Paradoxes of proof and punishment: Psychological pitfalls in judicial decision making

Purpose . This study focuses on two psychological mechanisms that may inadvertently affect judges' decisions on proof of guilt and on punishment. It involves mechanisms that are clearly in conflict with formal judicial doctrine. One hypothesis, the conviction paradox, asserts that, faced with very serious offences, a judge's standard of proof will be lower than for less serious, but otherwise comparable, offences. A second hypothesis, compensatory punishment, asserts that in cases with relatively weak evidence, judges who nevertheless render a guilty verdict will be inclined to compensate their initial doubt on the matter of guilt by meting out a less severe sentence. Method . The hypotheses are evaluated in an experiment with Dutch judges and justices who serve in criminal courts. This was done using fictitious but highly realistic dossiers of criminal cases. Results . Neither of the two hypotheses was supported in the present study. Conclusions . Findings are discussed in relation to their implications for theory development and future research in the area of legal decision making.     

Claims against a university: the role of administrative review in Australia and the United Kingdom

The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Griffith University v. Tang denied judicial review to a student aggrieved by the decision of a university to exclude her. This article analyses the role of judicial review of university decision-making in the United Kingdom and Australia, analysing the justification for administrative remedies in universities. It considers the legislative reform of administrative review in Australia, and the impact of that reform in some states. It places administrative review in the context of the visitorial jurisdiction, where that jurisdiction still exists. Finally, it addresses some of the policy aspects of denying judicial review in the case of the university.     

United Kingdom: HIV status,psychiatric problems of asylum seeker did not stop removal

In November 2002, the High Court of Justice rejected an application for judicial review of a decision to remove an Ivoirian asylum seeker to France, despite her HIV status, tuberculosis, psychiatric condition, and attempted suicides. The Court argued that removal to France would not necessarily result in a return to Ivory Coast or in poorer health care.     

United Kingdom: denying children's milk allowance to HIV-positive mother seeking asylum is discriminatory

In July 2002, the High Court of Justice found that, in denying the milk allowance, the Home Office had failed to realize the real risk that the mother might breastfeed her daughter and that the daughter might be infected with HIV. The Court also ruled that the Home Office's action was discriminatory under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.     

The judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom: a public choice analysis

The Human Rights Act 1998 unprecedentedly enabled the senior courts in the United Kingdom to review parliamentary enactments for compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. This article seeks to analyze within the framework of public choice economics two phenomena arising from this development that are counterintuitive: What made Parliament voluntarily invite the judiciary to monitor its acts? Why has Parliament consistently complied with rulings of the Judicial House of Lords that challenged primary legislation over the last 10 years? It argues that the Act was designed in a way that fulfilled the electoral commitments of the enacting majority by supplying promised policies to its constituencies, while minimizing agency costs and information problems in favor of Parliament’s corporate interests. Significantly, the Act left intact the veto powers of Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. As such, it disincentivized the Judicial House of Lords to risk costly overturns of its rulings by Parliament for straying too far from the range of the ideal policy positions spanned by Parliament and Strasbourg. Drawing from the empirical evidence of the past decade, it will be shown that in nearly all cases the Law Lords have either upheld the compatibility of challenged statutes, reaffirmed parliamentary preferences, or followed the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court.     

Nigeria: HIV-positive woman launches suit after being denied treatment

A 39-year-old woman who was denied treatment at a hospital in Lagos simply because she is HIV-positive is fighting back through the courts. The Center for the Right to Health has filed a lawsuit on her behalf, seeking damages as well as an injection to prevent further discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS who seek treatment.     

英国:纠结的监管媒体话题

监管媒体?眼下,这在英国可真是令人纠结的话题。2013年3月18日,英国议会就如何监管媒体举行听证会。最终,首相卡梅伦宣布:保守党、自由民主党和工党达成妥协。卡梅伦力促采取自我管理的方式,希望直接通过修改皇家宪章的捷径建立一个媒体监督机构。反对党工党和保守党盟友自由民主党则希望通过立法确立新的管理框架,并同意建立新机构来监管媒体。新监管机构可以采取以下措施:责成媒体在头版对虚     

United Kingdom: Sisters and inheritance tax

Joyce and Sybil Burden are two sisters who have lived togethersince birth and currently occupy a UK farmhouse. When one ofthem dies the other will face a large inheritance tax bill andwill have to sell the     

关于蒙牛酸酸乳案的几点思考

2006年蒙牛乳业公司与河南安阳白公主乳业公司(以下简称"白乳业")的商标纠纷是中国知识产权界关注的一个焦点案件.随着内蒙古高级法院维持一审判决的判决公布,在中国诞生了首例法院认定的未注册驰名商标.这一判决虽然在相关产业界却引起了轩然大波,但在中国知识产权界却赢得一片叫好之声1.笔者从事商标代理多年,对本案的两审法院在认定事实和适用法律中有一些思考,愿与大家分享.