Contextual review is a judicial method that rejects doctrinal or categorical methods to guide judicial supervision of administrative action. Judges are invited to assess the circumstances of a claim in the round without any doctrinal scaffolding to control the depth of scrutiny; in other words, intervention turns on an instinctive judicial impulse or overall evaluative judgement. This paper identifies and explains the various instances where this method is deployed in judicial review in Anglo-Commonwealth administrative law. The efficacy of this style of review is also evaluated, using rule of law standards to frame the analysis. Its increasing popularity is a worrying turn, in part because its reliance on unstructured normativism undermines the rule of law.

The Isle of Man is a largely autonomous dependent territory of the UK. In 2016, Lord Lisvane was commissioned to report on the functioning of the principal organ of governance, the Tynwald. This Lisvane Review has led to substantial constitutional reform within this small democracy, particularly in relation to the unelected second chamber of Tynwald, the Legislative Council. This reflects an ancient tension within the Manx constitution between the House of Keys, since the mid-nineteenth century a directly elected chamber, and the unelected Legislative Council. The Lisvane period saw important changes to the composition and powers of the Legislative Council, as well as gender diversity within Tynwald as a whole. Placing the Manx experience within a broader small democracy theoretical and comparative framework demonstrates not only the possibility of constitutional reform, but also provides insights into resources for constitutional development, the special challenges of managing intimacy, and the dangers of over-concentration of power in a small democracy.

I consider the ways in which the courts use a variety of existing powers to determine the scope of criminal offences, on a prospective basis, through declarations as to the limits or extent of the law. I argue that the courts should be emboldened to build on these powers through greater openness to the circumstances in which declarations may be issued. In particular, courts should be more open to actions for declarations as to the scope of criminal offences brought by a broader range of third parties, such as third sector organisations devoted to exposing wrongdoing.

Mistakes in assisted human reproduction procedures such as IVF, egg, sperm and embryo donation are surprisingly common, but tortious liability for such mistakes has not been addressed in the courts of England and Wales, or Ireland. This paper presents an argument in favour of a vindicatory approach to tortious claims arising from mistakes, where the claimants are the parents of the resulting, healthy, child. Drawing on the analogous tort of wrongful pregnancy, the paper provides a vindicatory account of the case of Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital, and argues that Rees signposts the correct approach for tortious claims arising from mistakes in assisted human reproduction. It is argued that while the law should not compensate ‘loss’ flowing from the birth of a child, parents should be entitled to an award of damages to vindicate their right to reproductive autonomy. The paper explores vindication of the right to reproductive autonomy through the tort of negligence, but argues that vindication may be more effectively achieved through the creation of a separate tort which is actionable per se, strict liability, and expressly focused on vindication rather than compensation.

This paper examines the aims and challenges of ‘judicial diplomacy’ in the form of bilateral meetings between UK and supranational judges. Drawing from in-depth interviews, extra-judicial writings and other documentary sources, it argues that judicial diplomacy has become an important feature of the work of senior judges in the UK, allowing them to pursue jurisprudential and strategic aims. In jurisprudential terms, the judges have sought to improve the quality of judicial decision-making at the domestic and supranational levels. Strategically, they have striven to maintain robust inter-institutional relations and maximise their influence at the supranational level. The pursuit of these aims has taken on renewed significance in the context of Brexit but may raise questions for the protection of judicial independence and impartiality. The judiciaries should therefore consider steps to improve the visibility of these interactions and their value.

Sixty years have passed since occupiers in England and Wales were placed under a statutory duty to keep visitors to occupied premises reasonably safe. The legislation, however, did not detail the exact operation of this duty of care. The case law, expected to fill in the gaps, has arguably developed without sufficient consistency and/or predictability. This apparent confusion can be remedied through applying a systematic test to the question of whether a breach of duty has occurred. The test follows the verification that the case falls within the field of occupiers’ liability because of the presence of a danger attributable to the state of the premises. It consists of three consecutive stages which ask: (1) whether the risk of injury was foreseeable; (2) whether the occupier could reasonably have been expected to have addressed this very particular risk; and (3) whether any remedial action the occupier actually took was appropriate.

Contemporary criminal justice is premised on a rights-bearing defendant safe-guarded by due process from arbitrary state punishment. The paucity of academic commentary on the role of the criminal defendant suggests that there is a common assumption that the role is static. However, the rights-bearing defendant is a relatively new concept. Through a legal history analysis, this paper demonstrates that the defendant's role can mutate in response to pressures placed on the criminal trial. Broadly, there have been three conceptualisations of the defendant: the penitent Anglo-Norman defendant; the advocate defendant of the jury trial; and the rights-bearing adversarial defendant. Importantly, the shift from one conceptualisation to another has occurred gradually, often without commentary or conscious effort to instigate change. There are many contemporary pressures that could be impacting on the rights-bearing defendant. The concept of a mutable defendant provides a new theory through which to analyse these pressures. This paper considers the introduction of adverse inferences regarding the right to silence and disclosure, and the rise of ‘digilantism’. These new pressures, it is suggested, help to facilitate a rhetoric of deservingness that goes against the rights-bearing defendant and raises the risk its role could once again be mutating.

Following concerns that the art market is being used to launder criminal money and fund terrorist activities, measures have recently been introduced to subject the market to the anti-money laundering (AML) regime – such as the EU 5th Money Laundering Directive (2018) and the US Illicit Art and Antiquities Trafficking Prevention Bill (2018). The expansion of the AML regime to include art dealers has been attributed to the failure of regulation and the vulnerabilities inherent in the market to laundering. This paper considers vulnerabilities to money laundering and examines the types of regulation that apply in the art market. The paper then goes on to analyse the application of AML criminal law and preventive measures in the UK context, demonstrating that art dealers can be criminally prosecuted for engaging in normal commercial activities. Even if dealers do comply with AML reporting rules, such compliance can significantly impact upon their business. These are important considerations given the government's emphasis on striking a balance between the burdens on business and deterring money laundering activities. Drawing upon the AGILE analytical framework, we remain sceptical about the continued expansion of the AML regime.

This paper is concerned with the legal and regulatory control of electoral campaigning online, in particular ‘microtargeting’. There has been a longstanding consensus in the UK on how to control political advertising, yet the shift of expenditure to the online environment, together with innovations in digital campaigning tools, are exposing tensions and gaps in the current regime. One central harm associated with microtargeting is its potential to undermine meaningful democratic deliberation. The paper interrogates the issues through the lens of electoral law and regulation, and questions the extent to which a recalibration is necessary to deal with the challenges of digital campaigning.