Evaluating Criminal Cases and Legislative Changes in Criminal Justice

This essay analyzes two significant criminal cases that have shaped the landscape of criminal justice legislation and policy in the UK over the past 30 years. The first case, R v R (1991), addressed the controversial marital rape exemption, leading to its removal and redefining the legal understanding of consent within marriage, ultimately impacting the Sexual Offences Act of 1994. The essay examines the legal arguments, the court's decision, and the broader societal implications of this landmark ruling. The second case, A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Belmarsh 9 case), focused on the government's anti-terrorism measures, particularly the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This case challenged the legality of indefinite detention without trial, resulting in the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The essay assesses the impact of this case on human rights, the balance between security and liberty, and the evolution of terrorism laws in the UK. The conclusion highlights the significance of both cases in adapting criminal justice legislation to evolving social norms and security concerns.

Cases which made
changes in Legislatives

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Criminology is a study of the crime from the view of social perspective which includes
examination of the one who commits crime, reason why the crime was committed and its impact
with the ways in which it can be prevented. The criminal justice system is the series of the
government agencies and the institutions (Kirchengast, Iliadis and O'Connell, 2019). It
investigates the crimes which have been committed in the community followed by taking the
suspect to the custody and prosecute it in the court and punish it, if found guilty. The laws are
made in UK which regulates the criminology in the country with the aim to render justice to the
victim and punish the wrongdoer. This article will cover two wrongdoing cases that happened in
most recent 30 years and assess the progressions each case made to the criminal equity
enactment and strategy.
MAIN BODY
Criminal justice system is a process or the system in a community where the crimes are
investigated and the person who is suspected to be the accused is taken to the custody and
prosecuted in the court. Then the wrongdoer, if found guilty is punished. The justice system
consists of the major components which includes courts, police and the corrections which deter
and prevent the crimes in whole nation (O'Neill, 2018).
One such case is R v R (1991) case evaluated a change of the rule in common law which
reflects that-
“the spouse can't be held blameworthy of assault submitted by him on his legitimate wife, as
indicated by wedding assent and agreement, in which it is viewed as that the wife has given
irreversible agree to her better half altogether conditions which she can't deny”
Keeping in mind the changing social, economic and cultural trends such outdated rule was
considered against the fundamental human right and also created a question on consent. Thus,
the law is evolving with the occurring trends, favouring human rights. The former cases with the
general rule encouraged many rape cases, forming new definition of marriage which raised
question mark on the consent of wife. Further this belief that the martial exemption for rape
increased new criminal offences ultimately led to miscarriage of justice (Lynch, 2018).
The R v R case focuses on marital rape in which a husband was alleged of rape causing
actual body harm to his wife and was convicted for rape. For this situation, R wedded his better

half in August, 1984 yet the marriage didn't work out resultant his significant other moved to her
parent's home in October, 1989. She composed a letter communicating her expectation to look
for a separation. As indicated by the case, they were not isolated nor any request was petitioned
for legal separation procedures. Half a month later, R broke into her parent's home when they
were out, and constrained her to have sex without wanting to which caused her genuine body
hurt.
An inquiry was raised on the marriage that whether by marriage a spouse provides for her
better half the agree to have sexual favours all things together conditions. The answer is NO as it
is against the fundamental right of a women. She cannot be forced to have sexual intercourse
without her consent. As 'wife is not a slave to the husband', marriage is considered to be
relationship in which both the partners have equal rights. Marriage definition must be framed
giving equal rights to both husband and wife (Mayne, 2017). In this case, the House of Lords
passed a judgement declaring a husband to be criminally liable for raping his wife and finally
removed the marital rape exemption from the law. Court again reviewed this case, it was
European court which undertakes the case, in which argument was made by the individuals that
the judgement of conviction held by House of Lords caused a breach in Article 7 of European
Court of Human Right amounting the act not wrong to perform. This argument then rejected by
the European Court of Human Right on grounds that the R v R case led to the evolution of law
favouring the justice.
The outcome of this case defined the women right in the context of marriage. The
judgement held was favoured by the Law Commission and later formed as statute law by an
amendment to the Sexual Offences Act in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, 1994. With
the evolution of law, the status of women has changed in respect of time. Hale's formed rule
cannot be dragged in marriage of modern times as wife also plays an equal role in the
relationship which need to be favoured. Further drastic changes in the effects of marriage has
taken place since Hale's ruling, effective legal reasoning in this case caused the removal. The
matrimonial terms need to be rectified with the changing social, economic and cultural trends
(Dojčinović, 2019).
The criminal justice and the response of the society differs according to the case, resulted
into evolution of law. R v R case judgement is a redressal of injustice and offered judicial
remedies to the wives. Marital Rape does not serve any purpose rather causing more new

offences. The judgement created a great emphasis on the rights of women sexually assaulted in
the marriage. The phrase that the intercourse to be unlawful was removed in order to make the
definition of crime which led to rape clear. It ultimately made it clear that marriage is no excuse
for rape. Laws are evolved with the current trends one of the famous trends is #MeToo
campaigns held in support for sexual crime survivors helped to overcome their sexual crime. In
this new era, law and society need to know that a rapist will remain a rapist and will be treated in
accordance with the criminal law irrespective of relationship. Rules in relation to criminal
offence which are retrospective can be changed according to the needs seen in the future. So, in
this case Article 7 is not infringed as the criminal law cannot have retrospective effect. Further
law need not to focus on the retrospective effect rather aims to evolve new areas to provide
justice as the offences differ with the changing era.
Another criminal case which changed the legislation and policy is A and others versus
Secretary of State for the Home Department, which is also known as Belmarsh 9 case. It is
related to the terrorism risk which the citizens of the nation may face. The UK Human Rights
case was heard by The House of Lords. In this case, Parliament decided to replace Part 4 of Anti-
Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001 with the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2005. This case
have brought a significant change and shaped the law relating to terrorism where it ruled that
every person to be subjected to a control order (Theoharis, 2018).
UK home security has the ability to give the control request which limits a person's
freedom for the reason to shield the individuals from the general public from illegal intimidation
hazard. As far as possible the privileges of allure and the shortfall of twofold peril limitation.
The facts of above-mentioned case are that eight men who challenged the
judgement of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to eject them from the nation as
their evidence, threatened the security of nation. Some men were detained in December and rest
were arrested in February and April 2002. They all were arrested under Part 4 of ATCS Act,
2001 which deals with Immigration and Asylum. It has sections between 21 to section 36, which
talks about to certify all the persons who suspected as a terrorist and detained them even the
ejection would be forbidden. Section 21 to 32 deals with terrorist who are suspected where
under section 25, the aggrieved party has the right to appeal to Special Immigration Appeals
Commission when the detention is made against the established procedure of law. Section 33 and
34 deals with Refugee Convention. Section 35 deals with the Special Immigration Appeals

Commission which talks about the commission status and section 36 talks about the fingerprints
destruction (Wexler, 2021).
The House of Lords examine the prohibition of torture and the use of evidence which are
taken by harassing the individuals and for that the appeal was allowed. The court must act
lawfully to gather the information from the persons to decide the case law. It was held that there
decision was lawful under the ATCSA,2001. The court made statement of incompatibility under
section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the appeal is granted.
This case law has bought the enforcement of new law, namely Prevention of Terrorism
Act 2005 and replaced The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and also repealed
section 1 of Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 allows the home Secretary to impose “control order”
on those people who are suspected under terrorism as they are under the head of human rights.
Every citizen is born with a right to get a fair chance of trail. Affront to justice is also know as
control order. Every individual has the right to live there life with dignity. This right can be
enforceable at every place. No one can be deprived of this right. Human rights are the basic
rights and freedoms that can be enjoyed by every individual. This right arises from the day of
birth till the death. This right is available to every individual but there are many terrorist who
violates the right to life of people. For the protection of right to life, the Prevention of Terrorism
Act 2005 came into force which protects the rights of the individual of their nation as well as the
individuals of the other nation from the risk of terrorism (Pauwels and Heylen, 2020). The life of
the individuals are protected by the established law. Terrorism means when any one uses
unlawful violence specially against the people living in the territory. It is the criminal act by
which the individual is depriving the right to life. The main focus of every nation is to safeguard
their civilians from the terrorist attack because this attack harms there nation's economy,
infrastructure, citizens and many other.

CONCLUSION
From the above essay, it is concluded that there are two cases relating to crime which
have changed the legislation and have given new shape to the criminal law. R v R case is
considered one of the favourable judgement as it led to the exemption of marital rape removed
from the English law. This case creates a landmark judgement as it favoured the women rights in
the context of marriage. As Hale's ruling cannot be continued in the modern era as it may cause
more injustice to wives in marriage. Thus, the law need to be evolved in accordance with the
social, economic scenarios. Another case is A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department, the men were detained under the Part 4 of the Act were arrested as the terrorist who
may harm the security of the nation. It harms the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. For
which the new law has evolved Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 to protect the human rights of
an individuals, which included right to live with dignity. No one shall be deprived from this right
otherwise that will be punished under the established procedure of law.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Askew, R. and Bone, M., 2019. Deconstructing prohibitionist ideology: A sociocognitive
approach to understand opinions on UK drug policy and the law. International Journal
of Drug Policy, 74, pp.33-40.
Davies, P.L., 2018. Related party transactions: UK model. European Corporate Governance
Institute (ECGI)-Law Working Paper, (387).
Domeij, D. and Ellingsen, T., 2020. Rational Bubbles in UK Housing Markets: Comment on
“No‐Bubble Condition: Model‐Free Tests in Housing Markets”. Econometrica, 88(4),
pp.1755-1766.
Johnson, M., Rubery, J. and Grimshaw, D., 2019. Public sector employment relations after the
crisis: A comparative case study analysis of UK local authorities. Economic and
Industrial Democracy
Miller, J., Quinton, P., Alexandrou, B. and Packham, D., 2020. Can police training reduce
ethnic/racial disparities in stop and search? Evidence from a multisite UK
trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(4), pp.1259-1287.
Mott, G., 2019. Constructing the Cyberterrorist: Critical Reflections on the UK Case.
Routledge.
O'Brien, C., 2017. Unity in adversity: EU citizenship, social justice and the cautionary tale of
the UK. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Peerless, B., 2018. Cross-border planning for real estate: UK. Trusts & Trustees, 24(1), pp.46-
52.