A fundamental aspect of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is the statutory endorsement of a functional approach to capacity. In principle, this requires a separate assessment of capacity in respect of each decision to be made. Most capacity assessments take place at a non-judicial level, and, outside of day-to-day decisions, the most common assessors are likely to be healthcare professionals. This paper investigates the practical operation of the capacity assessment process at both judicial and non-judicial levels. It asks whether the process can deliver on the MCA's goal of preserving maximum decision-making freedom, while, at the same time, providing an appropriate degree of protection. It argues that assessors who are not legally trained encounter significant difficulties in carrying out the essentially legal task of assessing capacity. It also shows that assessors' values and biases, both professional and personal, are likely to impact on the conclusions reached. Having identified these difficulties, the paper considers their implications for the MCA's approach to capacity. It evaluates the attempts in the MCA itself to address assessors' limitations and argues that these will not have a substantial impact on the way in which capacity assessors operate. It considers other ways in which the quality of assessment could be improved and puts forward specific suggestions as to how greater assessor accountability can be delivered and increased rigour introduced to the capacity assessment process.

Twenty years after Ireland adopted an external supervisory board model to promote public confidence in the handling of complaints against the police (the Garda Síochána), it had to replace it with a cross between the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Independent Police Complaints Commission in England and Wales. This paper examines the nature and scale of the board's failure and offers a critique of the internal and external factors responsible. It focuses, in particular, on how the police and the government, acting separately and in combination, managed to smother the potential of the supervisory board model. It also offers insights into how the board contributed to its own failure. The paper concludes by drawing attention to the fact that several of these negative forces can also be active in the new complaints procedure that commenced operations in 2007.

This paper evaluates the impact of a substandard presidential election. Using Kenya as a case study, it reviews the 2007 vote. The paper contends that there is a link between free and fair elections and the enjoyment of human rights. It argues that in order for states in Africa to walk the (desired) democratic path, sitting governments must comply with internationally recognised standards. While focusing on the violence that rocked the country, the paper analyses the causes and implications of the much-disputed presidential poll. Also evaluated is the role the international community can play in resolving a crisis. The paper concludes by asserting that a rule of law culture must be embraced if human rights and democracy are to flourish in Africa.

Recent years have seen a number of developments pertaining to the notion that victims should be afforded a ‘voice’ in the criminal justice system. The theoretical and structural parameters of the adversarial system are not, however, conducive to exercising such a role. For many, conferring procedural rights on victims jeopardises the due process rights of the accused, as well as the public nature of the criminal justice system. In light of the recent decision to roll out the ‘Victims' Focus Scheme’ across England and Wales, this paper explores a number of issues of principle that arise – not least the deeper policy implications of an apparent re-alignment of the normative parameters of the criminal justice system to incorporate the private interests of third parties.

This paper discusses issues associated with international ranking of law journals. Some catalysts for the development of international journal ranking are highlighted, reasons for ranking are discussed and a range of ranking methodologies are analysed. The paper illustrates the problems associated with international journal rankings and the negative consequences that inevitably flow from such exercises.

The paper was prompted by the Australian Research Council's (ARC)'s recent Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) scheme which, as one of its components, requires international journal ranking. While examples are drawn from the ERA scheme, the paper's discussion is general and much broader in scope. That is because schemes like the ERA will come and go, but the issues of international journal rankings will remain.