̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - legal system

Criminals, miscreants and misdemeanours

sjr81 — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:57:42 +0000

Two centuries of Isle of Ely court records illuminate the darkest corners of the region's past.

Law in Focus: 'Parliament’s Role in Voting on the Syrian Conflict'

fpjl2 — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:52:17 +0000

Following the statement of Prime Minister David Cameron to the House of Commons entitled: "Prime Minister’s Response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the Extension of Offensive British Military Operations to Syria", Dr Veronika Fikfak and Dr Hayley J Hooper discuss the questionable international legality of military action, the strategic use of parliament and its potential impact upon the emerging Consultation Convention, and the responsibility of MPs to hold government to account across a broad range of relevant domestic issues.

They analyse the impact of the way government shares intelligence information with the House of Commons, especially in light of the 2003 Iraq conflict, highlighting several relevant but under-discussed rules. Finally, they discuss the role of party political discipline on armed conflict votes.

Dr Fikfak researches in the fields of public law, human rights and international law. She is particularly interested in the interface between domestic and international law and is currently writing a monograph on the role of national judges in relation to international law. Dr Hooper is currently a Fellow at Homerton College, and her doctoral research at Balliol College, ̽��ֱ�� of Oxford concerned the use of "closed" or "secret" evidence in the context of judicial review of counterterrorism powers, and its extension to civil procedure more broadly.

Drs Fikfak and Hooper are currently co-authoring a monograph on parliament's involvement in war powers entitled Parliament's Secret War (forthcoming with Hart Bloomsbury, 2016).

Law in Focus is a series of short videos featuring academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. Law in Focus is available on YouTube, or to subscribe to in iTunes U.

Other collections of video and audio recordings from the Faculty of Law are available at Lectures at Law.

This video discusses six issues arising out of the recent statement of Prime Minister David Cameron to the House of Commons on the extension of offensive British military operations in Syria.

Parliament’s Role in Voting on the Syrian Conflict

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Nicklinson - ̽��ֱ��Right to Die?

lw355 — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:55:46 +0000

Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news.

“…An individual’s right to decide by what means and at what point his or her life will end, provided he or she is capable of freely reaching a decision on this question and acting in consequence, is one of the aspects of the right to respect for private life within the meaning of article 8 of the Convention [right to private and family life].” So said the European Court of Human Rights in Haas v Switzerland (2013) 56 EHRR 6, at para 51.

However section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 makes it a criminal offence to encourage or assist the suicide of another person. Should it be an offence for anyone in any circumstances to help someone commit suicide? Nine judges in the Supreme Court considered a series of questions, which included the constitutional and somewhat technical question of whether it was for the judiciary to strike down section 2, or whether they should leave the question to Parliament. By a majority of seven to two, they voted not to issue a declaration that section 2 is incompatible with article 8.

Nicola Padfield explores some aspects of the important decision of the Supreme Court in Nicklinson (R (Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice; R (AM) v ̽��ֱ��DPP [2014] UKSC 38) focusing on the minority judgement of Baroness Hale.

̽��ֱ��law currently draws a horribly artificial divide between ‘killing’ and ‘letting die’, which means that those people who can breathe without artificial help are denied a choice which is available to those who cannot breath alone.

Nicola Padfield

Nicklinson - ̽��ֱ��Right to Die?

Cambridge ̽��ֱ��

Nicola Padfield

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Yes

̽��ֱ��Effect of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on legal aid for family cases

ns480 — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:29:54 +0000

̽��ֱ��legal aid system was created in 1949 as part of the development of the post-war Welfare State, alongside the National Health Service. It provides funding both for legal advice and out-of-court representation by lawyers, for example in negotiating the settlement of disputes, and - should it come to this - legal representation in court. However, this is set to change in April 2013, when the controversial Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is due to come into force. ̽��ֱ��Act raises profound concerns about access to justice, largely removing legal aid from many of the areas of law where it has previously been available.

Ms Miles is Fellow and Director of Studies at Trinity College, Cambridge, and a Senior Lecturer in Law, specialising in Family Law. She is also Academic door tenant at 1 Hare Court, Assistant editor of the Child and Family Law Quarterly. and an Elected member of the Executive Council of the International Society of Family Law. In 2005 Ms Miles was seconded for two years to the Law Commission for England and Wales to work on the financial consequences of relationship breakdown.

Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

Ms Jo Miles discusses the potential effects of the new Act on access to justice, especially in relation to difficult family law cases.

̽��ֱ��Act raises profound concerns about access to justice, largely removing legal aid from many of the areas of law where it has previously been available.

Jo Miles

Legal Aid Reform

Cambridge ̽��ֱ��

Jo Miles

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Children’s evidence cross-examined

bjb42 — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:29:09 +0000

̽��ֱ��complex question of how children should give evidence to court – particularly when it could be critical to convicting someone of child abuse – will be the subject of a ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge conference next month.

̽��ֱ��one-day conference, hosted by the ̽��ֱ��'s Law Faculty, will bring together experts from various legal systems around the world, including some where mechanisms are already in place to prevent young children from having to go through the distressing experience of giving their evidence to full court during a trial.

At the moment, English law demands that even tiny children come to court for a live cross-examination if there is to be any chance of convicting a person who has abused them.

Perhaps the highest profile case in recent times was that of Stephen Barker - one of three individuals convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child in the case of Baby P. In 2009, Barker was jailed for life in a separate case, for raping a two-year-old girl. His conviction hinged, however, on the appearance of the child at the trial, aged just four, to describe how she had been abused. ̽��ֱ��girl in question became the youngest witness to give evidence in a criminal trial in this country.

Critics argue that demanding a child's evidence in this way has a number of disadvantages. ̽��ֱ��child is forced to relive a terrible, distressing incident in very stressful circumstances, and after lengthy delays that may have altered his or her memory. ̽��ֱ��defence may get little from the child and struggle to conduct a meaningful cross-examination. And, given the fact that the child may not remember what happened and struggle to communicate, even well-founded cases of this nature often have to be abandoned.

In 1989 an official committee - the Pigot Committee - proposed a mechanism designed to avoid these difficulties. Under its proposal, the whole of a young child's evidence, including the cross-examination, would take place out of court in advance. While this system, or something like it, has been implemented elsewhere, in England and Wales it was never accepted.

In fact, children's evidence being used in full court may soon become more, rather than less common. In March 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that an existing presumption that children should not be called to give evidence in family proceedings was no longer appropriate, because it could not be reconciled with the rights of everyone concerned according to articles in the European Convention on Human Rights.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge conference will bring together speakers from various parts of the world where the Pigot recommendation, or similar, is in operation. It will include experts on the legal systems of New Zealand, Western Australia, Austria and Norway, as well as that of England and Wales.

̽��ֱ��aim is to establish exactly how far a measure such as that recommended by the Committee 12 years ago really would resolve the problem of cross-examining young children, were it to be introduced in England and Wales.

̽��ֱ��conference has been organised by J R Spencer, a Professor in the Cambridge Law Faculty who has written extensively on the subject of children's evidence, and by Professor Michael Lamb from the ̽��ֱ��'s Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, who has worked extensively on issues related to the questioning of children in legal contexts.

It will be held from 10am to 5pm on 14 April in the Law Faculty, 10, West Road, Cambridge. ̽��ֱ��event is open by registration only, and requests for registration should be sent to Ms felicity Eves, School of Law, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, or by Emailing: fre20@cam.ac.uk

Should young children be exposed to the traumatic experience of giving evidence in open court, or does the justice system need to change its approach?

At the moment, English law demands that even tiny children come to court for a live cross-examination if there is to be any chance of convicting a person who has abused them.

Dan4th from Flickr

Justice sends mixed messages

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

Finding fault

tdk25 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Examining how western legal systems have developed, and understanding the factors that have shaped the dynamics of legal change, has been at the heart of a three-year study that reached its conclusion in December 2007. ̽��ֱ��European Legal Development project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), was led by Professors John Bell and David Ibbetson at the Faculty of Law. It brought together some 70 academics, including eminent scholars and early career researchers, from 10 different jurisdictions across Europe.

Although concerned with legal development and involving the research input of many lawyers, the project also benefited from the insights of historians, philosophers and scholars in other disciplines. It stands as a model for how national scholars can be supported and developed in an international context in the humanities and social sciences. Regular meetings and website interactions have built a network of researchers that will continue long after the project itself.

Illustrations of legal development

Of course, the topic ‘How do western legal systems develop?’ is very broad. Does the law change principally in step with the state of the economy and of society at large, or does it respond to its own internal dynamics of change? Even where there are strong similarities between the social and economic factors that fuel changes in the law, how do legal systems in different European countries respond? To make these areas of enquiry more manageable, they were tackled through the lens of a particular branch of law that illustrates legal change over a specific period of European history: the liability for harm caused to others by fault in the years 1850–2000.

In England, the core principles for deciding when one individual has to compensate another for the harm they have caused date back to the 14th century; in continental Europe, they date back to the 3rd century BC. This research has sought to chart how these old principles have needed to change and to seek explanations for what happened.

̽��ֱ��law relating to fault began to alter around 1850. Enormous technological and economic changes took place as industrialisation and urbanisation occurred in different countries, influencing many aspects of society, including the law. With the rapid rise in the use of steam boilers to power factories, boats and trains, accidents became more frequent. Machinery was both more complex and less predictable than before, causing injuries to employees and passengers. Although in 1850 there were many similarities in approaches to liability for fault across the legal systems of western Europe, significant divergence began to occur in the years that followed.

Constructing the case

To understand the forces behind legal change, we have to look beyond the experience of one country and investigate many. To this end, six case studies were investigated by academics from jurisdictions across Europe: England, Scotland, ̽��ֱ��Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Sweden, France, Italy and Spain.

̽��ֱ��six case studies, each convened by a different project member, focused on the problems that the law has faced in the 150-year period under study: liability in relation to technological change; liability between neighbours; liability for traffic accidents on rail and road; liability for products; liability for medical negligence; and legal doctrine, or the writings of legal academics trying to set out the principles of this developing law.

Factors for change

In a second stage, the project examined the factors that actually shaped legal development in the fields studied. Certain legal institutions, such as law reform bodies, have been important in fostering change in the law. But these bodies have depended on key individuals who have promoted change, typically by persistence over many years. Governments often promote legislation in response to recent prominent crises or disasters, and at such moments proposals that are already formulated are often seized upon.

To what extent does the law reflect developments in social and political ideas? Sometimes there is a clear connection. For example, the French social theorist Émile Durkheim influenced key French legal writers of the late 19th century to argue that the law should provide compensation out of social solidarity with those who were injured, rather than focusing simply on whether a responsible individual was at fault. But, in other areas, it is the opinions of specialist technical experts that shape the law. For example, the law governing asbestos was strongly influenced by relatively small numbers of people in inspectorates, rather than by a broad movement of opinion or ideas.

Changes in the economy clearly have an impact on law – new problems arise that the law has to solve. But it is less clear whether the pattern of solutions directly responds to economic interests. For example, the easy availability of insurance is frequently invoked in arguments for legislation or in court. But it does not dictate a solution. Although Germany and France introduced insurance-based compensation for road accidents, England did not, even though the economic conditions and the availability of insurance were similar. And so, similar economies do not necessarily adopt similar legal solutions.

This study has illustrated that private law can operate with a kind of relative autonomy from contemporary social and political ideas or economic interests. History and legal ideas can be powerful determinants of how far private law contributes to the solution of contemporary problems.

A multicentre project led by the Faculty of Law has reached its conclusion, having studied over a century's worth of European legal changes relating to liability.

It stands as a model for how national scholars can be supported and developed in an international context in the humanities and social sciences.

Keith Heppell

Members of the European Legal Development Project

Coming to a Conclusion

Three main trends in the law relating to liability have become apparent from this study:

Victims of accidents have gradually found it easier to obtain compensation, either because the burden of proof has shifted towards the person causing the injury or because liability no longer depended on proof of fault.
Simpler and less expensive compensation systems have gradually been created outside private law (the law of relations between individuals). For example, although the victims of boiler and railway accidents tended to be employees, they rarely gained compensation through private law but instead through state-created insurance-based workmen’s compensation systems. In Germany, Sweden and France, such schemes have also replaced private law for most road accidents, and Sweden and France have now adopted similar schemes for medical injuries.
Although private law has played a minimal role in incentivising accident prevention, other forms of regulation could have an impact. For instance, state regulation on the siting of boilers, or of buildings or crops alongside railway lines, as well as regulation related to determining who can practise as a doctor, has played a very important role in reducing the incidence of harm.

For more information, please contact the author Professor John Bell (jsb48 AT cam DOT ac DOT uk) at the Faculty of Law.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes