̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Law in Focus

Law in Focus: 'Brexit: Legally and constitutionally, what now?'

fpjl2 — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 15:52:32 +0000

In the early hours of 24 June 2016, the result of the UK referendum on EU membership was announced. By a narrow but clear majority the vote was to leave the European Union. This result has begun a chain of seismic political consequences in UK and the EU, and will have widespread consequences for the law and constitution in the UK.

In this video, Mark Elliott assess the immediate impact of the result.

Professor Mark Elliott is a Professor of Public Law at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and a Fellow of St Catharine's College. His main research interests are in the fields of constitutional and administrative law. He writes a blog: Public Law for Everyone. This video was based on a recent post.

In this video, Professor Mark Elliott from the Faculty of Law discusses some of the key legal points that will be critical in the Brexit process.

Brexit: Legally and constitutionally, what now?

Prof Mark Elliott

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Law in Focus: 'Parliament’s Role in Voting on the Syrian Conflict'

fpjl2 — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:52:17 +0000

Following the statement of Prime Minister David Cameron to the House of Commons entitled: "Prime Minister’s Response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the Extension of Offensive British Military Operations to Syria", Dr Veronika Fikfak and Dr Hayley J Hooper discuss the questionable international legality of military action, the strategic use of parliament and its potential impact upon the emerging Consultation Convention, and the responsibility of MPs to hold government to account across a broad range of relevant domestic issues.

They analyse the impact of the way government shares intelligence information with the House of Commons, especially in light of the 2003 Iraq conflict, highlighting several relevant but under-discussed rules. Finally, they discuss the role of party political discipline on armed conflict votes.

Dr Fikfak researches in the fields of public law, human rights and international law. She is particularly interested in the interface between domestic and international law and is currently writing a monograph on the role of national judges in relation to international law. Dr Hooper is currently a Fellow at Homerton College, and her doctoral research at Balliol College, ̽��ֱ�� of Oxford concerned the use of "closed" or "secret" evidence in the context of judicial review of counterterrorism powers, and its extension to civil procedure more broadly.

Drs Fikfak and Hooper are currently co-authoring a monograph on parliament's involvement in war powers entitled Parliament's Secret War (forthcoming with Hart Bloomsbury, 2016).

Law in Focus is a series of short videos featuring academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. Law in Focus is available on YouTube, or to subscribe to in iTunes U.

Other collections of video and audio recordings from the Faculty of Law are available at Lectures at Law.

This video discusses six issues arising out of the recent statement of Prime Minister David Cameron to the House of Commons on the extension of offensive British military operations in Syria.

Parliament’s Role in Voting on the Syrian Conflict

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Human Rights in the United Kingdom: Where Now?

fpjl2 — Fri, 22 May 2015 15:59:09 +0000

First, what lies behind the desire of some politicians to secure the Human Rights Act’s repeal? Second, how might a British Bill of Rights differ from the present legislation? And, third, what constitutional obstacles might lie in the way of the implementation of these reforms?

In relation to the last of those three issues, the argument is developed that although the UK Parliament has the legal power to legislate for the proposed changes, the increasingly multi-layered nature of the British constitution limits Parliament’s capacity to exploit its sovereign legislative authority. In particular, the constraining effects of international law - in the form of the European Convention on Human Rights - and the devolved nature of the modern British constitution are likely to limit the UK Government’s room for manoeuvre. As a result, it is likely to be difficult to deliver upon the manifesto commitments that were made in a legally coherent and constitutionally legitimate manner.

Dr Mark Elliott is a Reader in Public Law at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and a Fellow of St Catharine's College. His main research interests are in the fields of constitutional and administrative law. Dr Elliott's recent publications include Elliott and Thomas, Public Law (2nd ed OUP 2014); Elliott, Beatson, Matthews and Elliott's Administrative Law: Text and Materials (OUP 2011, 4th edition); and Forsyth, Elliott, Jhaveri, Scully-Hill and Ramsden (eds), Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Governance (OUP 2010). Dr Elliott was the 2011 Legal Research Foundation Visiting Scholar at ̽��ֱ�� ̽��ֱ�� of Auckland, New Zealand. In 2010, he was awarded a ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in ̽��ֱ�� teaching. He writes a blog which includes information for people applying, or thinking of applying, to study Law at university.

For more information about Dr Elliott, you can also refer to his Faculty profile.

Prior to the 2015 general election, the Conservative Party undertook in its manifesto to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and to enact a British Bill of Rights. In this video, Mark Elliott addresses three key questions raised by these proposals.

Human Rights in the United Kingdom: Where Now?

Catching light

Human Rights Day

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Nicklinson - ̽��ֱ��Right to Die?

lw355 — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:55:46 +0000

Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge’s Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news.

“…An individual’s right to decide by what means and at what point his or her life will end, provided he or she is capable of freely reaching a decision on this question and acting in consequence, is one of the aspects of the right to respect for private life within the meaning of article 8 of the Convention [right to private and family life].” So said the European Court of Human Rights in Haas v Switzerland (2013) 56 EHRR 6, at para 51.

However section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 makes it a criminal offence to encourage or assist the suicide of another person. Should it be an offence for anyone in any circumstances to help someone commit suicide? Nine judges in the Supreme Court considered a series of questions, which included the constitutional and somewhat technical question of whether it was for the judiciary to strike down section 2, or whether they should leave the question to Parliament. By a majority of seven to two, they voted not to issue a declaration that section 2 is incompatible with article 8.

Nicola Padfield explores some aspects of the important decision of the Supreme Court in Nicklinson (R (Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice; R (AM) v ̽��ֱ��DPP [2014] UKSC 38) focusing on the minority judgement of Baroness Hale.

̽��ֱ��law currently draws a horribly artificial divide between ‘killing’ and ‘letting die’, which means that those people who can breathe without artificial help are denied a choice which is available to those who cannot breath alone.

Nicola Padfield

Nicklinson - ̽��ֱ��Right to Die?

Cambridge ̽��ֱ��

Nicola Padfield

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page. For image rights, please see the credits associated with each individual image.

Yes

̽��ֱ��Defects of Jury Trials

ns480 — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:35:43 +0000

Professor Spencer is Professor of Law, Co-Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies, and Honorary President of the European Criminal Law Association. He has written extensively on criminal justice matters and has been involved in a number of law reform projects.

For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/jr-spencer/79

Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

In the light of the discharge of the jury in the trial of Vicky Pryce, questions have been asked about the value of the jury system. Professor John Spencer discusses the pitfalls of the system over the years and suggests ways in which the delivery of justice might be improved.

̽��ֱ��Defects of Jury Trials

̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

Professor John Spencer

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes

̽��ֱ��Effect of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on legal aid for family cases

ns480 — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:29:54 +0000

̽��ֱ��legal aid system was created in 1949 as part of the development of the post-war Welfare State, alongside the National Health Service. It provides funding both for legal advice and out-of-court representation by lawyers, for example in negotiating the settlement of disputes, and - should it come to this - legal representation in court. However, this is set to change in April 2013, when the controversial Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is due to come into force. ̽��ֱ��Act raises profound concerns about access to justice, largely removing legal aid from many of the areas of law where it has previously been available.

Ms Miles is Fellow and Director of Studies at Trinity College, Cambridge, and a Senior Lecturer in Law, specialising in Family Law. She is also Academic door tenant at 1 Hare Court, Assistant editor of the Child and Family Law Quarterly. and an Elected member of the Executive Council of the International Society of Family Law. In 2005 Ms Miles was seconded for two years to the Law Commission for England and Wales to work on the financial consequences of relationship breakdown.

Ms Jo Miles discusses the potential effects of the new Act on access to justice, especially in relation to difficult family law cases.

̽��ֱ��Act raises profound concerns about access to justice, largely removing legal aid from many of the areas of law where it has previously been available.

Jo Miles

Legal Aid Reform

Cambridge ̽��ֱ��

Jo Miles

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. If you use this content on your site please link back to this page.

Yes