Unravelling Osman

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom , decided in October 1998, has proved very controversial. Its implications for the UK law of negligence appear to be immense. Not the least of the complexities associated with the decision is the widespread perception that the reasoning of the Court is extremely difficult to understand, indeed, that it is at times contradictory. This article subjects the Osman judgment to close analysis. It explains the Court's approach to Article 6(1) by reference to the way in which the Strasbourg court has over many years developed its case law on this provision. The article includes an overview of the way in which, so far, the decision has been deployed in UK law. The author suggests that, whatever about the actual result of the case, the reasoning of the European Court in Osman is deeply flawed, and that the UK judiciary should be mindful of this fact when considering its deployment in domestic law.     

N v UK: No Duty to Rescue the Nearby Needy?

This article discusses the deportation of a seriously ill foreign national to her country of origin, where she would face a high risk of extreme deterioration of her health due to the inadequate medical treatment. It criticises the reasoning of the judgment N v UK of the European Court of Human Rights, and explores the circumstances under which removal of a severely ill non-national constitutes a breach of the prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights.     

“Schrems II”: The return of the Privacy Shield

On 16 July 2020, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice rendered its landmark judgment in Case C-311/18 Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (“Schrems II”). The Grand Chamber invalidated the Commission decision on the adequacy of the data protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield. It however considered that the decision of the Commission on standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) issued by the Commission for the transfer of personal data to processors established in third states was legally valid.The legal effects of the judgment should first be clarified. In addition, it has far-reaching implications for companies which transfer personal data from the EU to the US. The judgment of the Grand Chamber has also far-reaching implications for transfers of personal data from the EU to other third states. Last, it has far-reaching implications for the UK in the context of Brexit.© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.     

The Quest for a Satisfactory Definition of Terrorism: R v Gul

The UK Supreme Court judgment in R v Gul presented a unique opportunity for a judicial appraisal of the definition of terrorism contained in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000. While the applicant was ultimately unsuccessful in his challenge, the Supreme Court's rejection of the state's argument that reliance on prosecutorial discretion could mitigate certain absurd applications of the section 1 definition of terrorism, eg the labelling of acts of UK or other military forces as terrorist, has potentially wide‐raging implications for the UK's counter‐terrorism measures. In addition, the powerful obiter dictum arguing in favour of a reform of this definition and a ‘root‐and‐branch’ review of counter‐terrorism legislation is a strong rebuke of recent high profile misapplications of such powers.     

A Tarasoff for Europe? A European Human Rights perspective on the duty to protect

It has long been recognised by British courts that a psychiatrist can be permitted to depart from his/her duty of confidentiality, in order to issue a warning where a patient is deemed to present a real and serious threat to other parties. Until recently, however, it seemed that s/he would not be bound to give such a warning, or to take other steps to protect third parties. The approach adopted throughout much of the USA, and famously expounded in the Tarasoff judgment, appeared to have no relevance to British law. This article considers the possibility that the European Court of Human Rights' ruling in Osman v UK may be set to bring about a radical change in this respect, introducing something akin to the Tarasoff approach into the UK, and indeed throughout Europe. As well as the possible legal basis for such a duty, and the circumstances in which it would arise, it will consider how a psychiatrist might reconcile any such duty with other, more established, legal and ethical duties.     

Narratives about privacy and forgetting in English law

This paper examines narratives about the right of privacy in the UK. It argues that until relatively recently the dominant narrative was one that associated privacy with celebrity claimants and media defendants. Other narratives, such as those concerned with digital privacy and data protection, did not feature as prominently. But changing technological and social contexts mean that these narratives are now understood to be of immense importance too. This paper explores these narratives against the backdrop of the European Commission's proposals for a ‘right to be forgotten’ (now relabelled a ‘right to erasure’), the subject-matter of this special issue, as well as the 2014 Google Spain judgment. The paper emphasises the importance of forgetting as an aspect of the right to privacy and argues that while the UK legislator and courts have been slow to give effect to erasure remedies, they must now start exploring the bounds of legal possibility in order to meet the challenges of the digital age.     

“This case is about you and your future”: Towards Judgments for Children

A handful of ‘child-friendly’ judgments have emerged in the UK in recent years, attempting to adopt a child-centred approach to the decision-making stage of the legal process. Most notable is Sir Peter Jackson's judgment in Re A: Letter to a Young Person which, in taking the form of a letter to the child, has been applauded as a model of how to achieve ‘child friendly justice’. This article examines how and why the form and presentation of judicial decisions is an important aspect of children's access to justice, considering not just the potential but the duty of judges to enhance children's status and capacities as legal citizens through judgment writing. We identify four potential functions of judgments written for children (communicative, developmental, instructive and legally transformative), and call for a radical reappraisal of the way in which judgments are constructed and conveyed with a view to promoting children's access to justice.     

Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom: Sensible Dialogue or a Bad Case of Strasbourg Jitters?

In Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom a majority of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK's statutory broadcasting ban on political advertisements under the Communications Act 2003 did not breach the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment departs from the Court's established case law and, it is argued, raises several issues of concern both with regard to freedom of expression, and for human rights adjudication more generally. In particular, the Court's use of a doctrine of ‘general measures’ led it to place a great deal of reliance on the quality and quantity of legislative debate that preceded the UK ban, rather than its actual impact upon the applicant.     

Redfearn v UK: Political Association and Dismissal

In Redfearn v UK the European Court of Human Rights examined the question whether dismissal for membership of a political party is compatible with freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court endorsed a strong commitment to multi‐party democracy and protection of employees against the domination of the employers. This note discusses the judgment and its implications for UK law, looking at three key issues: first, whether the law of unfair dismissal provides effective protection against action that poses a threat to the enjoyment of Convention rights; second, the grounds under which an employer may justify the lawfulness of a dismissal that interferes with a Convention right; third, the available remedies against the employer when there is a breach of a Convention right.     

Standing and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

On 7 June 2018, the UK Supreme Court held that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) did not have standing under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (NIA) and Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) to challenge the legality of abortion law in Northern Ireland. This case note argues that while a literal reading of the NIA exposes its inconsistencies, a purposive reading of both the NIA and HRA indicates that the NIHRC should have had standing. The note seeks to highlight the unique democratic function of the NIHRC in a consociational setting in protecting rights that are not represented along ethno‐national lines. It also considers the negative ramifications that the judgment will have on women who have been victims of the legislative regime and seek to challenge the compatibility of Northern Irish abortion law with the HRA in the future.     

Regulatory Analysis in Corporate Law

Drawing on recent experiences in the US, UK, and EU, this article suggests that regulatory analysis of corporate law policies, as currently understood and applied, suffers from severe weaknesses. The effects of proposed corporate law policies are often difficult to predict and even more difficult to quantify, which negatively impacts analytical reliability. Moreover, given its nature and strong intersections with economic, societal and political issues, corporate law is less amenable to technocratic assessments than other areas of law. Based on three case studies, the article explores these problems. It outlines a revised ‘procedural’ view, suggesting that regulatory analysis in corporate law should be understood as a process for enhancing information, transparency, and monitoring, independently of specific normative criteria. This leads to several implications. In short, regulatory analysis should combine quantified analysis with leeway for regulatory judgment and focus on increased consultation, critical engagement, review, and transparency as the dominant guiding factors.     

Devotion to Legalism: On the Brexit Case

This note examines the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Brexit case, Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The case upheld the decision of the High Court, which rejected the claim that the foreign affairs prerogative provided a legal basis for giving notice to EU institutions of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU. But the Supreme Court's preferred basis for dismissing that claim rested on the more general proposition that significant constitutional change can only be effected by statute. This position offers the germs of a jurisprudence of constitutional change and was substantiated by means of an analysis of Parliament's dual capacity as legislator and constituent agent. Miller also includes important and potentially innovative dicta on the relationship between international and domestic sources of law.     

The choice of child delivery is a European human right

In a judgment of 14 December 2010, in the case of Madam Ternovszky v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights has considered that a State should provide an adequate regulatory scheme concerning the right to choose in matters of child delivery (at home or in a hospital). In the context of homebirth, regarded as a matter of personal choice of the mother, this implies that the mother is entitled to a legal and institutional environment that enables her choice. This contribution stresses in which sense the regulatory schemes in the Member States Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the UK concerning the choice of child delivery are in accordance with Article 8 ECHR, the right to respect for the private life. Do the Member States provide the legal certainty to a mother that the midwife can legally assist a homebirth? Or are restrictions made in interests of public health?     

An explanation for camera perspective bias in voluntariness judgment for video-recorded confession: Suggestion of cognitive frame

Three experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis that difference in voluntariness judgment for a custodial confession filmed in different camera focuses ("camera perspective bias") could occur because a particular camera focus conveys a suggestion of a particular cognitive frame. In Experiment 1, 146 juror eligible adults in Korea showed a camera perspective bias in voluntariness judgment with a simulated confession filmed with two cameras of different focuses, one on the suspect and the other on the detective. In Experiment 2, the same bias in voluntariness judgment emerged without cameras when the participants were cognitively framed, prior to listening to the audio track of the videos used in Experiment 1, by instructions to make either a voluntariness judgment for a confession or a coerciveness judgment for an interrogation. In Experiment 3, the camera perspective bias in voluntariness judgment disappeared when the participants viewing the video focused on the suspect were initially framed to make coerciveness judgment for the interrogation and the participants viewing the video focused on the detective were initially framed to make voluntariness judgment for the confession. The results in combination indicated that a particular camera focus may convey a suggestion of a particular cognitive frame in which a video-recorded confession/interrogation is initially represented. Some forensic and policy implications were discussed.     

论当庭宣判

当庭宣判对于实现实体公正、程序公正以及提高诉讼效率都具有非常重要的意义。在我国,定期宣判被普遍化而当庭宣判则成为例外的做法,这种现象弱化了法庭审判的功能,导致许多案件的一审、二审甚至再审程序被架空,加剧了司法腐败和司法不公,同时妨碍了社会公众对审判活动的监督。这一问题的出现有着复杂的原因:庭前和庭审阶段存在的问题使法官难以当庭宣判;立法上存在的缺陷使法官不愿当庭宣判;错案追究制使法官不敢当庭宣判。要实现当庭宣判制度,必须进行相应的制度改革。     

Compensation and Compliance: Sources of Public Acceptance of the U.K. Supreme Court's Brexit Decision

The perception that a high court's decision is binding and final is a crucial prerequisite for its ability to settle political conflicts. Under what conditions are citizens more likely to accept controversial judicial rulings? Mass acceptance is determined, in part, by how rulings are framed during public debate. This paper takes a broad view of the strategies and actors that influence the discursive environment surrounding judgments, calling attention to hitherto unexamined determinants of mass acceptance. We theorize that third parties can boost acceptance by pledging compliance, and that courts can moderate opposition by compensating losers. We also look at how populist attacks on judiciaries, common in contemporary democracies, affect acceptance. We test these propositions using a survey experiment conducted in the aftermath of the UK Supreme Court's Brexit decision, the most salient judgment handed down by this court to date. The paper moves the literature on courts and public opinion beyond the United States, and presents evidence backing largely untested assumptions at the heart of models of judicial behavior regarding the benefits of crafting rulings with an eye on the preferences of key audiences.     

英国公司中非执行董事的职能

NED的职能一个时期处于逐渐演化之中,起初只是一个荣誉职位,后来发展为参与公司管理.非执行董事被认为具有很好的独立判断能力以及监督作用,有助于公司治理的改善.NED的作用主要有:改进公司治理结构、对公司中某些特定利益的保护以及抑制董事滥用权力.NED职能发挥的局限性在于公司管理人员控制着提供给NED的信息的质量、时间及数量、投入到公司的精力与时间、任命程序、与执行董事相同的利益背景以及激励机制的缺乏.英国通过广泛咨询与公开最佳行为守则改善公司治理,其改革过程也是逐步重视NED过程.     

Assessment of moral judgment and empathy in young sex offenders: a comparison of clinical judgment and test results

Professional decision making in forensic clinical practice may have lifelong consequences for offenders. Although information on moral development is important for prediction of reoffending and referral to adequate treatment, conclusions regarding moral development are still largely based on unstructured clinical judgment instead of assessment instruments. For this study, the authors examined to what extent unstructured clinical judgment of both moral judgment and victim empathy concurred with test results in a group of young sex offenders. Moral judgment was measured with the Sociomoral Reflection Measure-Short Form (SRM-SF), whereas victim empathy was measured with an extended version of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES). No significant associations were found between clinical judgment of moral judgment and the mean scores on the SRM-SF. However, clinical judgment of victim empathy was significantly associated with victim empathy on the Victim Empathy Scale but not consistently in the expected direction. Juvenile sex offenders, who were judged by clinicians to show little victim empathy, displayed lower mean scores on the Victim Empathy Scale than juvenile sex offenders who were evaluated to lack victim empathy or to have intact victim empathy. This study showed unstructured clinical judgment of moral development not to concur with test results. To improve decision-making processes regarding moral development, clinicians are advised to rely on instruments that assess moral development to inform clinical judgment. Further research is needed to examine which predictions are more accurate and to establish the predictive validity of moral development evaluations.     

我国行政诉讼诉判关系的新认识

行政诉判关系就是行政诉请与判决的关系,属于研究诉请与判决之间关系的客观规律范畴。一般观点认为,行政诉讼与民事诉讼一样,行政诉请对行政判决的制约作用,即行政诉请与行政判决的具有一致性,是由司法的被动性、处分原则、正当法律程序所决定的。行政诉判关系的一般观点以及理论基础具有一定的局限性,缺乏系统的逻辑论证以及忽视了行政诉讼的特殊性。构建行政诉判关系应当以主观公权利救济和客观法秩序维护两条主线重新认识。从主观公权利救济的角度看,主观公权利、行政诉权、诉讼请求、行政判决的关系从逻辑上总保持着相当程度的一致性和连贯性。而从客观法秩序维护的角度,行政行为的违法性与有效性并非一致决定了行政诉判并非完全一致。因此,行政诉判关系是一致性与非一致性的统一。     

Electronic databases: Protecting your investment – An analysis of the legal rights in electronic databases under UK law

Electronic databases are an important part of the information economy. They are now one of the key platforms for the distribution of information and other contents. The European Court of Justice, in November 2004, gave its first rulings on the scope of database right, introduced by Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases. These rulings significantly curtail the scope of that right, and limit the protection afforded to database producers under that Directive. The UK courts, in January of last year, handed down a judgment which has important implications for the copyright protection afforded database structures and to “look and feel” elements of database application software, and the scope of Section 50D of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which sets out certain statutory permitted acts in relation to database use). This article looks at the implications of these judgments, it analyses some of the key legal rights that can apply to electronic databases, and the increased importance that rights of confidentiality and contract are likely to have on the commercialisation of electronic databases in light of these rulings.