No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
1. M Dyson, J Lee and S Stark Fifty Years of the Law Commissions The Dynamics of Law Reform (Oxford: Hart, 2016).
2. The book originates from a conference held at the Supreme Court in July 2015.
3. Both Commissions were established by the Law Commissions Act 1965.
4. See, above n 1, in particular, ch 36, E Lorimer ‘Commissioning the future – a chief executive's perspective’.
5. See, above n 1, ch 11: Y Le Bouthillier ‘The former Law Commission of Canada: the road less travelled’.
6. See, above n 1, ch 5: N Faris ‘Fifty years of law reform – a note on the Northern Ireland style’.
7. See, above n 1, chs 1, 15, 29 and 38: M Dyson et al ‘Introduction’; S Stark ‘Promoting law reform: by means of draft bills or otherwise’; J Lee ‘The etiquette of law reform’; M Dyson ‘The future is a foreign country, they do things differently there’.
8. The Law Commissions Act 1965, s3 (emphasis added).
9. On the early years of the Law Commission for England and Wales, see n 1. chs 2, 3 and 4: Lady Hale ‘Fifty years of the Law Commissions: the dynamics of law reform now, then and next’; Lord Hodge ‘Introduction’; P Mitchell ‘Strategies of the early Law Commission’. On the Scottish Law Commission, see n 1, chs 17 and 34: L Dunlop ‘A good name, a long game’; Lord Pentland ‘The Scottish Law Commission and the future of law reform in Scotland’.
10. For example, see discussion above in n 1 chs 35 and 7: DL Jones ‘Looking to the future’; E Clive ‘Law reform and social policy’.
11. For example, see discussion above in n 1, ch 10: G Gretton ‘The duty to make the law more accessible? The two c‐words’. See also G Palmer ‘The law reform enterprise: evaluating the past and charting the future’ (2015) 131 LQR 402.
12. For example, see discussion above in n 11 above: Gretton; n 9 above, Lord Pentland,
13. For example, see discussion above in n 1, chs 12, 21, 32 and 35: I Dennis ‘The Law Commission and the criminal law: reflections on the codification project’; N Paines ‘Reflections on statutory implementation in the Law Commission’; D Ormerod ‘Reflections on the courts and the Commission’; n 10 above, Jones.
14. Above n 1, ch 39: KJ Keith ‘Making law – who, how and what?’
15. Above n 1, chs 6 and 30: K Cronin ‘Working on the larger canvas – law reform in a federal system: thoughts on forty years of the Australian Law Reform Commission’; B McDonald ‘Law reform in private law: the role of statutes in supplementing or supplanting the common law’.
16. Above n 1, discussed in ch 18: M Arden ‘Introduction’.
17. See above n 5.
18. See above n 7, Dyson.
19. See, for example, above n 13, Dennis and Ormerod.
20. The detailed breakdown of figures in this chapter is extremely enlightening, although, as the author highlights, should be treated with some critical care: G Hammond ‘The legislative implementation of law reform proposals’.
21. These changes are discussed in several chapters. See, in particular n 10 above Mitchell; above n 1 ch 9 Etherton ‘Memoir of a reforming chairman’; n 10 above, Jones.
22. See, in particular, above n 21, Etherton; above n 20, Hammond; above n1, ch 22 H MacQueen ‘Implementation by statute: what the future holds’; above n 1, ch 26, J Beatson ‘Challenges for independent law reformers from changing external priorities and shorter timescales’; above n 1, ch 27, S Lewis ‘The bill's progress’.
23. On the importance of independence, see above n 5, and above n 6; above n 4.
24. See, for example, discussion above n 20, Etherton.
25. See discussion above n 11, Gretton; and above n 1, ch 16, W Binchy ‘Law Commissions, courts and society: a sceptical view’.
26. See discussion in above n 1, chs 2, 19 and 36: above n 9, Hale; above n 20, Hammond; above n 4, Lorimer.
27. See also Horder, Homicide and the Politics of Law Reform (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
28. See above n 1, ch 17, and chapters within Part 7. Above n 9, Dunlop.
29. See discussion above n 13, Ormerod.
30. See above n 1, ch 15 in particular: SW Stark ‘Promoting law reform: by means of draft bills or otherwise’. For a useful discussion about quantifying the Law Commissions' influence on the judiciary, see above n 7, Lee.
31. See discussion above n1, ch 14, Lord Toulson ‘Democracy, law reform and the rule of law’; above n 15 McDonald; above n 13, Ormerod; above n1, ch 37, M McMillan ‘Implementation of law reform reports: developments in Scotland’.
32. Above n 1, A Burrows ‘Post‐legislative scrutiny, legislative drafting and the “elusive boundary”’. Discussed further above n 13, Ormerod.
33. See above n 1, ch 33: E Cooke ‘Introduction’; above n 9, Pentland.
34. On social issues, see above n 9; Pentland. On legal reasoning, see above n 5, and above n 7, Dyson. On procedure and evidence, see above n 7, Dyson, and above n 13, Dennis. On reviewing delegated legislation, see above n 15, Cronin.
35. Above n 1, H Beale ‘The law commission method: exportable to the EU?’
36. Along with Dr Jonathan Rogers, I have begun an initiative to engage more academics and other legal experts with a reform agenda, under the banner ‘Criminal Law Reform Now’ (www.clrnn.co.uk).
37. See, for example, above n 9; above n 35; above n 7, Dyson.
38. See the Scottish Law Commission website, https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/news/landmark‐agreement‐between‐scottish‐law‐commission‐and‐the‐scottish‐law‐schools/.