Tasked with enforcing criminal law, public prosecutors worldwide enjoy broad discretion. Existing literature on prosecutorial discretion and accountability tends to discuss the regulation of prosecutorial discretion or analyse the influence of the procedural environment in which public prosecutors operate. This paper focuses on occupational culture as an important factor affecting prosecutorial decisions. It draws particular attention to an understudied aspect of prosecutors’ professional identity: legitimacy and, specifically, self-legitimacy, ie the belief public prosecutors have in their own legitimacy to make decisions in individual cases. The paper presents research findings from direct observations and interviews which reveal a sense of a loss of self-legitimacy amongst Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) staff due to the constant monitoring of their decisions by colleagues and managers. This all-pervasive managerialism, paradoxically, undermines the very legitimacy (and, relatedly, transparency) which the CPS has had to work so hard to develop since its inception.

The paper surveys the intellectual property (IP) laws of seven Southern African Development Community countries to better understand the nature, scope, and depth of their patent laws with particular focus on their utilisation of TRIPS flexibilities to facilitate pharmaceutical access. The selected countries – Botswana, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe – represent a mix of both major and modest economies. While the current literature contains widespread assertions on the impact and effect of TRIPS on access to medicines in these countries and less-developed countries in general, this paper finds that the countries lack explicit and workable provisions implementing key TRIPS flexibilities. Hence, available TRIPS flexibilities have not been well utilised and it is often the complicated and unworkable domestic framework – rather than TRIPS – which becomes the stumbling block to pharmaceutical access. Another major finding is that patents may not be a major impediment in the region given that few patents and even fewer pharmaceutical patents are filed. The paper argues that since the surveyed countries are mainly net IP importers with similar developmental contexts and aspirations, the best approach would be to fully take advantage of existing flexibilities and more aggressively leverage policy space to engender access to cheaper medicines.

This paper examines in three parts how ADR is being embedded into the English civil justice system. Section 1 discusses how courts encourage settlements, and it argues that while mounting costs in litigation lead to negotiated settlements, the participation in ADR primarily mainly occurs when parties are referred to it in a timely manner. Section 2 investigates the time when disputants are referred to ADR, and it proposes a taxonomy formed by three stages in the dispute life cycle: (1) before parties contemplate litigation; (2) at the pre-action phase as a pre-condition to issue a claim; and (3) after a defence is entered. Section 3 notes that the court digitalisation program is increasing ADR referrals across the above three stages, and it argues that these referrals will be more effective when they are timely and coupled with suitable incentives and sanctions, but the latter must take into consideration the parties’ power asymmetries.

As the UK left the European Union, a new body of UK law, labelled ‘retained EU law’, was introduced to save and convert certain parts of EU law into UK statutes. This paper explores the impact of Brexit on statutory interpretation in the UK in the context of VAT. In particular, it looks at whether, and the manner in which, UK courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will move in different directions when interpreting what is essentially the same law. The paper predicts the post-Brexit evolution of statutory interpretation in UK courts based on an empirical study of cases concerning VAT referred by UK courts to the CJEU between 1973 and 2020, augmented by a doctrinal analysis of selected cases. The methodology is built on the premise that past case decisions may provide an indication of the nature of possible future divergence. A case study of VAT may offer wider implications as to departure from the CJEU jurisprudence in other legal areas in the coming years.

This paper investigates the knowledge of the general public on the legislative framework relating to wildlife conservation in England, with a specific focus on the Bern Convention and the public's awareness of the treaty, as well as the domestic legislation transposing it. By creating a publicly available survey, the study determined the environmental attitudes of the public and their knowledge of the legislative regime relating to wildlife conservation. Whilst the majority of the public displayed pro-environmental attitudes and support for greater efforts towards the conservation of flora and fauna, the overall awareness of the legislation was worryingly low, with only 5.6% of respondents recognising the Bern Convention. Accordingly, the study investigated how awareness of environmental legislation may be increased. Ultimately, the paper concludes that formal environmental education, including legislation, must be optimised, and the domestic legislative framework should be further consolidated.

The relationship between a conveyance's validity and its underlying contract has been a classic but unsettled topic for comparative private lawyers over the past three decades. This paper attempts to add positivist and normative observations drawn from property transfer theories and practices in English and Chinese law. A jurisdiction adopting an ‘intent plus’ model does not necessarily recognise a separate intent to convey distinct from the intent in the underlying contract, as exemplified by Chinese law, while a jurisdiction adopting the ‘intent alone’ model does not necessarily deny the separate intent to convey, as exemplified by English law. One advantage for a jurisdiction that takes the separatist approach is its flexibility, so that it can still choose between pure causality, pure abstraction, or context-based abstraction at a later stage. Recent developments show that English and Chinese law are moving towards this approach. As to whether flaws in the underlying contract infect the validity of the conveyance, the English position depends on vitiating factors, whereas the mainstream Chinese judgments tend to be pro-causal. Justifications favouring causality provided in the English and Chinese academia are different, though neither can stand up to scrutiny. The detecting opportunity argument submitted in this paper helps to justify abstraction.

This paper makes a case for the integration of compulsory climate change topics across the core law curriculum. It argues that the most persuasive rationale for this is based in climate legal obligations and institutions, and a clear-eyed perception of climate risk, rather than the sustainability agenda. To this end, the paper outlines efforts taken to ‘mainstream’ climate change and environmental law education in a core course of the LLB degree – land law. An empirical study sought to evaluate the students’ engagement with these materials, and their broader views concerning climate change and their legal education. The paper critically evaluates the course and the results of the empirical study. It concludes that students want to be, and should be, taught climate law and the climate context of law as part of their prescribed learning throughout the core curriculum, rather than as optional or elective content.

This is the first work to explore the possibility of holding sports governing bodies and competition organisers vicariously liable for the tortious behaviour of athletes that compete under their auspices. In contrast to other scholarly contributions on vicarious liability in sport, this paper examines the scope of responsibility for athletes in individual sports (as opposed to team sports). It begins by drawing upon the recent tribunal proceedings between professional cyclist Jess Varnish and British Cycling to analyse the employment status of government-funded individual athletes. In calling for a contextual and policy-sensitive approach to the definition of an ‘employee’, this paper argues that certain normative and theoretical considerations ought to be granted more or less weight depending on the particular legal issue animating the dispute. Thereafter, and with one eye on the overly intrusive regulatory provisions found in sports such as tennis and golf, this paper also demonstrates that the vicarious liability of governing bodies and competition organisers could equally be extended to cover the tortious conduct of non-funded individual athletes. In making these claims, it is demonstrated how a sport-specific application of the doctrine may help to teach us a few broader lessons about vicarious liability more generally.

Financial globalisation has given issuers more freedom to carry out jurisdiction shopping. As a policy response, a growing number of stock markets have introduced the dual-class share structure to enhance global competitiveness. However, does the dual-class share structure help stock markets attract issuers? It is a question rarely examined empirically in existing scholarly work. This paper explores the practices of three jurisdictions with global financial centres, ie the US, China and Hong Kong, to narrow the research gap. Based on hand-collected data, it explains the infrequent listings with the dual-class share structure in China and Hong Kong in the post-reform era in two ways: low demand due to the use of substitutes; and limited allowance caused by the harsh ex ante regulation, and is the first comparative quantitative study in this field. Drawing on the empirical lessons, this paper recommends that China relax its ex ante regulation and suggests the wider community consider the necessity of introducing the dual-class share structure and the balance they aim to achieve between investor protection and market openness.

The demand for family mediation to adapt and change has risen sharply in the contemporary English and Welsh family justice system. This paper focuses on a crucial, yet overlooked, barrier to reform: the tensions felt within the family mediator profession. It first provides an important overview of the introduction of family mediation in the late twentieth century, highlighting the distinction between the traditional therapeutic mediator and the subsequent lawyer mediator. Recent anecdotal evidence suggests that friction exists amongst the two mediator sub-groups, similar to earlier tensions felt between lawyers and mediators. The remainder of this paper is based on an empirical study, comprising 17 interviews with family mediators, which confirms these tensions, as well as a lack of national identity across the profession. However, the data also reveal mediators’ desire for collaboration and community within the profession. The paper is hopeful that regulatory reform can help mediators to ‘mediate themselves’ going forward, and questions whether this transition is supported by a new hybrid mediator.

This paper discusses the extent to which conscientious objections to vaccination qualify for protection under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Drawing on an examination of the nature of conscience and the ethics of vaccine refusal, it argues that a narrow category of reasons for refusal to be vaccinated can be differentiated from more general ‘vaccine hesitancy’. In relation to conscience objections of this kind, it engages in a systematic analysis of the applicability of the ECHR, both in relation to compulsory vaccination, and so-called ‘vaccine passports’. It concludes that states can – and in some situations must – recognise conscientious objections under the ECHR.

It is May 2030 and Stormont heads into its fourth Assembly election in eight years. Voters walk past election posters loudly praising and denouncing the Northern Ireland Protocol. As with the other Assembly elections since Brexit, the Protocol occupies centre-stage. Voters are under no delusion: the new Assembly will be as polarised as ever, no matter its party-political make-up.

The legal backdrop to this (not entirely unfeasible) future is complex: the UK's Withdrawal Agreement has meant the emergence of a regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The consequences which flow from this have been swift and myriad: trade barriers and social unrest, barely a year after withdrawal.

The focus of this paper, however, is the impact of these changes on the UK constitution. I will examine two landmark judgments of the UK Supreme Court, applying the themes arising in these cases to the legislation which incorporated the Protocol into UK domestic law. In so doing, I will argue that, far from ‘taking back control’, the UK Parliament has instead erected significant new barriers to its ability to ‘make or unmake any law whatever’ for the whole of the UK.

A significant issue in combatting the Covid-19 pandemic is the need to enhance developing states’ access to Covid-19 vaccines. The present paper considers the request for a temporary waiver of intellectual property rights in relation to Covid-19 technologies and treatments submitted to the World Trade Organization and analyses a key argument against the proposed waiver: that the compulsory licensing provisions set out in the TRIPS Agreement are sufficiently flexible to help states get access to vaccines. The compulsory licensing flexibilities set out in TRIPS, including the amendment to TRIPS in Article 31bis, are evaluated, to explore whether compulsory licensing could be an effective tool in helping developing states to access Covid-19 vaccines. Key issues are explored from a human rights perspective to examine whether a rights-based approach to the compulsory licensing provisions could offer further insights as to how the provisions could be more workable, to enhance access to medicines and vaccines for developing states.

Exclusion of improperly obtained evidence is often discussed in relation to criminal proceedings, but not civil proceedings, where concerns about wrongdoing of state actors and deprivation of liberty are not usually present. It is sometimes assumed that judges in civil proceedings in England and Wales had no discretion to exclude relevant and reliable evidence based on how it was obtained (as a distinct concern from exclusion of evidence of little probative value) prior to the enactment of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. This paper seeks to demonstrate that this is wrong, arguing that a number of sources of power to exclude evidence on the basis of how that evidence was obtained have arisen in England and Wales, and that these are not attributable to the Civil Procedure Rules. There is a discretion which enables exclusion of evidence where this is ‘in the interests of justice’, and a discretion to do with the administration of justice. It may be possible to break these down further, to concerns over abuse of the court's own procedures, and executive illegality. Analysing the decisions leading to these developments reveals the importance of human rights concerns to recognition of exclusionary discretion in civil proceedings, and for informing the content of the discretion/s.

In his 1935 judgment in Woolmington v DPP, Viscount Sankey declared the prosecution's burden of proving the accused's guilt was a ‘golden thread’, running ‘throughout the whole web of English criminal law’. This paper explores what Woolmington can tell us about the appeals process – and about the criminal law itself – less than 30 years after the first automatic right to appeal was created in English criminal law. It argues that the decision helps us understand the political pressures that could help to form – and make possible – legal decisions during this period. And it finds that the Woolmington decision itself – both in the text of the decision and in its immediate reception – was more universal than it was fundamental. Woolmington, I argue, has always been more about the high-level principles of English criminal law than about securing any kind of minimal procedural rights for a defendant.

This paper explores the relationship between the concept of the ‘identity of the child’ and legal parenthood. It examines the role of identity in the determination of legal parenthood in three contexts: (a) parental orders after surrogacy arrangements; (b) disputed paternity cases; and (c) the statutory rules in cases involving gamete donation. This paper argues that the concept of ‘identity’ plays an inconsistent role in the attribution of legal parenthood, because the concept lacks substantive content within judicial reasoning and the statutory framework. The understanding of identity, and the role it plays, appears to change in these different contexts to serve the different purposes that the law is trying to achieve. The reason for this inconsistency is that, despite the utilisation of the language of the ‘child's identity’, legal parenthood remains adult-centric and premised upon replicating the binary, two-parent model of the nuclear family. We argue that instead of appealing to this incoherent concept of ‘identity’, the courts should explicitly engage with different types of parenthood and acknowledge the importance of each for both children and parents. Such an approach would result in more truly child-centred reasoning and serve to diminish the predominance of the binary, two-parent model.

The context- and person-specific nature of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in England and Wales means inherent indeterminacy characterises decision-making in the Court of Protection (CoP), not least regarding conflicting values and the weight that should be accorded to competing factors. This paper explores how legal professionals frame and influence the MCA's deliberative and adjudicative processes in the social space of the courtroom through a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with legal practitioners specialising in mental capacity law and retired judges from the CoP and the Courts of Appeal with specific experience of adjudicating mental capacity disputes. The concept of the ‘human element’ offers important new insight into how legal professionals perform their roles and justify their activities in the conduct of legal proceedings. The ‘human element’ takes effect in two ways: first, it operates as an overarching normative prism that accounts for what good practice demands of legal professionals in mental capacity law; secondly, it explains how these professionals orientate these norms in the day-to-day conduct of their work. The ‘human element’ further presents challenges that demand practical negotiation in relation to countervailing normative commitments to objectivity and socio-institutional expectations around professional hierarchies, expertise, and evidential thresholds.

In this paper we outline and critique legal approaches to poor mental health at work in the UK. We argue that the current legal framework is not ‘fit for purpose’. Overall, the existing framework promotes a problematic model that is ineffective because each element, individually and as part of the whole, fails to adequately engage with the nuanced realities of the relationship between undertaking paid work and suffering poor mental health. It is, we suggest, disjointed because it has evolved from a patchwork of provisions, each with different foundations, motivations, ambitions and flaws. The need for a re-focus, and what this might entail, is considered, and the capacity of a model centred on addressing workplace mental health as a manifestation of broader notions of vulnerability is explored.

An injunction is typically characterised as the primary remedy to prevent a continuing interference with a claimant's property rights. It can be easier to obtain such a remedy against a cynical defendant who knowingly interfered with those rights, as opposed to a naïve or unwitting party who was unaware of them. It is not obvious, however, why the defendant's state of mind should affect what remedy the claimant is afforded in vindicating their property rights. This paper examines the role played by the defendant's state of mind when considering whether to grant an injunction. It argues that a defendant who knowingly infringes a property right in respect of land for material gain assumes the risk that an injunction will be granted to stop that infringement. As a consequence, the question of whether such an order will create hardship or oppression is either diminished or eliminated as a factor. This approach also vindicates the proprietary nature of such rights, which may be difficult to assess in financial terms.

For any field of law, the goal it was designed to achieve permeates every aspect of its application and interpretation. This is particularly true when the black letter of the law is cryptic and silent on most aspects of how it should be interpreted and applied, as is the case with competition law, which for the most part revolves around a small number of highly abstract provisions. It is only natural then that ample scholarly work has been devoted to identifying the goals and purposes of competition law. By and large these attempts have been textual, historical, and teleological. We introduce here instead a quantitative analysis of the case law and present the results of the first empirical study into the goals and purposes of EU competition law as they emerge from the entirety of the case law of the European Court of Justice, opinions of the Advocate Generals, Commission decisions, and speeches of Commissioners for Competition. This body of almost 4,000 sources paints a comprehensive picture of the underlying goals of EU competition law, and helps conclusively confirm some previous insights while debunking others, thereby helping to advance the present application and future evolution of competition law.