Sticks, Stones and Words: Emotional Harm and the English Criminal Law

This article discusses the rule that criminal liability does not normally attach for the causing of emotional harm or mental distress in the absence of proof of a 'recognised psychiatric injury'. It considers what is involved in the diagnosis of psychiatric injury, and to what extent the difference between such injury and 'ordinary' mental distress is one of degree rather than one of kind. It reviews the situations in which the law already criminalises the infliction of emotional harm without proof of psychiatric injury, and assesses the policy arguments for drawing the distinction in the normal case. The article concludes that the law can and should adopt a more flexible approach to cases of this sort.

Threats to the Presumption of Innocence in Irish Criminal Law:An Assessment

The existence of four contemporary threats to the presumption of innocence in England and Wales has recently been posited by Ashworth. In his examination of legislation and case law impacting on the presumption, he concludes ‘generally recognised as a fundamental right it may be, but its precise significance for the defendant is so contingent as to raise doubts’. In an Irish context, Hamilton too has written of the ‘growing insignificance of the presumption of innocence for accused persons’ such that ‘[its] tangible benefits [appear] little in evidence’ in our criminal justice system. In light of these rather depressing diagnoses, the aim of this paper is to attempt to take stock of the law in the Republic of Ireland impacting upon the presumption of innocence as well as to search for some possible explanations for recent developments.

The Presumption of Innocence and Irish Criminal Law:Whittling the Golden Thread

The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty has been described as the 'golden thread' running through the web of the English criminal law and a 'fundamental postulate' of Irish criminal law which enjoys constitutional protection. The purpose of this book is to consider whether the reality matches the rhetoris surrounding this central precept of our criminal law and to consider its efficacy in light of recent legislative innovations.

A normative approach to the criminalisation of cartel activity

Although cartel behaviour is almost universally (and rightly) condemned, it is not clear why cartel participants deserve the full wrath of the criminal law and its associated punishment. To fill this void, I develop a normative (or principled) justification for the criminalisation of conduct characteristic of ‘hard core’ cartels. The paper opens with a brief consideration of the rhetoric commonly used to denounce cartel activity, eg that it ‘steals from’ or ‘robs’ consumers. To put the discussion in context, a brief definition of ‘hard core’ cartel behaviour is provided and the harms associated with this activity are identified. These are: welfare losses in the form of appropriation (from consumer to producer) of consumer surplus, the creation of deadweight loss to the economy, the creation of productive inefficiency (hindering innovation of both products and processes), and the creation of so-called X-inefficiency. As not all activities which cause harm ought to be criminalised, a theory as to why certain harms in a liberal society can be criminalised is developed. It is based on JS Mill's harm to others principle (as refined by Feinberg) and on a choice of social institutions using Rawls's ‘veil of ignorance.’ The theory is centred on the value of individual choice in securing one's own well-being, with the market as an indispensable instrument for this. But as applied to the harm associated with cartel conduct, this theory shows that none of the earlier mentioned problems associated with this activity provide sufficient justification for criminalisation. However, as the harm from hard core cartel activity strikes at an important institution which permits an individual's ability to secure their own well-being in a liberal society, criminalisation of hard core cartel behaviour can have its normative justification on this basis.

A controlled trial of early interventions to promote maternal adjustment and development in infants born with severe congenital heart disease

Background: Congenital heart disease can have a negative impact on both infant development and maternal adjustment. This study considered the impact of a new programme of early psychosocial interventions on such outcomes, following the birth of a child with severe congenital heart disease.
Methods: Seventy infants and their mothers were assigned to an intervention or control group based on order of presentation to the unit. Interventions aimed at bolstering mother–infant transactions, through psychoeducation, parent skills training and narrative therapy techniques were implemented.
Results: Clinically and statistically signi?cant gains were observed at 6-month follow-up on the mental (but not the psychomotor) scale of the Bayleys-II. Positive gains were also manifested on feeding practices, maternal anxiety, worry and appraisal of their situation.
Conclusions: A programme of generalizable psychosocial interventions is shown to have a positive impact on the infant with severe congenital heart disease and the mother.