Amid the growing calls for the complete prohibition of the use by law enforcement authorities of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in public spaces, this article advocates for an incremental approach to regulating the use of the technology. By analysing legislative instruments, judicial decisions, deployment practices of UK law enforcement authorities, various procedural and policy documents, as well as available safeguards, the article suggests incremental adjustments to the existing legal framework instead of sweeping regulatory change. The proposed approach calls for adopting national legal rules governing watch lists and introducing spatial, temporal and contextual limitations on the deployment of technology based on the assessment of proportionality and necessity. To enhance the effectiveness of overt surveillance using LFR, the article recommends adopting a transparency procedure that promotes accountability without undermining the objectives of law enforcement. Alternatively, the overt use of the technology should be limited to deterring the commission of crimes and safeguarding public safety, where transparency does not undermine its effectiveness. Limiting the scope of overt use of LFR technology entails that law enforcement agencies primarily utilise covert surveillance, with prior judicial approval, except in urgent cases, as this would improve effective criminal investigation and public safety. The legal adjustments proposed in this article can be implemented through flexible secondary legislation or local policies, rather than rigid statutory rules.

It has been argued in previous work that Hedley Byrne v Heller addressed no actual mischief. In the case itself, the defendant's credit reference about Easipower Ltd. was neither a misstatement nor negligently given, and in general the indemnification of reliance on negligent statements is far better regulated by contract than it can possibly be by negligent misstatement. This paper expands on the significance of contract relative to tort in Hedley Byrne, but mainly argues that the mischief perceived by the claimant was caused by the operation of the statutory regime regulating Easipower's insolvency. This makes regarding Hedley Byrne as a necessary response to “the privity of contract fallacy” even more implausible.

This paper argues that in platform-based digitalisation of international trade processes, the use of blockchain instead of a central database system does not by itself adequately address the platform provider’s potential to engage in opportunistic behaviour. Digital transformation of international trade is, thus, constrained by hold-up problems. This requires embedding governance mechanisms in platform rulebooks designed to establish trust and commonality of interests. The article proposes a governance mechanism to promote widespread digital adoption through contract design choices based on guiding principles that can establish legally enforceable behavioural standards which align with the relational characteristics of digital trade networks.

According to the “Inadequacy Thesis”, the law's refusal to extend the tort of conversion to interferences with contractual rights is evidence of systemic ossification and proof of its failure to protect the most valuable asset class in the modern economy. Whilst it is true that, like chattels, the benefit of contractual rights can be usurped by third parties, transforming such rights into objects of property is the wrong solution to the problem. This article departs from previous analyses by stressing that the analogue of acts of interference with contractual rights is not the conversion of a chattel but a “triangle dispute”. The problem raised by triangle disputes is not how to reach the primary wrongdoer, but how to allocate the loss between the innocent parties. Invoking the concept of “property” cannot solve this problem. Its efficient solution is to be found in better contracts, not more property.

Administrative decisions are unlawful if they are unreasonable, in the sense that Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation made famous. What is Wednesbury unreasonableness, precisely? Courts have not clearly said, and existing academic answers are flawed. Here I propose a new answer. My claim, roughly, is that a Wednesbury unreasonable decision is one that a court is entitled, given the evidence before it, to conclude was wrong, given the evidence before the authority when it made the decision. In a slogan: Wednesbury unreasonableness is demonstrable wrongness.

Volenti non fit injuria allows a negligent defendant to escape liability by showing that the claimant voluntarily and willingly accepted the risk in question. This article combines the theoretical limitations of the volenti defence with a case analysis of how its application has played out in the “real world”, and argues it is not fit for modern tort law. The defence has a controversial and chequered history, being described as a “so-called principle … of little help: indeed, it is confusing, unnecessary, and if we are not careful, it will lead us to the wrong outcome”. It is submitted that volenti is based on unjustified concepts of people agreeing to risks, leads to harmful outcomes and that the defence does not fit with current approaches to tort liability. This article therefore concludes that the harmful outcomes of the volenti defence far exceed any potential benefits provided, and the defence should therefore be abolished.

Can claimants choose between contract and tort claims arising on the same facts with different jurisdictional and/or choice-of-law consequences? While domestic legal systems generally recognise concurrent liability, commentators object that its extension to private international law would be unprincipled and would threaten the field's values. This, however, contrasts with the position in common law and under EU Regulations, where concurrent claims are generally recognised with only narrow limits. This article justifies concurrent claims in private international law, arguing that the same premises supporting concurrent liability in domestic law exist in private international law, and that no field-unique concerns foreclose it.

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.

The criminal law doctrine of “transferred malice” has been much discussed. What has gone comparatively unnoticed is the phenomenon of “recycled malice”. For example, those who endorse transferred malice would hold that, if D tries to shoot V, and the shot misses and hits T, D’s intention to hit V is “transferred” to T, and a completed offence against T is constructed. But many legal systems that endorse transferred malice also allow D to be convicted of an attempted offence against V. In other words, D’s intention to hit V can apparently be used multiple times. Once this phenomenon is noticed, a question arises over its justification and limits. This article argues that no convincing justification for recycling mens rea exists.

Successful drugs policy must be driven by thoughtful principle and intergovernmental consensus, not by departmental or legal inertia, nor by public (mis)conceptions about drug use. Perhaps the most pressing choice for drugs policymakers at present is between harm reduction and abstinence approaches to drugs policy. To choose between these two approaches, we need to know addiction's normative status: is having an addiction a misfortune or a harm in its own right, even setting aside knock-on health and wellbeing consequences? We argue that the harm of addiction is driven by poor policies, but that harm is not inevitable.

The new UK internal market, as embodied in the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and the common frameworks, is the latest example of market integration, but it is far from being the only one. A myriad of composite market structures exists across the world, including in Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, the US and the EU. This article investigates how the UK internal market compares to other internal markets: to what extent does it follow pre-existing paths, to what extent does it depart from them? It is argued that the UK has diverged from international blueprints in several important aspects. Despite drawing on methods that are frequently employed for achieving economic integration, it reinterprets and combines these in a unique way. The result is an internal market which is defined by an unusual degree of centralisation, strong trade rights and a high potential for deregulation.

This article considers the rule that a claimant who has been wronged will be denied recovery where the damage flowed from a sanction imposed as a result of their own illegal acts such that compensating the claimant would divert a sanction intended to be imposed on the claimant to the defendant. The article has two purposes. The first aim is to provide a counterweight to the overwhelming body of academic literature critical of Gray v Thames Trains Ltd. in which the House of Lords, in applying the illegality bar found it unnecessary to examine the purpose of the criminal sanction against the claimant, preferring to treat its existence as sufficient to lead to a denial of recovery. The article argues that academic support for adoption of an alternative test of “significant personal responsibility” rests on precarious grounds, depending, as it does, on the “unsatisfactory state of law” and “different policies” arguments. This article reconceptualises the rule in Gray and systematically examines the role played by the theme of consistency between the civil law and criminal law in judicial decision-making. The second aim is to evaluate Gray in light of Patel v Mirza. The article critiques the Supreme Court's inconsistent treatment of deterrence in Henderson v Dorset University NHS Foundation Trust and Stoffel v Grondona, and argues that the way the court in Henderson conceptualised the relationship between Gray and Patel discloses an approach which is more closely aligned with that adopted by the minority in Patel.