In pursuit of parrhesia: an investigation into knowledge selection in inquisitorial planning practice

Drawing upon interviews with procedural actants from Public Inquiry and Examination in Public fora, I draw upon relevant theoretical frameworks to evaluate modes of discourse in inquisitorial planning practice. In the investigation, which is based primarily upon an empirical study, I focus upon the role of evidence, the selection and handling of multiple knowledges, the behaviour of participants, and the methodology underpinning the process. It is established that such arenas can be effective mechanisms for testing complex evidence; and suggestions are made for improved practice, procedure, and future research. I conclude by raising serious ethical questions concerning participant behaviour, particularly on the part of advocates and especially chartered town planners.

The Effect of Human RIghts on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Convergence, Divergence or Realignment?

This article examines the contribution which the European Court of Human Rights has made to the development of common evidentiary processes across the common law and civil law systems of criminal procedure in Europe. It is argued that the continuing use of terms such as 'adversarial' and 'inquisitorial' to describe models of criminal proof and procedure has obscured the genuinely transformative nature of the Court's jurisprudence. It is shown that over a number of years the Court has been steadily developing a new model of proof that is better characterised as 'participatory' than as 'adversarial' or 'inquisitorial'. Instead of leading towards a convergence of existing 'adversarial' and 'inquisitorial' models of proof, this is more likely to lead towards a realignment of existing processes of proof which nonetheless allows plenty of scope for diverse application in different institutional and cultural settings.