The author considers the potential of the Human Rights Act to influence the future of labour law. First, the development of common law can be based on fundamental human rights principles. Statutory interpretation of employment legislation can also be grounded on this potentially more principled approach. Second, the new legislation may hasten the development of a common law of privacy and provide greater protection for expression of political and religious views in the employment context. Third, it changes the criteria against which the propriety of restrictions in the employment relationship should be judged. It is likely that in judicial review cases the more rigorous proportionality standard rather than the Wednesbury unreasonableness test will be used. Finally, the effective application of human rights in the private sphere is likely since the Convention case-law, the debates in Parliament and the Act itself strongly suggest that the Convention rights will have an indirect effect. The domestic courts must take the opportunity to develop their own human rights standards.

There is a trend within the EU Member States to introduce criminal sanctions for cartel activity. Such criminalisation must respect the human rights of the accused. Unfortunately the literature on cartel criminalisation pays scant regard to the investigation of human rights issues. A comprehensive analysis of the impact of the principle of legal certainty (Article 7 ECHR) upon cartel criminalisation in the EU Member States is conspicuously absent from the literature. This article rectifies this deficiency by examining how this particular principle of European human rights law may impact upon the concept, substance and existence of a criminal cartel offence.

A popular way to try to justify holding defendants criminally responsible for inadvertent negligence is via an indirect or “tracing” approach, namely an approach which traces the inadvertence back to prior culpable action. I argue that this indirect approach to criminal negligence fails because it cannot account for a key feature of how criminal negligence should be (and sometimes is) assessed. Specifically, it cannot account for why, when considering whether a defendant is negligent, what counts as a risk should be assessed relative to the defendant's evidence.

This essay argues that a defining characteristic of modern law – the distinctive way in which it judges its addressees – will disappear. After sketching the distinctive nature of modern law's judgment, I show that it is part of a broader regulatory paradigm (rule or East Coast regulation) which is itself being superseded. Technological management is the alternative regulatory paradigm and I examine its rise and salience, showing how it might, in combination with the advent of ubiquitous computing, machine learning and artificial intelligence, cure a range of alleged pathologies that mark contemporary legal systems. The essay also demonstrates why technological management is now our regulatory default, its salience flowing from changes in the nature of our thinking about, and deployment of, power. The essay combines the work of Roger Brownsword, a leading contemporary jurist of technological management, with that of the world-renowned social theorist Michel Foucault.

The purpose of this article is to give an explanation reported by Lord Nottingham about three-quarters of the way through the seventeenth century of the legal reasons justifying the resurrection of equitable estates by way of trusts after the Statute of Uses in 1535 had gone a long distance towards extirpating equitable estates in land. This explanation turns to a large degree on a restrictive interpretation of the first section of the Act, which is as follows—

“That where any person or persons…at any time hereafter shall…be seised, of and in any…hereditaments, to the use confidence or trust of any other person or persons or of any body politic, by…any…means whatsoever,…in every such case all and every such person or persons and bodies politic that…shall have any such use confidence or trust…shall…be…deemed and adjudged in lawful estate seisin and possession of and in the same…hereditaments,…to all intents constructions and purposes in the law, of and in such like estates as they had or shall have in use trust or confidence of or in the same.”

The surviving image of the Elizabethan and Jacobean solicitor was created for us by the pamphleteers and playmongers, who could be sure of immediate applause or popular sympathy by introducing into their work a few caricatures drawn from the seamier recesses of the legal world. We are encouraged by these writers to imagine a London plagued by these vermin of the law, scurrying in and around the Temple and lurking in the shadows of Westminster Hall, waiting to pounce on the unsuspecting bumpkin who had the misfortune to wander near their reach. Whether and to what extent these portraits bear any relation to reality are questions which social historians have yet to answer. Legal historians have made but a slight contribution to the history of solicitors during the period which, for them, was the most critical of all. To this period may be assigned the beginning of a process of demarcation between the functions of barristers and solicitors, and when we understand how this came about we shall have traced for the first time the origin of the solicitors' branch of the profession.

This article explores Philip Pettit's recent attempts to extend his republican theory of justice and legitimacy to the international sphere in accordance with his ideal of “globalised sovereignty”, with a specific focus on his treatment of international law and institutions. It uses the practice of international law and institutions, with examples largely drawn from international economic law, to test the assumptions built into Pettit's theory. It then considers whether and how some of those assumptions might need to be revised in light of the legal, institutional, and practical constraints of the international domain.

The freedom to criticise government, and even to counsel disobedience or revolt, is widely considered the principal mark of a free society. Where the dissident voice is silenced by laws against sedition, it has been argued, there is no genuine freedom of speech and, accordingly, no real political freedom.2 The force of this suggestion stems from the underlying idea that government, if constitutional and legitimate, should be government by consent: laws against sedition, or which otherwise curtail political debate in order to silence opposition, repudiate that idea by denying the legitimacy of dissent.

A Decade or so since the decisions in Re Furse and Brown v. Browne it is time to return to those intriguing cases and to the test for personal domicile which they employed. Outwardly, at least, little has changed since Fox J. held that Mr. Furse died domiciled in England, making his estate liable for estate duty; or since the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mr. Brown, whose domicile for jurisdictional purposes was challenged by his wife in their divorce proceedings. But at a deeper level both cases beg questions of principle which have yet to be resolved. They also sowed the seeds of a better law of domicile which have begun to germinate, if Hoffman J.'s more recent decision in Plummer v. Inland Revenue Comrs. is any guide. The subtle realignment of the test for domicile disclosed by Furse, Brown, and Plummer is this article's concern. Its conclusion is that all three cases suggest how factual connection is coming to replace intention as the touchstone for a change of domicile.

Consumers frequently do not know of their rights and are unwilling to litigate. The powers of the Director General of Fiar Trading under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 will often provide more effective protection for the consumer than common law rules. The powers are pre-emptive and enable unfair terms to be removed from standard form contracts, so that consumers simply cease to encounter such terms. Some protection may be provided for consumers by common law rules which allow a finding that clauses are not incorporated or that they do not have the legal effect which they may appear to the consumer to have. However, without knowledge or a willingness to litigate, consumers may be misled by such clauses and terms as to the legal rights generated aand they will not then be able to enjoy their rights to the full. This article examines the extent to which the powers of the Director General can be used to protect consumers from such misleading clauses and terms. It considers the interaction of the Regulations and the common law, the scope of the Regulations, and the application of the Regulation's test of fairness.

In June 1993 in R v. Taylor the Court of Appeal quashed the murder convictions of two young women on grounds (inter alia) of prejudicial press coverage of the original trial. In October 1993 three police officers charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice following the release of the Birmingham Six had their prosecution stayed. The court accepted the argument that adverse publicity made a fair trial impossible.

UK public law is often viewed as a sophisticated power struggle between rival institutions, an approach encouraged by the assumption that the law is ultimately dependent on such contingencies as the existence of an official consensus about its sources. From that perspective, legal judgments should be read as strategic moves within the political power-game. We can make better sense of public law if, instead, we interpret it as the articulation and enforcement of standards of legitimate governance, inspired by universal ideals of individual freedom and human dignity. The rule of Law denies the legal validity of arbitrary, unjustified assertions of power inimical to those ideals. Positive law is, at root, an instantiation of natural law, as the interplay of legal rule and underlying principle, characteristic of common law reasoning, confirms. There are important implications for our understanding of the constitutional foundations of judicial review, the limits of parliamentary sovereignty, the nature of the principle of legality, and the scope and content of fundamental rights.

Clear understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) usage risks and how they are being addressed is needed, which requires proper and adequate corporate disclosure. We advance a legal framework for AI Fairness Reporting to which companies can and should adhere on a comply-or-explain basis. We analyse the sources of unfairness arising from different aspects of AI models and the disparities in the performance of machine learning systems. We evaluate how the machine learning literature has sought to address the problem of unfairness through the use of different fairness metrics. We then put forward a nuanced and viable framework for AI Fairness Reporting comprising: (1) disclosure of all machine learning models usage; (2) disclosure of fairness metrics used and the ensuing trade-offs; (3) disclosure of de-biasing methods used; and (d) release of datasets for public inspection or for third-party audit. We then apply this reporting framework to two case studies.

The decision of the House of Lords in Vandervell v. IRC [1967] 2 AC 291 is difficult to explain but highly convenient in everyday commerce. This article uses the doctrine of overreaching to explain and justify their Lordships’ approach to the formalities for dealing with trust property at the direction of beneficiaries. It seeks to explore the limits of that justification, and thereby suggest answers to practical questions left unresolved by the decision. These questions remain highly relevant, particularly in the age of widespread electronic communication without formality.

In his book, Taking Rights Seriously, Professor Ronald Dworkin has argued that the institution of rights against the state is justified “because it represents the majority's promise to the minorities that their dignity and equality will be respected.” But he also stressed the difficulty of ensuring that these rights are respected:

The institution of rights against the Government is not a gift of God, or an ancient ritual, or a national sport. It is a complex and troublesome practice that makes the Government's job of securing the general benefit more difficult and more expensive, and it would be a frivolous and wrongful practice unless it served some point.

Now Dworkin's book is concerned with the problems presented in a democratic system of law and government by a serious commitment to fundamental political rights, such as freedom of speech and the disputed right of civil disobedience; and Dworkin does not directly consider the interest which the individual may have in the maintenance of good government in matters that affect him. One object of this article is to consider whether it is worthwhile seeking to relate the debate about citizen's rights to an assessment of the Ombudsman system. Another aim, since no-one would claim that the Ombudsman should be the sole protector of citizen's rights, is to examine the relationship between the Ombudsman and other agencies for the protection of the citizen in his dealings with the administration. The material to be discussed is drawn from the experience in the U.K. of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Parliamentary Ombudsman: but aspects of the discussion may be relevant to the experience of ombudsmen in other countries.

This paper examines the intervention of the law, and the role of the court, in debt restructuring, both in terms of imposing constraints on creditors and in seeking to ameliorate the potential abuses that can arise from such constraints. Three potential forms of abuse are examined: the imposition of a restructuring on dissenting creditors, which introduces the potential for wealth transfers between creditors; the imposition of a moratorium while a restructuring is negotiated, which might lead to misuse of the process by managers wishing to prop up companies which are not viable, or may allow managers of a viable business to “shake off” liabilities that it is capable of servicing; and the facilitation of rescue finance, which raises the potential for new creditors to be preferred at the expense of existing creditors. It is argued that the court's role in protecting creditors from these three forms of potential abuse is vital, although the nature of that role differs according to the form of abuse. Recent debt restructuring reform proposals in both the UK and the EU, which adopt distinct approaches to the role of the court in this process, are examined in the light of this discussion.

Overreaching, as the doctrine is now understood, is the process whereby a purchaser of property takes it free from any interests or powers, which attach instead to the proceeds of sale. Dispositions of trust property and conveyances by mortgagees, by personal representatives and under an order of the court may all overreach equitable interests. A lease granted by a mortgagor may overreach the rights of the mortgagee. This article is concerned primarily with dispositions of trust property and in particular those by trustees for sale of land. It seeks to demonstrate that the concept of overreaching is wider than is supposed. Two principal arguments are advanced. The first is that overreaching is a necessary concomitant of a power of disposition. A transaction made by a person within the dispositive powers conferred upon him will overreach equitable interests in that property, but ultra vires dispositions will not, and the transferee with notice will take the property subject to those interests. The second argument is that the draftsman of the 1925 property legislation fully appreciated the true nature of overreaching, and attempted to employ it as an essential part of his scheme for the facilitation of conveyancing. His intentions have not been appreciated in practice, and his carefully constructed scheme has been misapplied. The article considers critically recent proposals for reform from the Law Commission, and in particular the emphasis which those proposals give to the protection of the rights of persons in actual occupation. It will be suggested that reform might be more effectively achieved by employing the essentials of the scheme constructed by the draftsman of the 1925 legislation.

“The law is no stranger to the philosophy of ‘As if’. It has built up many of its doctrines by a make-believe that things are other than they are.” In writing these words, Benjamin Cardozo could easily have had in mind the English law of evidence. For a number of its rules can be seen to proceed upon postulates about human nature and about the structure of the world which are unverified and, one has reason to suspect, all too seldom accurate. This paper will examine one of the more arresting examples of this phenomenon, section 1(f) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, where English law adheres to a doctrine which, it is feared, derives from a blend of misconceptions and wishful thinking.