‘Convicted sex criminal, named only as ‘Q’, was given taxpayer funding on human rights grounds to fight lack of contact with son.’
Daily Telegraph, 1st February 2016
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The High Court has issued a costs penalty to a claimant that included material in expert evidence that it was not meant to and also flooded a preliminary hearing with unnecessary bundles.’
Litigation Futures, 28th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The care provided to rape and sexual assault victims by dedicated Crown Prosecution Service units in England and Wales is falling “well short” of what is expected, inspectors have said.’
BBC News, 2nd February 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘An inquest into the death from a gunshot wound of a young female soldier at Deepcut 20 years ago will not consider whether there was a “culture of sexual abuse” at the army barracks, a coroner has ruled.’
The Guardian, 1st February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Department for Work and Pensions is trying to force a rape victim to pay the so-called “Bedroom Tax” on her police-installed panic room, it has emerged.’
The Independent, 27th January 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘As the courts continue to flirt with the idea of the remedial constructive trust, this lecture will examine the arguments that have been made for and against its recognition in English law.
The principal argument offered in its favour is that the flexibility it gives to courts allows them to reach better, more just results.
Those who have argued against it have tended to concede this and have focused instead on the uncertainty it would bring and on the legitimacy of courts assuming such a power to reallocate property.
I shall argue that this concession is a mistake.
The justice advantage of the remedial constructive trust is seen to lie in the greater discretion that it gives to courts: freed from the constraints of binding rules, courts are better positioned to fashion a remedy to the circumstances of the cases, reaching the result which is, all things considered, best.
But the relationship between rules and discretion is not always one of opposition and, where discretion is to be meaningfully opposed to rule-based decision-making, the upshot is not more justice but less.
If the remedial constructive trust really is discretionary in a way that ordinary institutional constructive trusts are not, we have every reason to reject it.
It turns out, however, that this is not the sort of discretion that those jurisdictions which have adopted expressly ‘remedial’ constructive trusts have embraced; indeed it’s one they have repeatedly rejected.
Such differences as there are between English law and the law of these jurisdictions are found in the substantive rules which govern the operation of constructive trusts.
So the question English law faces is not whether we should recognise some ‘new model’ of constructive trust, but rather the more familiar inquiry into what rules are best.
In addressing this question, the idea of the ‘remedial’ constructive trust is only an unnecessary distraction.’
This event is accredited with 1 CPD hour with the SRA and BSB
Date: 4th February 2016, 6.00-7.00pm
Location: UCL Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre, Wilkins Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
Charge: Free, registration required
More information can be found here.
‘The ‘financial list’ launched by the High Court in October last year for claims linked to the financial markets and worth over £50m is “operating well”, Mr Justice Blair has said.’
Litigation Futures, 27th January 2016
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Last week the Prime Minister entered into the debate on the wearing of veils by Muslim women in schools. This week, it is the turn of the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshire.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 27th January 2016
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A Christmas theme park worker who used his smartphone to secretly film women in the toilets at the tourist attraction has been given a suspended jail sentence.’
The Independent, 27th January 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A Crimestoppers ad with an image of a heart that looked as if it was “ripped out of someone’s chest” has been banned by the advertising watchdog.’
The Guardian, 27th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A 25 year old man who used social media to harass a man because of his disability has been sentenced to six weeks imprisonment.’
CPS News Brief, 27th January 2016
Source: http://blog.cps.gov.uk
‘Five former brokers, who were accused of helping the convicted trader Tom Hayes to rig benchmark interest rates, have walked free after a jury acquitted them.’
The Independent, 28th January 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The government has been defeated in the Lords over plans to cut the benefits of people with illness and disabilities.’
BBC News, 27th January 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Thieves armed with guns or knives should get the longest jail terms under new sentencing guidelines for robberies designed to help courts sentence all types of offenders, from a street mugger to a gang guilty of a bank hold-up.’
The Guardian, 28th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A convicted murderer, recently released from a psychiatric hospital, has won his supreme court battle to keep his identity secret.’
The Guardian, 27th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Last week the Prime Minister entered into the debate on the wearing of veils by Muslim women in schools. This week, it is the turn of the Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshire. The Chief Inspector has said that:
“The Prime Minister and Secretary of State are right to give their backing to schools and other institutions which insist on removing face coverings when it makes sense to do so.’
Education Law Blog, 27th January 2016
Source: www.education11kbw.com
‘Drawing on a mix of personal experience and professional insight, speakers from the City, the bar and the bench will discuss contemporary barriers to the advancement of LGBT+ people in the legal profession and how those barriers may be overcome.’
Date: 2nd February 2016, 6.30-8.00pm
Location: Hong Kong Theatre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Clement House, London WC2A 2AE
Charge: Free
More information can be found here.
‘Paedophile Trevor Monk paid for the live streaming of child abuse from the Philippines and then travelled there to carry out the abuse himself. His case represents a growing problem of British men ordering abuse over the internet.’
BBC News, 26th January 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A victim of domestic violence and the grandparents of a severely disabled teenager have won court of appeal challenges over the lawfulness of the bedroom tax.’
The Guardian, 27th January 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The law plays a crucial part in the creation, proliferation, and distribution of wealth. Through private law institutions such as contract and property, but also through the criminal law (consider the numerous offences pertaining to wealth, such theft, fraud, money laundering) the law creates and regulates the categories making possible the exclusive relations between us and the world. In doing so the law also, at least indirectly, shapes social relations.
Questions of wealth creation and distribution have become particularly urgent since the beginning of the ongoing financial crisis. This also puts to the question the way in which law regulates wealth. Are corporations and financial markets sufficiently regulated? Is it even possible to regulate them by law? What protection does the law offer to the worse-off and especially those who financially depend on creditors? What role can the criminal law play in hindering aggressive corporate conduct especially in conditions of globalisation?’
Date: 2nd March 2016, 6.30-8.00pm
Location: Hong Kong Theatre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Clement House, London WC2A 2AE
Charge: Free
More information can be found here.
© Inner Temple Library 2025