Subscribe: Statute Law Review - current issue
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
act  bill  contempt  criminal  interpretation  law  legislation  money bill  sabha  statutory interpretation  statutory  victimization 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Statute Law Review - current issue

Statute Law Review Current Issue

Published: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:00:00 GMT

Last Build Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 04:47:29 GMT


Standards of Drafting of Primary Legislation in the United Kingdom

Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:00:00 GMT

A particularly egregiously poor piece of statutory drafting would doubtless have attracted considerable concern and caused considerable confusion had it not mercifully escaped from the statute book as a result of the last General Election.

Parliament, Legislation and Accountability (Hart Studies in Constitutional Law, Volume 5), 2016

Thu, 05 Oct 2017 00:00:00 GMT

HorneAlexander and Le SueurAndrew. Parliament, Legislation and Accountability (Hart Studies in Constitutional Law, Volume 5), 2016. Hart Publishing.

The Work of the British Law Commissions, 2017

Tue, 22 Aug 2017 00:00:00 GMT

StarkShona Wilson. The Work of the British Law Commissions, 2017. Hart Publishing. ISBN: 978-1-5099-0691-8

The Nature of Legal Interpretation – What Jurists Can Learn about Legal Interpretation from Linguistics and Philosophy, 2017

Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 GMT

SlocumBrian G.. The Nature of Legal Interpretation – What Jurists Can Learn about Legal Interpretation from Linguistics and Philosophy, 2017. University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 978-0-226-44502-1

Statute Law Society Lecture, November 2016: A View from the Crossbenches

Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 GMT

It is an honour for me to have been invited once again to deliver a lecture to the Statute Law Society. I can look back to the early years when the late Lord Renton laid down the foundations for the Society and to the work of the late Lord Rodger who took up the reins when Lord Renton had to pass on the work to someone else. I recall how much time and dedication Alan Rodger gave to the task which he had taken on. It was a task that was dear to his heart, which is why he took his responsibilities so seriously. He had learned much about how statutes were put together from his time as Solicitor General for Scotland and then as Lord Advocate, when he was the minister having formal responsibility for the draftsmen who prepared Scottish legislation in Whitehall.11 One can tell from his judgments how interested he was in the subject, and how many of its inner secrets he had mastered. He convened what I took to be the Society’s Board meetings in the Law Lords’ library, just round the corner on the Law Lords’ Corridor on the West front of the Palace of Westminster from where I had my room. These meetings seemed to me to be unusually frequent, and they seemed to me to go on for a very long time, but he did not seem to be in the least troubled by that. When he invited me to give a lecture to the Society in December 2006, it was an invitation that I could not refuse.22 Nor, when Philip Sales approached me last year after my retirement from the Supreme Court and had I decided that my time for giving lectures was over, could I refuse his invitation either. I recall how highly Lord Rodger thought of him, and I know how delighted he would have been by the success he is making of his life on the Bench. So here I am and, given my background of memories, I am glad to be here too.

Statutory Interpretation, Victimization Under Equality Law, and Its ‘On–Off’ Relationship With Contempt of Court

Sat, 19 Nov 2016 00:00:00 GMT

Lord Steyn once stated that the victimization of those who complain of discrimination under the equality legislation should be treated as seriously as the discrimination itself. Empirical research, demonstrating the fear of reprisals, supports this. If, say, employees can be denied promotions, grievance processes, transfers, or references because of a complaint, their careers could be frozen for years or even destroyed. This would undermine the legislation’s principal rubrics against discrimination and harassment. Hence, the equality legislation has provided an independent cause of action for victimization. Yet, from the earliest days of this legislation (beginning with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975), the courts have afforded the victimization provisions a particularly narrow construction. In 1993, it was suggested that the resulting ‘weak’ victimization provisions could be ‘supplemented’ with the law of (criminal) contempt of court, by filling the gaps left by the narrow interpretations and moreover, providing a stronger ‘deterrent value’ of criminal proceedings. This paper explores that suggestion by reviewing the subsequent case law. It begins by setting out the legislation and the problematic ‘narrow’ interpretations. This is followed by an outline of the relevant principles of contempt of court and then reviews some prominent victimization cases. This review shows that indeed principles of contempt have been imported into some of these cases, but not in the way anticipated. It reveals that first, contempt was used to restrict the victimization provisions, second, it was ignored to fill obvious gaps in these provisions, and third, that some victimization cases ought to have been referred for contempt but were not. It concludes by identifying that this ‘on–off’ relationship between victimization and contempt of court exposes the judiciary’s reluctance to take the administration of justice as seriously for equality law as it does for other fields.

Dangerous Trends in Law Making in India

Tue, 11 Oct 2016 00:00:00 GMT

Dangerous legislative trends are emerging that threaten the effective protection of the rule of law. In India, the role of parliamentarians is being diluted in a number of ways. The role of the Upper House of Indian Parliament (Rajya sabha) in law making, is diluted, by inclusion of non-tax laws in the Finance Bill, and by labeling apparently a non-money bill as a money bill. It seems that in order to get its key legislative proposals enacted as law the government rushed through many amendments in non-tax laws through the route of Finance bill. It also succeeded in getting enacted Aadhar Act as a money bill though apparently Aadhar Act falls in the category of a financial bill. The Constitution of India and parliamentary procedure allows Rajya Sabha to effectively debate and vote on a financial bill. A Money Bill can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha. A Money Bill after being passed by the Lok Sabha is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha. It is the discretion of the Lok Sabha to accept or reject the amendments made by the Rajya Sabha to a money bill. The Aadhar Act, 2016 could have been introduced as a financial bill as its predecessor the National Identification Authority of India bill, 2010 was rightly treated a financial bill.

Explaining the Unexplained Wealth Orders: (Mauritius) Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Act

Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 GMT

This paper analyzes the scope and impact of the novel unexplained wealth order (UWO) in Mauritius and highlights potential issues and challenges arising from the recent enactment of a law providing for UWOs. The recent enactment of The Good Governance and Integrity Reporting Act 2015 (‘GGIR’ or ‘Act’) in Mauritius has been hailed by many as a ‘step in the right direction’ in the fight against white-collar crime both internationally and at home.11 Despite its commendable objectives, the Act underscores the tension between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community. Most notably, the GGIR raises the following three key concerns: first, the prospect of forced property deprivation, which is the essential feature of UWOs, may conflict with constitutionally protected rights of citizens and their civil liberties. Secondly, although focused on the recovery of presumed ‘ill-gotten gains’, UWOs are categorized as civil, and not criminal, law measures, thus enabling authorities to conveniently circumvent, and indeed undermine, due process rights which only apply in the criminal realm. Thirdly and last, UWOs have the effect of reversing the burden of proof by requiring the individual to prove the legitimacy of his ownership, possession, or control of property, and relieving the State of any requirement to prove wrongdoing. This paper posits that, given the quasi-criminal nature of UWOs, due process rights enshrined in the constitution and relied upon in the conventional criminal process should continue to apply in civil unexplained wealth forfeiture.

Teaching Statutory Interpretation in Australia: What’s Next?

Wed, 22 Jun 2016 00:00:00 GMT

The issue of whether statutory interpretation should be taught in law schools has been a difficult and divisive topic. Australia, like other common law jurisdictions, has grappled with the issue. Those advocating that it be treated as a discrete and significant area in the law school curriculum have struggled over the last two decades. Recently, however, an important step was taken. In 2015, the Council of Australian Law Deans, which comprises the Deans of all university law schools in Australia, formally approved a Guide which acknowledges the relevance and importance of statutory interpretation in a law degree and outlines learning outcomes to be achieved. This leads to the important question of how to teach the subject. This article addresses some of the issues relevant to an assessment of how to teach statutory interpretation. Following a brief examination of the Australian, US and UK experiences, the article offers suggestions, based on the Guide, international literature, and the authors’ own teaching experience, about important threshold issues such as teaching as a discrete subject, content, timing, and perception.

Cornerstone’s Electoral Legislation 2016

Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:00:00 GMT

Coppel QCPhilip and BarristersCornerstone. Cornerstone’s Electoral Legislation 2016, 1st edn. Bloomsbury Professional. £99.99. ISBN: 9781784512637