Volume 1, Issue Special, October 2012
Feature Article

Professional Relationship between Crime Investigators and Prosecutors in the Human Trafficking Crimes

Yubaraj Sangroula
Ph.D., Criminal Justice and Fair Trial; Professor In-Charge, Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal and Former Attorney General of Nepal
Bio

Published 2012-10-31

Keywords

  • No Keywords.

How to Cite

Sangroula, Y. . (2012). Professional Relationship between Crime Investigators and Prosecutors in the Human Trafficking Crimes. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 1(Special), 12–34. Retrieved from https://kslreview.org/index.php/kslr/article/view/969

Abstract

The paper delves into some major problems encountered by the criminal justice system of Nepal with regard to the crime of trafficking and protection of victims. An attempt has been made to ponder into notional or theoretical basis of problems as well the procedures being applied in investigation, prosecution and trials of the trafficking offences. The major focus of the article lies on the need of coordination between the investigator and the prosecutor. The paper reflects on some notional misconceptions of actors which are significantly contributing to the 'continuity of the failed state of the prosecution in the trafficking cases. It is an undeniable fact that Nepal's criminal justice system is largely a 'relic' of the past. The new principles adopted in the changed context after 1950 are largely reduced to 'non-productive' due to these looming misconceptions of actors. In this light, the paper has made some general efforts to ' relate the ground reality of Nepal prevailing criminal justice system with the demands of a modern criminal justice system's principles. The issues of trafficking crime are seen in these perspectives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Andrews, J.A, ‘Human Rights in Criminal Procedure’ in Andrews, J.A. (ed.)in Human Rights in Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study (London: British Institute of International and Comparative La, Martinus Nijhoff 1987).
  2. Kelling, Georg L., Research Report on Broken Windows and Police Discretion (National Institute of justice 1999), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
  3. Magid, Laurie, ‘Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far is Too Far’ in Villanova Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Seriesno. 2001-1, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/paper
  4. Moore, Prof. Mark A., ‘The Legitimating of Criminal Justice Policiesand Practices’ in Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1996-1997 Lecture Series, vol. 1 (National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice 1997).
  5. Tripathi, Haribansa, ‘The Adjudication Process in Criminal Justice System’, paper presented at National Workshop on Criminal Justice System of Nepal, 10-12 June, 1997.
  6. CeLRRd, Analysis and Reforms of the Criminal Justice System inNepal(Kathmandu: CeLRRd 1999).CeLRRd/HUGOU, Baseline Survey on Criminal Justice System of Nepal(Bhaktapur: enter for Legal Research and Resource Development 2002).
  7. Devlin Report, Devlin Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases (1976).