unproductive activity. Electronic material has become commonplace in even the smallest of cases. Body camera material features (or should feature) in every case where a motorist is stopped by the police, and it is estimated that on average there are 7.4 digital devices in every home. Each of these devices can retain thousands of pieces of information which might be relevant to a prosecutor or defendant in a criminal case.

London: Home Office, 2025. 224p.

By Oscar Solórzano

This Working Paper explores the wide variety of non-conviction based (NCB) forfeiture laws in Latin America, with a special focus on the region’s predominant model, Extinción de dominio.

It argues that NCB forfeiture legislation, which allows for the recovery of stolen assets outside of criminal proceedings, can contribute significantly to a state’s criminal policy response to rampant economic and organised crime.

The paper emphasises the importance of critically reviewing and harmonising domestic practices of NCB forfeiture around emerging standards, so that they can reach their large potential in asset recovery. Ensuring their alignment with international human rights and other recognised norms and procedural rules ultimately builds trust, lends legitimacy and fosters judicial cooperation in international NCB forfeiture cases.

Working paper 54.

Basel, SWIT: Basel Institute on Governance, 2024. 61p.

By The Maryland Equitable Justice Collaborative

  This report outlines 18 recommendations to address the urgent need for criminal justice reform and reduce racial disparities in Maryland’s prisons and jails. Developed through over a year of research, analysis, and collaboration with experts, service providers, and impacted community members, these recommendations provide clear steps for change. The report summarizes key research, data, and proposed actions to help reduce the overrepresentation of Black people in its criminal legal system.

Maryland’s criminal legal system has decreased in size by almost every measure.  Arrest rate, jail population, prison population, and the number of people on parole and probation2 are all on the decline3 and below the national average. However, these gains obscure a troubling reality: racial disparities within the system remain stark and, in some instances, have worsened.5 Maryland's Black population, which constitutes only 30% of the State's residents, represents a disproportionate segment of those entangled in the criminal legal system. Alarmingly, Black people account for 51% of arrests,6 59% of the jail population,7 71% of the prison population,8 71% of the parole population,9 and 53% of the probation population.10 This persistent racial injustice highlights the urgent need for reform within the system to address these inequities. About MEJC -  MEJC is a joint initiative led by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and the Maryland Office of the Public Defender (MOPD) to address the racial disparities in the incarceration of Black people in Maryland prisons and jails. MEJC’s existence is a recognition that Maryland’s decarceration efforts have not reduced the glaring racial disparities in our criminal legal system and that we must abandon the outdated notion that they will. MEJC’s recommendations also acknowledge that the current criminal legal system produces inequitable results for Black people and, without radical change, will continue to do so at alarming rates. Therefore, MEJC has taken a clear-eyed look at current policies, informed by historical and systemic injustices, which directly contribute to the disproportionate outcomes and harm to Black people in Maryland’s criminal legal system. The data and statistical findings in this first annual report reveal much more than numbers; they represent real lives impacted by a system that too often fails our children; disproportionately punishes Black people and other communities of color; and neglects basic human dignity in our prisons and jails. In this report, MEJC, in partnership with policy experts, educators, and community voices, presents clear, urgent recommendations that could reverse these inequities. This is a pivotal moment for Maryland’s criminal legal system. MEJC presents the opportunity to confront these unfair outcomes head-on and build a system that reflects Maryland’s highest values of fairness, community, and opportunity. RECOMMENDATIONS In recognition of the all-encompassing nature of racial disparities in our criminal legal system, MEJC’s recommendations address comprehensive aspects of an impacted person’s experience, from how and why a person first encounters law enforcement to how the system supports or does not support a person’s journey back from incarceration. All recommendations are rooted in data and evidence that clearly demonstrate (1) the inefficiencies or inadequacies of our current policies, (2) the disparate outcomes for Black people because of the status quo, and (3) the efficacy of the recommended solutions.    

Baltimore: Office of the Maryland Attorney General, 2025. 111p.

By Lindsay Bing, Rebecca Goldstein , Helen Ho , Devah Pager, and Bruce Western

  US courts regularly assess fines, fees, and costs against criminal defendants. Courtrelated debt can cause continuing court involvement and incarceration, not because of new crimes, but because of unpaid financial obligations. We conducted an experiment with 606 people found guilty of misdemeanors in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Study participants were randomly selected to receive relief from all current and prior fines and fees assessed for criminal charges in the county. Fee relief reduced jail bookings 21 mo after randomization and the effect persisted over 44 mo of follow-up. Although fee relief reduced incarceration, financial sanctions had no effect on indicators of lawbreaking. Instead, the control group (who obtained no relief from fines and fees) were rearrested at significantly higher rates because of open arrest warrants for nonpayment. These results indicate the long-term and criminalizing effects of legal debt, supporting claims that financial sanctions disproportionately harm low-income defendants while contributing little to public safety

PNAS 2024 Vol. 121 No. 51 e2415066121