In this important book, two knowledgeable and perceptive observers offer a damning indictment of British criminal justice. McConville and Marsh repeatedly skewer the pious pronouncements of panglossian judges with down-to-earth views of the assembly line. They describe a world of state-induced guilty pleas in which defendants are subjected to extraordinary pressure to 'freely' and 'voluntarily' bring about their own convictions, and they explain how this world came into being. These authors tell it like it is.' - Albert W. Alschuler,The University of Chicago, US'McConville and Marsh mount a powerful attack on the institutions of criminal justice: they examine a range of practices known as 'plea-bargaining' in the broader context of policing and the work of the CPS, defence solicitors and the Bar. Their detailed and historically-grounded study challenges the role of the courts in developing and refining the procedural framework for the guilty plea discount, and raises questions about the claim of the judiciary to be guardians of the right to a fair trial. A disturbing book for criminal justice.' - Andrew Ashworth, University of Oxford, UK 'This is no ordinary esoteric lawyers textbook. It is a hard hitting, trenchant analysis of a system that has been seriously eroded and undermined over the course of my 46 years of practice in the criminal justice arena. Basic principles and protections have been ditched or watered down to accommodate the exigencies of political and economic dogma. Every citizen who stands by the need for due process, and the rule of law as mainstays of any democratic system, must read this carefully researched and well argued work.' - Michael Mansfield QC 'A timely and sobering account of the realities of criminal justice. McConville and Marsh provide an important and informed critique of the manner in which the 'adversary ideal' and the principles on which the fairness of the criminal justice system is traditionally understood to rest are routinely and systematically undermined in practice.' - Sarah Summers, The University of Zurich, Switzerland This provocative and powerful book provides a critical review of Britain's criminal justice process through its practices, culture and traditions, revealing a landscape in ruins under the dominance of State-induced Guilty Pleas. Against a backdrop of a dysfunctional criminal justice system, the authors bring an avalanche of legal and empirical material to question the legitimacy of the relationship between judges, lawyers, politicians and defendants in modern Britain. Examining existing legal structures and court practices through the lens of what used to be called plea bargaining the authors provide a graphic picture of why case disposals through enforced guilty pleas promote injustice, feed discrimination and skew the judicial function. This is the most comprehensive examination to date of case disposition methods in England, Wales and Scotland., underpinned by a new socio-legal theory on the criminal process. Criminal Judges is sure to provoke debate on the forces which drive the criminal justice process and will therefore be of great interest to all those concerned about the future of criminal justice policies and practices. It will appeal to academics, researchers, policy advisors and practitioners of criminal law. Contents: 1. Criminal Justice: System, Process and Legitimacy 2. Helping the Police with their Inquiries 3. State-Induced Guilty Pleas and Legitimacy 4. Lowering the Bar 5. Institutional Distress: the State 6. Institutional Distress: the Defence 7. Scotland: Coercion and Discourse 8. Conclusion Bibliography Index

Through an examination of the history of the rules that regulate police interrogation (the Judges' Rules) in conjunction with plea bargaining and the Criminal Procedure Rules, this book explores the 'Westminster Model' under which three arms of the State (parliament, the executive, and the judiciary) operate independently of one another. It reveals how policy was framed in secret meetings with the executive which then actively misled parliament in contradiction to its ostensible formal relationship with the legislature. This analysis of Home Office archives shows how the worldwide significance of the Judges' Rules was secured not simply by the standing of the English judiciary and the political power of the empire but more significantly by the false representation that the Rules were the handiwork of judges rather than civil servants and politicians. The book critically examines the claim repeatedly advanced by judges that "judicial independence" is justified by principles arising from the "rule of law" and instead shows that the "rule of law" depends upon basic principles of the common law, including an adversarial process and trial by jury, and that the underpinnings of judicial action in criminal justice today may be ideological rather than based on principles.