If you say the words “capital punishment” to anyone you will get a varying degree of opinions on the subject. Capital punishment has always been (and will always likely be) a strong topic for debate. No matter whether you are for or against the death penalty in Great Britain, it has to be acknowledged that there have been several instances of miscarriage of justice throughout the years.
In the wake of the Parliamentary Expenses Scandal that has rocked Great Britain this year, many politicians that we gave our trust (and votes) to have been exposed as cheats. They used the existing parliamentary expenses system to claim for some ludicrous and outrageous items. No matter whether it was a 59p tin of dog food or £22,500 for dry rot repairs in a home that conveniently was changed to a second home days before the claim, the British public have taken a stand and shouted for reform; we will no longer stand for our politicians raiding the public purse for extravagances and items that are not relevant to their job.
A review of the success and failings of Lord Woolf’s reforms
This year we mark the tenth anniversary of the Civil Procedural Rules (CPR). Before the new rules were introduced, civil litigation was seen as too slow, expensive, uncertain and adversarial. The implementation of the CPR was the result of Woolf’s famous “Access to Justice” report, commissioned in 1994. The name of the report speaks volumes and supports the view that the old rules of civil litigation were not delivering justice. So ten years on, have things changed for the better?
The rise and rise of litigation?
As the law stands at the moment, the act of murder means that a killer can literally get away with murder. With so many statutes, rules and policies in relation to murder, manslaughter and infanticide for example, it is not unusual to find an imbalance in the British justice system. The majority of the public are currently disheartened with the laws that rule our land in terms of criminals who intentionally set out to kill another human being. Many of us lack faith in the system and feel that sentences for murder or manslaughter are too lenient. We have no confidence in the judicial system, and this is partly due to the complicated nature of this beast.
The struggle for equality is something that women have faced throughout the centuries. In the early 20th century, for example, the suffragettes undertook the task of protesting in order that the British Government would give women the right to vote. Some feminists even burned their bras in protest during the 1960s in a bid to end repression and to gain the same rights that men have had through the centuries. Equality is a battle that is still ongoing for women, in particular in the case of equal pay and employment opportunities.
An update on the long-overdue review of the Intestacy Rules
On 29 October 2009 the Law Commission published a consultancy paper reviewing the law of intestacy. The report is the first step to the proposals being formed into a new Bill and then perhaps an Act of Parliament.
A change to the intestacy law is long overdue, as the rules are substantially the same as they were in 1925. Society, of course, had moved on a great deal over that time, both in terms of our finances (we are much wealthier as individuals) and our social structures (people often co-habit rather than marry). Under the existing rules many people do not really understand what will happen to their estate where there is no will. People believe that everything automatically goes to their spouse or partner, but that is not necessarily the case.
Two of the main problems with the existing rules are:
We’ve been hearing about an official constitution for Europe for many years now. In fact, at one time Tony Blair promised the country a referendum on it when he was Prime Minister back in 2004; but when both France and the Netherlands voted against it, the national vote was cancelled.
Ever since then, the Labour Government has not made any renewed efforts to allow the country to vote on an issue that is potentially more important to the UK than most other EU states. It all boils down to the fact that the UK does not have an official written constitution at present. If and when the Lisbon Treaty does come into force, this will mean yet another element to add to the already confusing constitution of this country.
What Will the Lisbon Treaty Mean?
New provisions added to Home Information Packs (HIPs) may be too little too late.
Home Information Packs (HIPs for short) have been part of the residential conveyancing market for just over two years, but some industry experts have already written them off as an expensive failure. The introduction of HIPs was widely considered to have been badly managed from the start. One of the most high-profile examples of mismanagement was the last-minute removal of the compulsory requirement for a home condition report. Many experts at the time complained that the report was the one document that could have made a real difference to the value of a HIP. To decide if the critics are right, it is worthwhile revisiting what the government’s main objectives were for the packs.
.gif)
Under s.24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (as amended by the Serious Organised Crime Act 2005), it states that a member of the public may perform a citizen’s arrest on a person who is expected to be in the middle of committing an indictable offence, or when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is about to commit such an offence, or when the person has already done so.
In other words, an individual member of the public can only arrest another person if they have committed an offence that would be deemed as serious. Indictable offences are those that would be passed on to the Crown Court for trial by jury, as the Magistrates’ Court would not have the power to try such a crime.
A final update before the new Supreme Court replaces the House of Lords
On 30 July the current highest Court in the land, the House of Lords, made its last decision in the Debbie Purdy case. The Court heard Mrs Purdy’s plea for clarity in the law on assisted suicide. Because of the Law Lords’ decision, new guidelines will be published on 23 September regarding the prosecution of people who help others to commit suicide. Following this case the Law Lords have now passed into history. From October the new Supreme Court will make decisions on difficult areas of law. The change has been justified as a necessary modernisation, but there is some concern that this new Court may use its more extensive powers to oppose the will of Parliament.