Pursuit of the proceeds of crime has always been central to the criminal justice agenda of Tony Blair‧s Labour Party. In response to Blair‧s moral imperatives and to wider global forces, legislation has been put in place that targets, in various ways, the proceeds of crime. These efforts reached at least a temporary culmination in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The mechanisms directed against property are backed by widespread reporting obligations, set out in the Money Laundering Regulations 2003, implementing the Amending EU Directive. The increased rate of seizures and growing rate of confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and a number of decided cases under the Act are evidence of the courts ‘doing their bit’. A large industry is now in place for the delivery of the legal and other services the need for which was generated by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The Enterprise Act 2002 sought to assist troubled companies by enhancing the rescue-friendliness of the UK insolvency regime. Assessing that regime calls for a focus on: the different roles and control powers of the various parties involved with troubled companies; the essential tasks that a rescue regime has to carry out; and the level of co-ordination that is to be expected between different parties. Key tasks in the furtherance of rescue are: the collectiiig of relevant information; the production of sound judgments and strategies; and the taking of timely actions and decisions. The problems of co-ordination, moreover, vary from task to task. For judges, central challenges in coming years will be not only to protect parties’rights within the new rescue regime but also to use judicial oversight powers to encourage co-ordinated action in pursuit of rescue. An appreciation of the co-ordination issue is central to an understanding of the post-Enterprise Act 2002 regime and the potential of the judges to enhance that regime in its furtherance of rescue.

Research into alternative sources of organs for transplantation, including the use of organs from non-human genetically engineered animals, has occurred since the introduction of allotransplantation in the 1960s. Xenotransplantation is different from other developing genetic technologies because whilst the potential benefit is to the individual, the possible risks are to society as a whole. The risks include the transmission of unknown and currently indeterminable infectious diseases. This article explores whether the current regulator framework is able to address this issue and, in particular, whether ‘first-party’ consent to involvement in a clinical trial is a sufficient to protect third parties from harm. The competence of a xeno-recipient to consent is also considered, and it is suggested that, at the very least, public debate and participation in deciding whether clinical trials should be permitted must occur, because by allowing xenotransplant trials to help an individual, the risks will be borne by all.

When a company enters insolvent liquidation, the liquidator might take proceedings, under s 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986, against one or more of the company's directors on the basis that the director(s) engaged in wrongful trading. If found liable, a director might be ordered by a court to contribute to the assets of the company. This article examines whether subjecting directors to liability for wrongful trading is theoretically justifiable. After briefly explaining the origin, aims, rationale and operation of s 214, the article then rehearses and evaluates the arguments propounded by several scholars against any justification for a provision in the mould of s 214. Next the article investigates some of the reasons given for supporting the provision. Following this some consideration is given to whether it is possible to opt out of s 214, and, if not, whether this should be permitted. It is concluded, inter alia, that while s 214 is not representative of good regulation, some form of prohibition against wrongful trading can be justified on theoretical grounds.

This article examines the development, operation and reform of the tribunal system responsible for determining appeals against the refusal of refugee status by the Home Office. Consideration of this particular appellate system is situated within a broader discussion of the criteria and values against which tribunal adjudication systems may be evaluated, By examining asylum appeals, light is shed on the theory and practice of administrative justice with regard to: the problematic nature of ensuring accuracy in tribunal decision-making; the tensions under which appeal procedures operate; the importance of onward appeal rights; and the role of tribunals in policy implementation. The article argues that recent reform of the asylum appeal process, including the introduction of a single tier of appeal, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 and restrictions on legal aid, has been motivated by political considerations and may increase the dificulties in operating an effective appeal process.

Assertions that Britain is (or is in danger of becoming) a‘ blame and sue’ society are nowadays so frequently repeated in the media and elsewhere that they have all but become received wisdom. Whether they express a dangerous reality or a passing moral panic deserves serious consideration because of their potential to influence legislative and judicial agendas. This article examines what is meant by the phrase ‘compensation culture’, evaluates the recent evidence concerning it, and attempts to assess whether the concerns expressed are justified.