This paper evaluates the role being adopted by the European Court of Human Rights when confronted with claims arising from the extreme restriction of access to abortion services in certain Member States. It will be argued that in response to such claims the Court has been prepared to find that the suffering of the applicants can be captured as forms of rights violation, but it has sought to avoid taking a stance as to foetal life, leading it to adopt a highly deferential approach and to avoid the substantive issues at stake, of protection for female reproductive health, dignity and autonomy, in favour of focusing mainly on procedural ones. Having considered such issues as the missing gender-based aspects of the abortion jurisprudence, this paper concludes that its restrained and largely procedural stance has enabled the Court to provide some limited protection for women, on healthcare grounds, but that the opportunity to recognise that highly restrictive abortion regimes systematically and persistently create especially invidious discrimination based on gender has so far been missed.

This paper considers how employment laws are being used in response to what we have termed ‘the eldercare–workplace conundrum’. It is well known that people are now living longer but health is still failing in a significant percentage of older people, meaning that many adults require care for longer, albeit to varying degrees and for varying amounts of time. Many of these individuals will receive care from relatives or close friends who are participating in the labour market: this is increasingly likely as adults are expected or want to remain in paid work for longer, often into their sixties and seventies. The requirements of elderly dependants can cause these workers huge difficulties and dilemmas as they attempt, across time, to accommodate the particular needs of the person for whom they wish to provide care, often a loved one, and meet the particular demands of their employment relationship. In this paper, we consider why this is an area of social policy that warrants effective legal engagement and consider, drawing on various examples of legal responses in other countries that face similar conundrums, what might improve legal engagement in this area.

The rule in O’Reilly u Mackman is well known. As a result of Lord Diplock’s speech in that case, the scope of the application for judicial review procedure under s 31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and RSC Ord 53, has been dominated by attempts to distinguish between public and private law. According to Lord Diplock, public law cases must normally be pursued under the special Ord 53 procedure whereas private law cases even though involving substantive principles of judicial review must be pursued in ordinary courts. There are also hybrid cases - chimeras which combine features both of public and private law. In such cases the challenger is apparently free to proceed either under Ord 53 or by way or ordinary action or defence. These hybrids are not easy to reconcile with the purposes and policies behind the O’Reilly rule.

While much has been written about American legal realism, the nature of its decline is comparably less carefully documented. Jurisprudential lore has it that ‘we are all realists now’. Although it is far from clear who ‘we’ might be, the statement is commonly taken to mean at least three things: that academic and practising lawyers alike have heard and heeded the message that law is not a certain system of rules; that legal doctrine is nowadays conceived in the context of the wider legal process; and that the legal process is nowadays understood to be part of the wider social system. The supposition, in essence, is that modern lawyers think like realists, even if they do not commonly consider themselves to be realists. While the weaker ideas and arguments developed by so-called realists have been discarded, the better ones have been absorbed into modern legal thought.

Where a defendant wrongfully detains the claimant’s goods the standard remedy in conversion permits the defendant to pay the value of the goods to the claimant instead of returning the goods. This amounts to legally sanctioned compulsory purchase. It will be argued that such a remedy is both muddled and unfair. It is muddled because it confuses a proprietary claim with a claim in tort. The action exists in a state of arrested development, never having advanced in step with the action of ejectment, which long ago ensured that wrongfully detained land could be recovered. It is unfair because it sanctions the purchase of the claimant’s goods against their will without any overriding public interest justification. The remedy in conversion needs to be unravelled to produce two distinct actions. One would be a true proprietary action that guarantees the recovery of wrongfully detained goods; the other would be a claim in tort providing personal remedies for wrongful interferences with title to goods. This can be achieved by reviving detinue but confining its ambit to the recovery of goods, leaving conversion to act as a tort.

This article addresses the potential advantages and disadvantages of codifying the grounds of judicial review of administrative action. The four principal legal values associated with codification are described: certainty; clarity; democratic legitimacy; and rationality. The extent to which codification might further these values is considered in the light of two comparative models: the United States Administrative Procedure Act 1946 and the Australian Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). It is concluded that codification offers no solution to the practical and theoretical problems of judicial review. Codification places the content of the principles of judicial review in the hands of politicians. Australian legislation limiting the grounds of review available in migration cases shows the danger to the separation of powers inherent in codification. If it is thought desirable to foster the further development of the principles of judicial review, this can best be achieved by leaving the task to the judiciary.

Labour came to power in 1997 with a commitment to constitutional reform and joined-up government. New Labour has indeed produced significant constitutional change: devolution to Scotland and Wales, the Human Rights Act 1998, partial reform of the House of Lords, elected Mayors, a Freedom of Information Act, an Electoral Commission and more. Joined up it was not. Nothing better illustrated this than the (arguably) botched Cabinet reshuffle on 12 June 2003. On that day, Downing Street announced the resignation (or sacking) of Lord Irvine, the Lord Chancellor since 1997, and the abolition of his post, and, in its place, the establishment of a Department of Constitutional Affairs, and, finally, the creation of a Supreme Court.

During the 1530s Henry VIII remarried twice, each time annulling his previous marriage. The English laws outlining the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage were changed upon each marriage in the First and Second Succession Acts. These Acts were passed in Ireland by an Irish Parliament in 1536–7 and became part of the Irish statute book. However, the second Act regulating Henry VIII's marriage to Queen Jane (Marriage Act (no 2) 1537) was never published and was unknown to Irish law for centuries. The Act made its return onto the Irish statute book in 2007, greatly extending the class of relatives prohibited from marrying and potentially annulling many Irish marriages. This paper traces the fate of the lost Act and analyses the consequences of its rediscovery both on Irish marriage law and the legitimacy of the Irish statute book.

In a Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission published in early 1993, the European Commission made the following policy pronouncements about its future role in the enforcement of the competition rules contained in the EC Treaty:

‘As the administrative authority responsible for the Community's competition policy, the Commission must serve the Community's general interest. The administrative resources at the Commission's disposal to perform its task are necessarily limited and cannot be used to deal with all the cases brought to its attention. The Commission is therefore obliged, in general, to take all organizational measures necessary for the performance of its task and, in particular to establish priorities.’

As the issue is usually framed, the fundamental issue at stake between mainstream liberal jurisprudence and various forms of Critical Legal Studies (CLS) is, as Jeffrie Murphy puts it, whether there are ‘neutral principles in law and morality. By neutral principles [are] mean[t] those principles that can be agreed to by all rational beings.’ CLS theorists of all sorts typically hold that there are no neutral principles in a society divided into groups with vastly unequal power and status. Socialist Critics assert the class character of the law and morality. Feminist and Critical Race Theorists hold that these are infected with gender or racial biases. Social conflict between groups translates into irreconcilable conflicts of values. But in rejecting liberal neutrality, Murphy claims, the Critics fall into a radical ‘value relativism or skepticism’, which he regards as pragmatically self-defeating given their political commitments to the interests of subordinate groups.

This is a first revision of the Statement of Standards for University Law Library Provision, first published in A Library for the Modem Law School (see Legal Studies, Special Edition 1995). As promised in the introduction to the Statement (ibid, pp 10-11), this revision updates the comments to the standards in the light of a further survey of library provision again undertaken, on behalf of the Society, by Dr Peter Clinch, Legal Specialist in the Library of the University of Wales, Cardiff. This further survey has been jointly organised with the British and Irish Association of Law Librarians (BIALL), and the Society is most grateful to BIALL for its collaboration. The updatings reflect, in particular, changes in the key library statistics contained in the comments and offered as measures by which individual libraries might assess their performance. A full report on the survey may be obtained from the Convener, Professor Daintith, at the School of Advanced Study, University of London. The Libraries Committee is much indebted to Dr Clinch and to his institution for this essential input to its work.

The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct (ACLEC) has recently called upon academic law teachers of the undergraduate degree in law to take more of an interest in professional ethics. This means that academic law teachers can no longer set the subject aside as something to be dealt with during vocational legal education. Professional ethics must be taught pervasively, ie at each stage of legal education. This paper argues, however, that professional ethics must be taught pervasively in a further sense: even within the undergraduate curriculum, the task of educating tomorrow's lawyers in professional ethics cannot be left to one or more specialists in the subject.

The statute book bears eloquent testimony that the law has been regarded as an appropriate vehicle for protecting the consuming public. The Molony Report, 1962, has borne much legislative fruit and, 20 years later, enthusiasm for legislation in the consumer interest does not appear to be waning.

This paper explores the issue of donation of organs from deceased donors for transplantation into a specified recipient. It argues that proper account should be taken of the principles underlying the Human Tissue Act 2004, which grant the donor a form of proprietary control. Three hypothetical scenarios are then used to draw out the implications of these principles for existing regulatory policy and the common law response to excised human organs. The paper concludes that the law should be understood as recognising ownership in organs removed from living and deceased persons and as offering opposition to the prohibition of directed donation that can only be coherently removed by reform of the 2004 Act.

Parliamentary election law in the United Kingdom has been the subject of much review in Westminster and Whitehall over the past few years. The last Parliament, 1983-87, extended the franchise to British citizens temporarily resident overseas, and allowed for a greater use of postal and proxy voting. The amount of a parliamentary candidate's deposit was increased from the 1918 figure of £l50 to £500, and the threshold below which it is forfeited was reduced from 121/2% to 5% of valid votes cast. The law relating to the work of the Boundary Commissions was consolidated, and most recently the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has reported its recommendations upon redistribution of seats, including among them a proposal for a stabilisation in the number of constituencies at its present level of 650.

This paper advances and defends a ‘constitutionalist’ perspective on the Europeanisation of private law. The first introductory section places the Europeanisation of private law in relation to current debates and then proceeds, in section II, to its practical implications with the help of identifying a significant cluster of conflict. The main part of this paper, however, is concerned with the theoretical issues of the analytical background and normative basis of the constitutionalist perspective.

This article describes an empirical study that was undertaken to see whether lawyers possess the statistical and, more particularly, probabilistic understanding that they need for their professional duties. Their earlier training in mathematics might have been expected to provide them with the relevant understanding, but was found to be wanting. The implications for legal decision making are discussed, and recommendations are made for preparing lawyers with the necessary skills.

The purpose of this article is to examine the nature and potential impact of s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The article draws upon the experience of courts in other Commonwealth jurisdictions which operate a similar provisions. The author analyses the nature of the interpretative technique, reading down, that s 3 requires and illustrates its potential by reference to a number of situations involving statutory imperfections such as ambiguity and overbreadth. The author also outlines the impact that s 3 may have on the exercise of statutory discretion. The author further argues that reading down should not be confused with more intrusive remedies, such as reading in, which are not available under the Human Rights Act.

This paper examines in three parts how ADR is being embedded into the English civil justice system. Section 1 discusses how courts encourage settlements, and it argues that while mounting costs in litigation lead to negotiated settlements, the participation in ADR primarily mainly occurs when parties are referred to it in a timely manner. Section 2 investigates the time when disputants are referred to ADR, and it proposes a taxonomy formed by three stages in the dispute life cycle: (1) before parties contemplate litigation; (2) at the pre-action phase as a pre-condition to issue a claim; and (3) after a defence is entered. Section 3 notes that the court digitalisation program is increasing ADR referrals across the above three stages, and it argues that these referrals will be more effective when they are timely and coupled with suitable incentives and sanctions, but the latter must take into consideration the parties’ power asymmetries.

This paper examines the legal status of humanitarian intervention in the aftermath of the abortive military operation in Syria. In tracing the history of the doctrine up to the beginning of the Syria crisis, it asserts that the negative reaction to the abortive use of force has reinforced the unlawfulness of humanitarian intervention. In appraising in detail the legal positions of the UK, the USA, France and other states, it analyses the interplay of constitutional law and international law in the Syria crisis with reference to the role of consultations of national parliaments. It asserts that the Syrian precedent illustrates the difficulty of identifying the opinio iuris of a state in which the input of international law through legal advice and public debate affects the output of that state through the expression of its legal position on doctrinal questions. By scrutinising the approach of the British government in consulting the House of Commons in relation to the continuing operations against Islamic State in Iraq, it argues that the National Security Strategy review in 2015 should address the concerns expressed by parliamentary committees regarding consultation of Parliament, the provision of legal advice and the lawfulness of humanitarian intervention.