To what extent do you believe that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 achieves a balance between upholding the right to privacy while also allowing the State to employ online surveillance techniques in the interests of national security?
To what extent do you believe that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 achieves a balance between upholding the right to privacy while also allowing the State to employ online surveillance techniques in the interests of national security? Increasing level of surveillance permeates almost all aspects of our lives, leading to consequential reduction of personal privacy. The Information Commissioner warned against the dangers of 'sleepwalking into a surveillance society'.1 The Information Commissioner went further in 2006 by introducing a report 'A surveillance society'2 commissioned by his office. In this report he acknowledges the benefits of surveillance in fighting terrorism and serious crime and improving entitlement and access to public and private services. However unseen or excess surveillance can encourage a climate of suspicion and undermine trust.3 This essay will analyse the growth of data surveillance in the online world and see whether the Regulation of Investigatory Power 2000 achieves a balance to right of privacy and the States need to employ online surveillance to protect citizens from terrorist's threats. The main way in which privacy can be threatened is by placing the individual under surveillance. This surveillance can take a variety of forms. In 1971 Alan Westin4 identified three forms of surveillance physical, psychological and data.
Protection of minority shareholders
Before providing a detailed evaluation on the improvement of the rights of minority shareholders since the enactment of Companies Act 2006, it's vital to view and understand the law on protection of minority shareholders prior to Companies Act 2006. The case which raised the common law position on the principle of majority rule or also known as "the principle of corporate democracy" was Foss v Harbottle.1 The rule is rather simple, it stands for the ideology that the decisions or choices made by the majority will certainly prevail over the minority. As seen in practice often, the greater the amount invested by a shareholder, the greater power, privileges and rights can be exercised by the shareholder within that company. Ergo, as it can be seen, a great and large amount of power can be exercised by the majority shareholders and in accordance with the majority rule, minority shareholders are left with nothing but to agree with the decisions that have been made by the majority shareholders. Minority shareholders cannot seek for the courts to interfere in such circumstances as Foss v Harbottle does not provide for complains by minority shareholders regarding wrong done to the company as long as the majority shareholders are satisfied and are not interested in taking action. The proper plaintiff rule which was given by Foss v Harbottle and explained Lord Justice Jenkins in
Finance Law
The money laundering legislation the United Kingdom mainly contained in two principle forms of legislation which are the Proceeds of Crime Act 20021 (PoCA) and the Money Laundering Regulations 2003. The Money Laundering Regulations 2003 were made in order to prevent the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering. The Regulations give effect to EEC Council Directive 91/308 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering2, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/97/EC3. They came into force as follows; regulation 10 in so far as it relates to a person who acts as a high value dealer, on 1st April 2004, regulation 2(3)(h)4, on 31st October 2004; regulation 2(3)(i)5, on 14th January 2005; all other regulations, on 1st March 2004. The regulations have identified a number of professions which fall within the "Regulated Sector,' they encompass a wide range of professions including auditors, banks, insurers, tax advisors, estate agents and stockbrokers. In recent years, there is evidence suggesting that firms of accountants and even solicitors have actually assisted criminals in money laundering. Only persons carrying on "relevant business" are affected by the Act. A relevant business includes Regulation 2(2) Persons carrying on a relevant business must comply with requirements relating to identification
Finance and Investment law - Money laundering
Introduction For this assignment I will explain the content and effect of the UK Law relating to the process of money laundering within the Money Laundering Regulations [2003]1. I will also define money laundering in essence to its effects and purposes and discuss the three stage process of the money laundering cycle. I will then go on to adapt on the UK law in relation to money laundering which consists of the Proceeds of Crime Act [2002]2 amended by the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005. Also other important statutes which also could be included in money laundering would include the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act [2001]3 and Terrorism Act [2000]4. Q1 [A] Money Laundering is a growing industry as stated by the Annual Typology Reports published by the Financial Action Task Force5, which is known as the process of moving illegally obtained money to reappear elsewhere, apparently as honest earnings and belonging to someone else. Money laundering has become a very important area following declarations of the British and American governments to close down the financial structures used to support international terrorism. Also it states that only terrorists launder money, and organized crimes in general also engage in laundering. "Laundering" is used as a technique which allows criminals to maintain control over the proceeds of their activities6. A clear
The effect of the McKinnon Case
The McKinnon's case1 was like a stepping on a landmine for both the media and the ministers. The media because they want the information, and the ministers' because they use conclusive certificates to block the information. Some history is needed first for McKinnon's case. Michael McKinnon was the Freedom of information editor of the Australian at the time this case was heard. In 2002 he applied for information from the Australian tax office for documents relating to the taxation bracket creep2 and the First Home owners scheme3.i During the end of 2003 and beginning of 2004 the Treasurer, Peter Costello MP, issued conclusive certificates under section 36(3) of the FOI act. The grounds were that the disclosure of the documents would be contrary to the public interest.ii Costello gave seven reasons4 as to why the conclusive certificates were issued.iii Then McKinnon took the matter to the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT) for a review of Costello's decision. The AAT found that the majority of the documents were exempt. Mckinnon appealed to the Federal Court in 2005 and then to the full bench of the High Court in 2006. The question of law was whether the AAT when it carried out its review under section 58(5) of it FOI act, it had given proper consideration to all the relevant evidence and other material before it and to competing aspects of the public interest raised in
critically the impact of the SOA 2003 upon the offence of rape, with particular reference to the concepts of consent and mens rea.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force on the 1st May 2004 and was seen as a major overhaul in the sexual offences framework. Following the recommendations of the Home Office Review, Setting the Boundaries (2000)1 and the Government White Paper (2002)2 the Government considered that the existing law on sexual offences was "archaic, incoherent and discriminatory", and that it failed to reflect, "changes in society and social attitudes".3 As a result the 2003 Act was to repeal almost all of the existing statute law in relation to sexual offences and to strengthen and modernise the law on this area. The effect was to widen the category of persons who could be raped and also to widen the definition of what constituted rape, the idea being that the law should set out clearly what was unacceptable behaviour and provide penalties that reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed. Clarification of the law on consent and mens rea were regarded as particularly important, as well as to make the offences as gender-neutral as possible.4 This paper will address the impact that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has had upon the concepts of consent and mens rea and also the criticisms it faced. Before delving straight into the new law as set out in the SOA 2003, it is first essential to clarify the old law on rape and to establish how and why the law on rape needed to be reformed.
Unjust Enrichment
Introduction The restitutionary principle of free acceptance ("FA") was first introduced by Goff and Jones in their first edition of The Law of Restitution.1 Although this principle has been recognized in the English law of unjust enrichment,2 its existence and function remain controversial.3 In my essay I will critically assess the operation and roles of FA in the restitution of unjust enrichment, and conclude my essay with my stand that FA has a limited role in the English law of unjust enrichment. Free acceptance - its operation and roles explained A person can be liable to pay for services if he has "freely accepted" them. According to Goff and Jones FA arises where the defendant as a reasonable man, should have known that the claimant who rendered the services expected to be paid for them, and yet he did not take a reasonable opportunity open to him to reject the proffered services.4 More recently, Professor Birks has with added refinement, reiterated that FA occurs where a recipient knows that a benefit is being offered to him non-gratuitously and he, having the opportunity to reject, elects to accept.5 Virgo illustrated Goff and Jones and Birks' FA into a three-part test: (1) the defendant had the opportunity to reject the service or goods before it was provided; (2) the defendant knew that the claimant expected something in return for the benefit; and
Discuss whether the law goes sufficiently far in attempting to provide guarantees of equal access to education for all.
"Discuss whether the law goes sufficiently far in attempting to provide guarantees of equal access to education for all." The importance of education as a fundamental human right is clear and engenders no debate. Education equips us to be aware and contributing members of society - and only through learning from and about others, we can liberate ourselves from the ignorance and prejudices of those before us1. Seeing as education is universally accepted to be of great importance, there should be no doubt that the law should act in a way to protect and ensure that every member of society gets an unimpaired and equal access to education; as well as the chance to develop their intellect without discrimination2. It is this notion of equal access and opportunity that the Education Act and the relevant anti discrimination acts are based upon, and the notion remains the "philosophical lynchpin of the education system"3. The law tries, to some extent, to guarantee education on the basis of equal access for all. There are innumerable reasons why equal access to education is important. One of them being that, not only does it benefit the individual - it has also been argued that equality in education is linked with equality in society4. Consequently, this leads to ripple effect because, by reducing disparities in society through education, more people are able to liberate themselves
Immigration in New Zealand law
Introduction In practice immigration and emigration are human realities, which pre-date both the modern understanding of these terms, and the contemporary definition of the nation state. In the modern era while citizens of a particular nation state enjoy an undisputed right of residence, the residence of immigrants is contingent upon conditions set by immigration law and policy. As noted by former UN General Secretary, Kofi Anan, the current global character of migration is now a growing phenomenon both in scope and complexity, which affects virtually all countries in the world.1 This essay addresses three issues in regard to the portentous question of immigration; firstly, should New Zealand have an immigration programme; what factors comprise the major benefits and detriments of an immigration programme; and lastly, whether the New Zealand government's current immigration programme is sourcing the right migrants required for economic growth. Should New Zealand have an Immigration Programme? Immigration is a particularly significant issue for our country as New Zealand is routinely referred to as a nation of immigrants, and immigration has been a significant driver of population change since the mid-19th century. At the time of the 2001 Census, just under 20% of residents recorded an overseas birthplace giving New Zealand one of the highest proportions of overseas born in
![Stare Decisis. Professor Sir Rupert Cross identified three fundamental principles of the doctrine of stare decisis[1] which is all courts must consider relevant case law, lower courts must follow the decisions of courts above them in the hierarchy; appell](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/909774/listing/909774_1.jpg)
Stare Decisis. Professor Sir Rupert Cross identified three fundamental principles of the doctrine of stare decisis[1] which is all courts must consider relevant case law, lower courts must follow the decisions of courts above them in the hierarchy; appell
The doctrine of binding precedent is often known as the doctrine of stare decisis, or to give it its full title stare rationibus decidendis, that is, ""keep to the decisions of past cases"". Professor Sir Rupert Cross identified three fundamental principles of the doctrine of stare decisis1 which is all courts must consider relevant case law, lower courts must follow the decisions of courts above them in the hierarchy; appellate courts are generally bound by their own decisions. The reasoning behind this doctrine is that experience is the best teacher and that a system of precedent is the best way of ensuring consistency in judicial decision-making. In Latin, the principle is called stare decisis which if it was literally translated would mean "stand by things decided."2 Stare decisis has come to us as the most sacred rule of law where it is said that the judge has to apply the law as it is presented to his trough the previous decisions of the court and also it is not the judges function to make or remake the law rather it is the function of the legislature. As the view given by Wikipedia3 explains that stare decisis is the legal principles where the judges are made to follow the precedents that has been made in previous cases where this site continued saying that in the United States which uses the common law system in their Federal courts and in most of their state courts