Peter Gibson L.J. began his judgment in Drake v Whipp: "Yet again this court is asked to rule on a dispute between a man and a woman, who cohabited but were not married to each other, as to their respective beneficial interests in a property which they purchased to be their home but which was put into the man's name only. The usual lengthy litany of authorities as well as more recent additions have been recited to us and, as is notorious, it is not easy to reconcile every judicial utterance in this well-travelled area of the law." The above indicates just how frustrated the courts have become with the area of resulting trusts. The years when men did the work and women stayed home and cooked have gone but yet the law still has not changed, women now considered equal as seen in Article 5 Protocol 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights which requiring the law to treat husband and wife equally. This paper will consider the judgments made and reform offered and whether the current general law is adequate. In Re Vandervells Trust No 21 Megarry J. described what a presumed resulting trust was: "The first class of case is where the transfer to B is not made on any trust ... there is a rebuttable presumption that B holds on resulting trust for A. The question is not one of the automatic consequences of a dispositive failure by A, but one of presumption: the property has been
Abortion and Ethics Ethics of Abortion: Is it Moral or Immoral to Have an Abortion? Abortion is a Serious Ethical Issue: Usually debates about abortion focus on politics and the law: should abortion be outlawed and treated like the murder of a human person, or remain a legal choice available to all women? Behind the debates are more fundamental ethical questions which aren't always given the specific attention they deserve. Some believe that the law shouldn't legislate morality, but all good law is based upon moral values. A failure to openly discuss those values can obscure important discussions. Is the Fetus a Person with Rights?: Much debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may justified as necessary to women's bodily autonomy - but that wouldn't mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can't force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice. Does the Woman have Ethical Obligations to the Fetus?: If a woman consented to sex and/or didn't properly use contraception, then she knew that pregnancy might result. Being pregnant means having a new life growing inside. Whether the fetus is a person or not, and
AS Law Student Answers (Module 2568: Machinery of Justice) POLICE POWERS Police officers on patrol believe that a man that they see, Shane, is a suspect wanted for burglary. Outline the powers of the police to stop and search and if necessary to arrest the man. The police have the power to stop and search both people and vehicles in a public place under sections 1 to 7 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). They can only do this if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting Shane of carrying some stolen goods or prohibited articles like drugs or offensive weapons. In Shane's case this can also include articles for use in connection with burglary or theft. However, there are safeguards built in to ensure no one is being picked on or harassed in any way. The police must give their name and station and the reason for the search, otherwise it is unlawful as was shown in Osman 1999 where Mr Osman was found not guilty of assaulting an officer because the officer did not give a reason for the search. Since Shane is on the street, only his outer clothing can be searched and the police must make a written report as soon as possible after the search. Code of Practice A states that the police must not act just because of a person's characteristics, such as their race, hairstyle or manner of dress. Even if Shane had previous convictions for possessing an
In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not be abolished, we need to know what it is that we are dealing with and what viable alternative or alternatives there are to it.
In order to decide whether or not trial by jury should or should not be abolished, we need to know what it is that we are dealing with and what viable alternative or alternatives there are to it. I will take a brief look at the history of the jury trial. I will examine the function of the jury; look at what is good and bad about the jury system. Finally I will examine the proposed alternatives to trial by jury that are currently in fashion. The jury system first arrived in Britain after the Norman Conquest. The earliest jury was a body of neighbours summoned by a public officer to give oath as answer to some question1. The sworn inquest was used to enable the recognition on oath of a number of upstanding members of the community to testify to facts which they had personal knowledge. Those called were not judges of fact, but witnesses. By the end of the twelfth century, a person accused of a crime could, on payment obtain the right to obtain a trial by jury. (I will return to this point later when I look at the government's proposals to remove the right to elect jury trial in either way offences) When Pope Innocent III abolished trial by ordeal in 1215 and compurgation (the accused sought to clear himself by his own oath backed up by the oaths of friends and neighbours, who testified to his character rather than to the facts) fell from favour a need arose to find a new
The Police and Criminal Evidence Acts 1984-provides an effective balance between the powers of the police and safe guards provided for suspects.
Yasmin White 27th September 2002 The Police and Criminal Evidence Acts 1984-provides an effective balance between the powers of the police and safe guards provided for suspects One of the fundamental civil liberties is the right to freedom of your person from detention, and your property from seizure, without lawful cause. Recognition if this right goes back centuries in the history of Britain. Its fundamental expression is in the statement that we live in a country where one of the basic principles of the constitution is that our affairs shall be carried on under "the rule of law". In Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030 Lord Chief Justice Camden set out the basic principle that anyone who invades another's private property is guilty of an offence unless they can show a justification for having done so. The recognition of the right to liberty of the person, and freedom from interference with private property, underpins the torts of trespass to land and trespass to the person. It also underlies the defence to a charge of assault that the person was acting in self-defence against an unlawful detention. False imprisonment is based on the idea that there must be no deprivation of personal liberty without lawful authority. The powers given to the police to act to maintain public order and to
Law of Evidence - Assessed Work (No.2) by Simon Wolman R v Kearley Essentially this piece concerns whether the House of Lords correctly decided the case of R v Kearley1. The majority decided allowing the appeal, that the evidence concerned in this case was either irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible (unless part of the res gestae) or was inadmissible as hearsay in the form of an implied assertion. The facts of Kearley will be discussed, followed by an analysis of the decision by their Lordships, finally considering the issues of relevance and implied assertions in relation to the decision in Kearley. The facts of Kearley are well known. The disputed evidence was that the police officers whilst on the raid answered a number of callers to the flats, both by telephone and by visitors. The police officers testified that the callers were seeking to buy drugs in place of the original callers who were unwilling or unable to attend court. The appellant objected to the evidence on the ground that it was hearsay, but this was overruled. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and certified a question to the House of Lords. Condensing the certified question, it was whether a person not called as a witness, for the purpose of not establishing the truth of any fact narrated by the words, but of inviting the jury to draw an inference from the fact that the words were spoken ? 2 On
"Within the present system of precedent in the English legal system, judges have very little discretion in their decision making."
Judicial Precedent Past year examination questions Zone A 2001 Question 2 "Within the present system of precedent in the English legal system, judges have very little discretion in their decision making." Judges have always been relied upon to interpret and apply the law. Therefore, their decisions should be fair and consistent so as the individuals seeking legal remedies would have more faith in the judicial system of the state. AS the UK has not a very complete and/or codified constitution, this doctrine is very much relied on as contrasted with other countries which seemed to have provisions for virtually any kind of offence, like France or the US where judges had only to refer to legislation. The doctrine of Judicial Precedent operates based on the principle of Stare Decisis, inter alia, to stand by past decisions to establish certainty, fairness and consistency as well as predictability. The rationale of this doctrine was made by Parke J in the early case of Mirehouse v Rennell , where Parke J had stated that for the sake of uniformity, constancy and certainty, judges are not at liberty to reject or abandon precedents even if they feel that those rules were not as convenient or reasonable as they would have liked them to be. Till today, the reasons for its use are still valid in most cases, thus, the doctrine is regarded as a general rule in the UK. An
Automatism is generally considered to be a state in which a person has no control over his or her actions.
Laura Westwood Bratty- "Automatism means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or sleepwalking. Evaluate the accuracy of this statement by reference to the way in which the courts have recognised the defence of automatism. Automatism is generally considered to be a state in which a person has no control over his or her actions. It can then be argued that there is a lack of actus Reus, as the act is not voluntary, or that there is a lack of mens rea because the defendant is not conscious of what he is doing. In law there is a distinction between insane and non-insane automatism, which is very different to the medical meaning of the word. The defence is not available where the defendant's mind is functioning, albeit imperfectly, in Broome v Perkins (1987), D could remember nothing about a journey, he was able to exercise some voluntary control over his movements, he had not been acting in an entirely involuntary manner. This approach was recently followed by the Court of Appeal who insisted that automatism is only available where there is a total loss of voluntary control as suggested in Attorney-General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) where D had been put into a
There are about over 30,000 sitting as part-time judges in the Magistrates Court. They sit to hear cases as a bench of two or three, while a single magistrate could issue search warrants and arrest warrants. There are also District Judges (formerly Stipendiary Magistrates) who are qualified lawyers and sit on their own to deal with the cases. The history of magistrates goes back to the 12th Century and they have been a very important part of the criminal justice system. The important things to remember is that magistrates are lay people i.e. the majority are legally unqualified, must be between the ages of 18 and 65 and generally be of good character and judgement. Lay magistrates do not have to have any qualifications in law. There are however, some requirements as to their character, in that they must be suitable in character, integrity & understanding for the work they have to perform. Lay magistrates must live within the commission area of the court or within fifteen miles of the boundary of that area. They will have to give a commitment that they will sit in a court a minimum of 26 times per year and that they will do the necessary training. Approximately, 500 new magistrates are appointed each year. People in the community who want to become lay magistrates can also reply to advertisements or otherwise be selected after a recommendation because of their contribution to
Distinguish Criminal law from Civil law in the English Legal System. Outline the jurisdiction and composition of the courts of trial dealing with these two different types of cases.
Distinguish Criminal law from Civil law in the English Legal System. Outline the jurisdiction and composition of the courts of trial dealing with these two different types of cases. FIRST YEAR BA (HONS) ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE PATHWAYS LAW - ASSIGNMENT ONE Distinguish Criminal law from Civil law in the English Legal System. Outline the jurisdiction and composition of the courts of trial dealing with these two different types of cases. To what extent is it possible to appeal against decisions of the courts of trial? One of the main differences between criminal cases and civil cases is that they are held in different courts, this is because there is a significant distinction between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. Crimes are considered to be a type of wrongdoing, however civil wrongs tend to have only and impact on the parties involved in the case. For example: a breach of contract. Where as criminal wrongs tend to have an impact on society itself. For example: a murder, theft or rape. Criminal law is dealt with in the Magistrates court and if very serious in the Crown court. It is said to be more difficult to win a case in the Magistrates court and Crown court than in a civil court as in a magistrates and crown court the evidence has to be proved beyond doubt and in a civil court evidence can be proved on a balance of probabilities. Criminal and civil cases are dealt