Epstein Secrets

of a Decision Not to Prosecute as Set out in Article 11 of Directive 2012/29/EU and an Assessment of Its Transposition in Germany, Italy, France and Croatia, 12 Utrecht L. Rev. 86, 94 (2016). 71 For England and Wales, see Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, c. 23, § 6, Attps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/

decision not to bring criminal charges after an investigation into a death caused by police shootings); see also R v. DPP [2001] QB 330, at 347 (Lord Bingham, CJ) (Eng. and Wales) ("In the absence of compelling grounds for not giving reasons, we would expect the Director to give reasons in such a case [of

ollowing ratification of the Second Additional Protocol of the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters: AUStha, Belgium. Croatia. France, Germany. Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands. Portu- gal, Spain. and Sweden are designated for the purposes of ss 4 and 4B of CICA 2003 (

y rather than an adjudicatory function.' R v Seartaty ofState fir the Home Department ex p Zardart Unreported. 11 March 1998 (CO16345198) per Lord Bingham CJ. A.7.243 Para 5(1) of Sched 1 provides that a person cannot be compelled to give any evidence which he could not be compelled to give in crimina

wer to recall to prison a convicted murderer who had been released if it was judged necessary to recall him for the protection of the public (Lord Bingham of Comhill at § 8 of the judgment). The House of Lords therefore held firstly, that the appellant's complaints were not of sufficient gravity to en

ds of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94158, ECHR-XI, and Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-HI; A.B. v. Russia, cited above, § 100). 203. When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of th