Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:46:00.232Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An academic lawyer and law reform*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

J. C. Smith
J. C. Smith*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At one of the first meetings of the Society of Public Teachers of Law that I attended a senior member declared that too much law reform was going on and that he proposed to form a law conservation group. That sentiment would now be widely shared by practitioners and perhaps even by some members of this Society, re-writing their lecture notes for the umpteenth time. Yet, by the nature of our job, most of us are continually looking at ways in which the law might be reformed. A university teacher cannot discuss any legal institution or rule of law without considering with his students whether it works fairly and efficiently and, this often leads naturally to a consideration of how it might be improved. At the very least we must send our students away with some ideas on law reform. Many of us are not content to stop there but seek to reach a wider, or more immediately influential, audience. In this paper I propose to discuss some personal views and experiences, more or less related to the subject.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 1981 , pp. 119 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

A Presidential address to the Society of Public Teachers of Law, September 1980.

References

1. See AG's References (Nos. 1 and 2 of 1979) [1979] 3 All ER 143.

2. See Lambie [1981] 1 All ER 332 at 337.

3. [1980] 2 All ER 753.

4. See Husseyn (1977) 67 Cr App R 131, [1978] Crim LR 219 (sub nom. Hussein).

5. [1978] Crim LR 219.

6. See Bozikovic [1978] Crim LR 686; Greenhoff [1979] Crim LR 108. Prosecuting solicitors and police have reported many other similar cases not appearing in any series of law reports.

7. See footnote 4.

8. AG's References (Nos. 1 and 2 of 1979). Footnote 1, above.

9. [1975] AC 476.

10. [1980] Crim LR 503.

11. The second count was prudently added at the suggestion of prosecuting counsel.

12. [1980] Crim LR at S04.

13. Professor Glanville Williams writing in [1980] Crim LR 263. at 267. But see [1980] Crim LR at 505.

14. See commentary at (19801 Crim LR p. 504.

15. Partington v Williams (1976) 62 Cr App R 220; DPP v Nock [1978] AC 979.

16. See [1977] Crim LR 598.

17. Quinn [1978] Crim LR 750.

18. Walters [1979] RTR 220 at 224-5.

19. Duncalf [1979] 2 All ER 1116.

20. Introduction to Criminal Laiu (9th edn) at p. 353.

21. Conspiracy and Criminal Law Reform (Law Com. No. 76, 1976) p. 166.

22. See Sir Frederic Sellers, (1969) Crim LR 223 at 233.

23. (1975) 13 JSFTL (NS) 183.

24. See [1955] Crim LR 18, [1956] Crim LR 78 and 238.

25. Feely [1973] QB 530.

26. Cmnd. 7844.

27. Section 3.04.

28. Section 3.04 (2) (b).

29. Andrew Ashworth; see [1975] CU 295.

30. Professor Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law 462.

31. ‘The First Ten Years of the Criminal Law Revision Committee’, [1969] Crim LR 223.

32. See CLRC, Thirteenth Report (Cmnd. 6733), pp. 12, 23.