Ownership of the family home is usually not disputed until either the relationship between the spouses or cohabitants breakdown or there is a competing claim over the property by a third party. In such circumstances, determination of ownership rights becomes imperative. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 gives the courts adjustive powers to deal with disputes between spouses on the breakdown of the marriage. Notwithstanding this, there may be circumstances where it will be necessary or desirable to determine property rights between spouses. Furthermore, the adjustive powers of the courts are not applicable to cohabitants. Thus, in the absence of legal co-ownership in the family home, cohabitants and spouses who cannot rely on the 1973 Act will have to establish an equitable interest in the property. The analyses relied on are primarily based on property law and trusts principles and, more particularly, imputed trusts and proprietary estoppel. Under trusts principles, imputed trusts are usually taken to refer to resulting and constructive trusts.

The Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) is one of the best known measures used to tackle anti-social behaviour. In keeping with the popular conception, the order is frequently used against young people. Of all ASBOs issued in England and Wales up to the end of 2005, roughly 40% were imposed on under-18s. This paper begins with a brief outline of the three principles at the heart of the celebrated Scottish children’s hearings system. With reference to these principles, and to the provisions which govern the use of the order against 12–15 year olds north of the border, the paper then discusses five areas of concern about the use of ASBOs against young people in England and Wales: the readiness to resort to ASBOs; the forum for ASBO applications; the terms of ASBOs; publicising the details of ASBOs; and custodial net-widening. The paper ends by suggesting reforms to the ASBO regime in England and Wales insofar as it is used against young people.

This paper, which is based on a paper given at a seminar held at the University of Glasgow in November 2005, discusses the sovereignty of Parliament in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General v Jackson, which considered the question of whether the Parliament Act 1949 and the Hunting Act 2004 were valid Acts of Parliament. The paper begins by explaining the background to the litigation, before going on to summarise the decision. Next, it briefly analyses the preliminary issues of standing and jurisdiction involved in the case, before going on to consider how the political background and political practice affected the decision of the House of Lords on the key questions in the case. The major part of the paper is devoted to a discussion and analysis in the light of constitutional theory of the extensive dicta in the case on the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, which contrasts positivist and Dworkinian perspectives, and considers the question of whether the orthodox view of sovereignty is likely to be displaced in the foreseeable future by the view that Parliament’s legislative power is subject to legal constraints. The paper concludes that such a change in the rule of recognition is unlikely to come about merely because the judges change their view of the content of fundamental doctrines; changes of this nature require the assent of the other institutions of government.

This paper considers the influence of the Supreme Court decision in Jones v Kernott on subsequent cases. It focuses on situations with which Jones was not directly concerned, namely where there is only one legal owner of a home and a non-legal-owning cohabitant seeks to establish that he has an equitable interest in it under a common intention constructive trust. The paper argues that while judges have mostly accepted that Jones is relevant to such sole-owner cases, they have had few opportunities (and taken fewer) to move beyond the restrictive approach of Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset and allow novel outcomes in the light of Jones as yet. It is contended that this state of affairs could ultimately produce a conservative approach that is undesirable for cohabitants who make indirect or non-financial contributions to shared lives, and remain without comprehensive statutory property and financial provision on relationship breakdown.

This article takes a critical look at common law constitutionalism, a theory which has received much support in public law circles of late. The first part of the article elaborates the common law constitutionalist position. The second part of the article assesses the cogency of the theory in terms of its ability to accommodate certain paradigmatic features of judicial review. The article concludes with the suggestion that public lawyers, in their forays into theory, might do better to look to the special role that judicial review plays in assessing the legitimacy of governmental action rather than its supposed connection with ‘fundamental principles of morality’.

The law's overseeing of administrations of pain-relieving treatment with inevitable life-shortening consequences is of crucial significance in view of the dogmatic approach of English criminal law to active euthanasia. As Lanham states in respect of society's treatment of terminal physical pain:

‘If the euthanasia option is not available, some other method will have to be found. In Britain and Australia that method involves palliative care and the hospice movement. By contrast, in the Netherlands active euthanasia is available and palliative care is poorly developed.’

The recent prosecution in R v Cox made it abundantly clear that causing death in order to relieve a patient of further pain and suffering amounts to murder under current law. By contrast, knowingly shortening life through the administration of pain-killing drugs was recently declared to be lawful by Lord Goff in the House of Lords in Airedale NHS Hospital Trust v Bland.

Aiding and abetting requires an ‘intention’ to assist the commission of the relevant offence. But what should ‘intention’ mean in this context? Does D have that intention just so long as she acts in a way which she knows will facilitate the commission of the offence which P intends to commit, or must she act in order to assist the commission of that offence?

On one view knowledge is sufficient, since D need only have ‘intended to do the acts which he knew to be capable of assisting or encouraging the commission of the crime’. A brewer who knowingly sells beer to someone who intends to resell it without a licence is guilty of aiding and abetting, as is a person who lends her car to someone who intends, she knows, to use it for a criminal venture.

This paper addresses a cluster of issues. What is state entrapment? Why is it objectionable? Is it wrong to prosecute the entrapped? What should the court do when the case is brought before it? These questions are intertwined. To know what is wrong with state entrapment, we must be clear about what it is; our understanding of what constitutes state entrapment, with its negative connotation, is shaped by what we think is distinctively wrong with it; and, we cannot know how the court should deal with state entrapment unless we identify the precise problem to which a judicial response may be required. The right response is a permanent stay of proceedings. A stay should be granted because the executive does not come to court with clean hands. It lacks the standing to blame the entrapped for what he or she did, and the state lacks the standing to condemn the person for the same.

Loot boxes have recently become a game mechanism of concern to policy-makers and regulators. The similarity between loot boxes and gambling is clear, and loot boxes and their regulation are commonly viewed through the lens of gambling. By contrast, very little attention has been given to tackling them as unfair, and in particular aggressive, commercial practices under consumer law. This article argues that by classifying the provision of loot boxes as a potentially aggressive commercial practice we will see that consumer law may protect gamers from some of the significant harms with which such products are associated.

Discretion gives decision makers choices as to how resources are allocated, or how other aspects of state largesse or coercion are deployed. Discretionary state power challenges aspects of the rule of law, first by transferring decisions from legislators to departments, agencies and street-level bureaucrats and secondly by risking the uniform application of key fairness and equality norms. Concerns to find alternative and decentred forms of regulation gave rise to new types of regulation, sometimes labeled ‘regulatory capitalism’. Regulatory capitalism highlights the roles of a wider range of actors exercising powers and a wider range of instruments. It includes also new forms of discretion, for example over automated decision making processes, over the formulation and dissemination of league tables or over the use of behavioural measures. This paper takes a novel approach by linking and extending the significant literature on these changing patterns of regulatory administration with consideration of the changing modes of deployment of discretion. Using this specific lens, we observe two potentially contradictory trends: an increase in determining and structuring administrative decision, leading to a more transparent use of discretion; and the increased use of automated decision making processes which have the potential of producing a less transparent black box scenario.

Elizabeth Fisher, Bettina Lange, Eloise Scotford and Cinnamon Carlarne have delivered a hard but justified message: environmental law scholarship is still perceived by many in the field as immature, and this is a reflection of the methodological challenges posed by its subject. This paper expands on their argument that scholars should think more closely about what can be learnt from debates about method in the wider legal mainstream and interdisciplinarity as part of the process of developing the discipline. It locates what is called ‘classic’ and ‘novel’ environmental law scholarship at the margins of the legal academy, which is conceptualised as an imagined legal ‘space’. The paper then explores the ways in which insights derived from the environmental humanities and sciences can invigorate and mature environmental law scholarship by creating exciting new interdisciplinary contexts for the development of legal research methods.

Singapore's Westminster parliamentary system of government was adopted as a historical result of it being a British colony. In its post-independence constitutional development, the dominant People's Action Party political leadership had made a series of constitutional amendments to its original electoral system, introducing innovative schemes such as Group Representation Constituencies, Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, Nominated Members of Parliament and the Elected Presidency. These changes have resulted in an electoral system that is so different and divergent from the Westminster model that it should be regarded a unique regime of its own. This paper advances the view that the constitutional evolution of its electoral system is reflective of a political vision structured along elitist lines – underscored by a desire to restructure the voting behaviour of its citizens, and ensure predictability and the preservation of the status quo. It has been driven by paternalistic assumptions about what is beneficial for its citizens. This paper examines the subsequent implementation of the schemes, before reflecting on how it is a system that has the potential to affect adversely the development of political participation and political pluralism, and dilute democratic politics in Singapore.

The failure of rape law to convict more men and to protect more women appears to be attributable to the fact that underlying, and assumed by, the law is a male dominated conception of aggressive and possessive male sexuality and a misunderstanding of the real wrong of rape. The sentencing stage of criminal proceedings offers courts the opportunity to challenge these attitudes. Court of Appeal sentencing decisions in cases of marital and relationship rape are analysed and sentencing principles and practice which endorse and reinforce a male dominated conception of sexuality and the wrong of rape are criticised. So, it is argued, an intimate relationship between the offender and the victim should not be a mitigating factor. Nor should forgiveness be a special mitigating factor in cases of marital rape. And attempts to mitigate rape by explaining it in terms of emotional stress, an excess of seductive zeal or other ways that treat aggressive male sexual behaviour and female passivity as the norm, should not be countenanced. Instead, sentencing guidance should foster attitudes which conceive of sexuality as an expression of equal and sharing relationships.

A great many people share the sentiment that it is a serious wrong to behave with gross disrespect towards deceased bodies. It may therefore come as a surprise to learn that, currently, English and Welsh criminal law is incapable of dealing with cases of corpse desecration. Drawing upon provisions found in other jurisdictions, I argue that this legal gap ought to be filled by a new criminal offence. This should turn on the objective wrong of disrespect to the corpse as an important symbol of a once-living person. This framing is important in order to correctly identify what it is that makes desecration rightly criminal, assign accurate labels and to avoid unwarranted over-criminalisation. I conclude by suggesting that only when such an offence is enacted will we be able to ensure that the respect that we deserve in life is reflected in the treatment of our deceased bodies.

8% of UK students have an ‘unseen disability’: a specific learning difficulty, autistic spectrum condition, or mental ill health. A department with 1000 students has, on average, 80 students with such unseen disabilities. These students have a variety of potential sources of legal redress if they consider a university has failed properly to accommodate their disability. The most plausible is a claim under the Equality Act 2010. We have experienced a lack of clarity in understanding the nature and extent of those Equality Act entitlements, and the corresponding obligations that fall upon universities, and their staff. These confusions occur in many contexts, but the one that is most important to students is their entitlements where assessments are concerned. We set out to explain the relevant law, and to consider how it applies to some, perhaps typical, unseen disabilities in the context of a range of approaches taken by universities in assessing their students. Our principal and important conclusion is that there is no ‘quick fix’ approach according to which someone may say that they are Equality Act compliant. However, there are several considerations which will increase (or decrease) the likelihood of compliance. In brief, these constitute: effective communication; procedures that secure individual decisions, rather than blanket policies or approaches; and what amounts to no more than good inclusive educational practice for all students.

This paper is concerned with when, if ever, deceptive sex should be criminalised. It defends the idea that it is necessary to distinguish between deceptions that will generally be punishable from those that will not and puts forward a novel framework for carrying out this task. Based on the concept of identity nonrecognition, this framework also offers a new way of understanding what makes certain kinds of deceptive sex wrongful. After setting out this framework, I analyse each of the deceptions that is most often carried out within ‘ordinary’ contexts, explaining why only some of these should generally be punished. The paper concludes by suggesting that identity nonrecognition has the potential to inform criminalisation debates more generally, and that its relevance extends beyond discussions about deceptive sex.

In recent years the courts have been faced with the problem of deciding what status should be given to marriages that are celebrated outside the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949 yet believed to be valid by the parties to them. Some such marriages have been classified as non-marriages, while others have been saved by the application of the presumption in favour of marriage. The decisions are unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. It will be suggested that the concept of non-marriage should be confined to ceremonies that in no way purport to be marriages. The presumption in favour of marriage should also be limited to situations where there is a valid basis for presuming a marriage rather than being used to avoid dealing with the deficiencies of the law.

One of the most contested issues in UK public law is how to calibrate the appropriate intensity of proportionality review in human rights adjudication. Here, the challenge lies in formulating a theory of intensity of review that can both comply with the constitutional framework introduced by the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’) and accommodate courts' varying levels of competence in different areas of litigation. This paper attempts to sketch such a theory in two steps. First, it argues that to fulfil the constitutional expectations brought about by the HRA, a minimum rigour of proportionality review should be observed. This baseline consists of requiring the government to demonstrate to the courts by means of cogent and sufficient evidence that a rights-limiting measure satisfies the distinct stages of the proportionality test. Secondly, this paper highlights the ways in which compliance with this baseline can nonetheless accommodate the courts' varying levels of competence in different adjudicative contexts. In particular, courts can vary the intensity of review once the baseline level of review is reached and adjust the nature of the evidence required from the government.

Strange events are occurring in the world of the jury. At a time when English confidence in the institution is on the ebb, a phenomenon evidenced both in the titles of recent jury studies - The Jury Under Attack and Taking Liberties- and in a steady stream of skeptical commentaries, it is reported that in Japan the Bar Federation is set to call for the restoration of jury trial, first introduced by a law of 1926 but suspended after an experimental period in 1942. Spain has a new Constitution that imposes a duty on the legislature to institute jury trial, an undertaking currently under examination by the Spanish Ministry of Justice. And in South Africa, recent calls for a more representative justice system have prompted the editor of the South African Law Journal, Professor Ellison Kahn, to devote a tetralogy of articles to consideration of the reintroduction of jury trial within that jurisdiction.

Legal doctrine has two aims: describing and systematising the law. The description of currently valid law within a given legal system is the most visible and, from a quantitative point of view, the most important task for legal doctrine. From a qualitative point of view, however, systematisation of the law is by far its most important task. Systematisation is the construction of a conceptual framework of the law, which is a necessary basis for any legal rule and for any legal reasoning. Systematisation presupposes a description of the rules, principles, concepts, etc, which are to be systematised. But description of the rules is impossible without the conceptual framework that the systematisation of the law offers. Even the law itself is based on this conceptual framework. Codifications, such as the Code Napoléon or the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, were made possible because of the centuries-long preparatory work of legal doctrine.