Equal before the law?

This article reviews empirically the relationship between politicians and decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute businesspeople who are suspected of fraud and of complicity in the supply of arms to Iraq, within the context of (a) conventional ideas about impartiality of the administration of law; and (b) the politics of bureaucratic survival. It discusses some key difficulties in ascertaining “what happened” and relative culpability in serious fraud trials, and the personal interest-inspired factors that can influence testimony. It concludes that in the UK, there is relative autonomy in decision-making in serious fraud cases, but that in “politically sensitive areas” such as the supply of arms to Iraq, there has been overt interference on purported “public interest” grounds with the information made available to the defence and even to the prosecution itself. It notes that without access to the grounds for decisionsnot to prosecute, their “purely legal” justification is difficult to challenge, and this is of most social significance where members of social elites are concerned. It concludes by addressing some difficulties in producing procedural models which provide genuine accountability for white-collar prosecutions and non-prosecutions in different countries.     

A law for need or a law for greed?: Restoring the lost law in the international law of foreign investment

The 1990s brought about a change in the international law of foreign investment due to the primacy achieved by the tenets of neo-liberalism. They drove concerns about the environment and poverty away from the concerns of the law and gave priority to the interests of multinational corporations by enhancing their ability for movement of assets and the absolute protection of these assets through treaty rules. The regime created by this law was operated through secure systems of dispute settlement through arbitration which also enabled the stabilization of these rules. In the process, private power of a section within the hegemonic state was able to subvert international law through the use of low order sources of the law and secure a system of investment promotion and protection. The restoration of the more universal themes of environmental protection and poverty alleviation is necessary. This paper outlines the developments that accentuated the sectional interests of multinational capital and explores the means by which a change that reflects the global interests could be effected.

Enter the quagmire – the complicated relationship between data protection law and consumer protection law

This article examines the complex relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law, particularly within the EU's online environment, and highlights the problems that stem from this complexity. It suggests that, while there are significant similarities between their respective sources, tools and purposes, there are also arguable differences between consumer protection law and data protection law. One such arguable difference is found in that, while consumer protection law can be seen to merely set a floor in its pursuit of a sufficiently high level of consumer protection, data protection law – due to its clearly articulated dual purposes of (a) protecting individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and (b) providing for the free movement of such data – sets both a floor and a ceiling.Having discussed the relationship between consumer protection law and data protection law in more detail, the argument is made that it seems possible to conclude that the balance struck in the Data Protection Directive, and soon in the General Data Protection Regulation, places limitations on consumer protection law. The implications of this conclusion are then examined briefly in the context of some matters currently coming before the CJEU and the contours of a framework are presented, addressing situations where a data protection-based liability claim is pursued against a third-party non-controller under consumer protection law.     

Fat and the law: who should take the blame?

The incidence of obesity in both adults and children is rising at a rapid rate in most developed countries, including in Australia. Some obese people are seeking to place the blame for their condition on the fast-food industry, as demonstrated by the recent litigation in the United States brought by two obese plaintiffs against McDonald's. This litigation was unsuccessful, and on existing Australian negligence principles any similar litigation commenced here is likely to suffer the same fate. Principles of personal responsibility, autonomy and free will should prevail to deny a negligence claim. The risk of obesity and concomitant health problems from eating fast food to excess is an obvious risk which the plaintiff should not have ignored and which he or she has voluntarily assumed. It is for the Australian Government, not the courts, to regulate the behaviour of the fast-food industry. The government should take action by requiring all major fast-food chains to label their products with nutritional information, and by imposing restrictions on the advertising of food to children.     

Reflections on the sociology of law: A rejection of law as ‘socially marginal’

Rejecting the concept of law as subservient to social pathology, the principle aim of this article is to locate law as a critical matter of social structure – and power – which requires to be considered as a central element in the construction of society and social institutions. As such, this article contends that wider jurisprudential notions such as legal procedure and procedural justice, and juridical power and discretion are cogent, robust normative social concerns (as much as they are legal concerns) that positively require consideration and representation in the empirical study of sociological phenomena. Reflecting upon scholarship and research evidence on legal procedure and decision-making, the article attempts to elucidate the inter-relationship between power, ‘the social’, and the operation of law. It concludes that law is not ‘socially marginal’ but socially, totally central.     

Mental health law and the EU: the next new regulatory frontier?

Over the last decade the EU's engagement with health law and policy has rapidly increased and there is now a growing body of literature highlighting this evolution and the impact of legal and regulatory structures in this area. In contrast the specific impact of EU law and policy in relation to the area of mental health remains the subject of comparatively little engagement. The aim of this paper is to examine whether mental health law and policy will become a major site for EU policy and law in the future. It examines the development of EU policy in this area. It sets this in the context of related legal developments such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the new EU Patients Rights Directives. It suggests that while it might be at present premature to envisage that a single body of EU mental health law itself may be unlikely that nonetheless the EU presents what is a potentially very influential site for regulation, law and policy in this area in the years to come.     

Health professional-patient confidentiality: does the law really matter?

Confidentiality is often tested in the health professional-patient relationship, particularly given that both the law and ethics permit disclosure of confidential information in the public interest. This column outlines the results of an Australian Research Council project indicating that mental health professionals may place more weight on their ethical responsibilities relating to confidentiality than what the law requires. The outcomes of the project, which used both questionnaires and focus group discussions, suggests that there is some confusion as to legal requirements in this area and that many mental health professionals rely on ethical frameworks to justify disclosure even where there is no legal requirement to do so. It is suggested that ethics training for health professionals should be of primary importance to ensure responsible decision-making in this area.     

Plain English in the law — a new model for the 21st century

Abstract

Traditional language of the law is called “legalese” because it is difficult for those not trained in its mystery to understand. A myth about legalese is that it is necessary for certainty in law. This is untrue. The proponents of plain English have shown through their writing that the use of plain language in legal writing produces certainty in language that is easy to read and understand. This article looks at the history of the plain English movement and discusses its benefits, shows how legal writing can be improved by its use and, in the final section, briefly gives an illustration of how a culture of plain English writing can be embedded into a law school curriculum.     

European human rights law and the United Kingdom—A note

This article asserts that established concerns about access to, and widening participation in higher education, are now reflected in interest around retention. Those law schools with inclusive admissions policies and widening participation practices face a number of challenges around the financial and human costs of poor retention. Most of these law schools fall within the “new university” sector.

This article argues that poor retention among first‐year law students often reflects a lack of engagement. This lack of engagement exists in two key relationships; first that of between students and the teaching and learning structures of their law school and university, and second between first year law students and many of the staff who teach them. It is argued that this lack of engagement reflects a clash of cultures, first between the requirements and structures of the law school and the everyday life experience of our students, and second between ourselves as teachers and our students.

The utilisation of aspects of the Oxbridge tutorial model of higher education together with an appropriate use of new technology is suggested as a response to this cultural clash and as a way of increasing engagement with our students.

In support of these arguments, the article refers extensively to the evidence presented to the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee hearings on retention in higher education, and to the Committee's conclusions.