The Wasted Costs Jurisdiction

The wasted costs jurisdiction is flawed for six reasons, based on an analysis of all reported cases in the last nine years and five years of statistics provided by the Bar Mutual Insurance Fund Limited, and despite the guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205. First, it is very costly proportionate to the amount recovered. Secondly, judges can initiate a wasted costs enquiry, which is unfair and even more disproportionately costly. Thirdly, it is procedurally complex. Fourthly, it is unpredictable whether the client will waive privilege, and what the consequences will be whether or not privilege is waived. Fifthly, it is not possible for solicitors and barristers to make contribution claims against each other. Sixthly, it is mostly used against lawyers representing legally aided litigants from whom costs cannot be recovered.     

'The environment in international relations'

Books reviewed in this article:
Desai, U. (ed.), Ecological Policy and Politics in Developing Countries:Economic Growth, Democracy, and Environment
Elliott, L. M., The Global Politics of the Environment
Hayward, T., Political Theory and Ecological Values
Homer-Dixon, T. F., Environment, Scarcity, and Violence
Jameson, F. and Miyoshi, M. (eds), The Cultures of Globalization
Kuetting, G., Environment, Society and International Relations:Towards More Effective International Environmental Agreements
Litfin, K. T. (ed.), The Greening of Sovereignty in World Politics
Maguire, D. C. and Rasmussen, L. L., Ethics for a Small Planet:New Horizons on Population, Consumption, and Ecology
McGinnis, M. V. (ed.), Bioregionalism
Renner, M., Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline, SocialConflict and the New Age of Insecurity
Schaeffer, R. K. (ed.), Understanding Globalization: The SocialConsequences of Political, Economic, and Environmental Change
Weiss, E. B. and Jacobson, H. K. (eds), Engaging Countries:Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Accords
Young, O. R. (ed.), Global Governance: Drawing Insights from theEnvironmental Experience     

Detection of Gunshot Primer Residue on Bone in an Experimental Setting—An Unexpected Finding*

Abstract: Pork ribs with intact muscle tissue were used in an experimental attempt to identify bullet wipe on bone at distances from 1 to 6 feet with 0.45 caliber, full metal jacket ammunition. This resulted in the unexpected finding of primer‐derived gunshot residue (GSR) deep within the wound tract. Of significance is the fact that the GSR was deposited on the bone, under the periosteum, after the bullet passed through a Ziploc^® bag and c. 1 inch of muscle tissue. It is also important to note that the GSR persisted on the bone after the periosteum was forcibly removed. The presence of primer‐derived GSR on bone provides the potential to differentiate gunshot trauma from blunt trauma when the bone presents an atypical gunshot wound. In this study, the presence of gunshot primer residue at a distance of 6 feet demonstrates the potential for establishing maximum gun‐to‐target distance for remote shootings.     

Justifying law: An explanation of the deep structure of American law

Conclusion Charles Darwin argued that human beings are what happen whenphysical laws act upon a planet with the characteristics that earthhad five billion years ago. Similarly, I have argued that theprimacy of individual will is what eventually happens when asociety allocates and limits coercion based upon rights. From timeto time particular visions of the good or the right dominate publicbehavior, but they are eventually enframed by rights — the authoritative claim of each person to respect.I have argued that the propositional structure of American law—the laws themselves — can be seen to be a logically consistentsystem of propositions stemming from the axiom that the will ofeach person is worthy of respect. This is an explanatory, not anormative, proposition. The axiom was not put there by anyoneand the law derived from it, any more than the human brian wasput there and the theory of relativity derived from it. The axiomcame to be embodied in k because of a fact — the single universalcharacteristic of human beings that is relevant to the question ofarranging coercion is individual will — and a process — the right ofeach person to demand a justification for coercion used upon him.Since will is universal to human beings, this would suggest thatany rights-based legal system would evince a general structuresimilar to our own. Particularities of national culture, naturalresources, population density, and so on would produce a verydifferent liberty frontier from the one facing this country andhence, different laws. But the general structure of law — the relationship between principle and policy decision, the role of thebasic rights, and so on — should be similar. This similarity shouldprovide a common basis for cooperation between states, transcending particularities of economic structure, political structure and ideology. We have seen that a very broad range ofeconomic and political institutions may be justified. The essential difference between states lies not in the different ways that theyarrange institutions but in the different ways that they justifythem. Those that justify them to people as persons are similar.Those that justify them by conformity to a design are different.The theory set out here is not a design. It is an explanation. Onevirtue of explanations is that they draw forth other explanations.More importantly, they offer perspective — they tell us what weare up to. As the social relations which law must rationalizebecome ever more complex, perspective becomes ever more necessary. The simple laws have already been written. The connectionbetween the doctrine of consideration and the first principle isobvious. The connection between the hard look doctrine ofreviewing administrative agencies and the second principle isnowhere near so obvious (though it is a lovely example of thejudicial process enframing the realm of uncertainty). The morecomplex and artificial the institution, the poorer the guidance ofintuition and the more necessary are conscious guides to decision.Justification comes easy to printers. Most of them don't knowwhy a page of print that has straight margines left and right isjustified. They don't need to know, for the idea has immediateintuitive appeal; it is easy to accept and to remember, and, onceremembered, it is an effective guide to behavior. It is easy to seethat this line of print is not justified and to do somethingabout it. It is not so easy to tell whether the hard look doctrine orthe enforcement of a surrogate motherhood contract sits fairly on itspage. Justification of law requires an understanding of thecriterion against which it is being done. There is an intuitive core— a sense — to any act of judgment, but that core can be illuminated and developed by an understanding of the framework withinwhich it operates.     

PCR-RFLP identification of Diptera (Calliphoridae,Muscidae and Sarcophagidae)--a generally applicable method

A simple, rapid method using restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) within the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions of the ribosomal DNA gene repeat allows identification of insects and other organisms. We used the method to identify the morphologically similar Diptera larvae that are important in forensic entomology for estimating the time and location of death. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to amplify a region from the 18S to the 28S rRNA genes. The ITS1 and ITS2 regions provided variation between species and homogeneity within species, with the exception of Cochliomya macellaria. Combinations of the restriction enzymes DdeI, HinfI and Sau3AI provided diagnostic bands for identification of the ten species from three families of Diptera (Calliphoridae, Muscidae and Sarcophagidae).