The implications of judicial utterances: an examination of the legal basis of murder investigations (1919-1939)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Murder investigation had been a feature of British policing for centuries but by the inter-war period, the legal justification for its operating practices was being called into question. Police responsibility had previously been restricted to the arrest of suspected offenders and placing them before the courts. Now, political, social and legal attention was being paid to the procedural treatment of arrested people and a partial recognition of a new concept of investigation was beginning to emerge. The law governing this area was unclear and attempts by the courts to informally clarify the position was dismissed as mere judicial utterances. The continuing confusion led the police to adopt inconsistent practices but socio-political opinion argued that there were apparent breaches and circumventions of the existing guidance but which attracted little criticism from the courts. There existed a fundamental disagreement between parliament, the Home Office, the police and the courts about the nature of an investigation. No legislation was introduced to clarify the position. This was caused partly by a lack of understanding of the criminal investigation process and a lack of recognition that the police had developed into a more meaningful investigative body. This position of an unstable and ambiguous legal landscape was exacerbated by legislation which mandated that the primary responsibility for the investigation of murder remained with the historic office of coroner. A duality of process existed where suspected offenders appeared both at an inquest and magistrates’ proceedings. This led to an inefficient police investigative process and one where the integrity of evidence was being compromised. The combined position of an unstable investigative framework, and an outdated attitude towards which body had primacy in murder investigations, created a dysfunctional legal environment which did not allow inter-war police to lawfully and effectively perform its role.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".