Critically assess how effective employment law is as a means of altering social attitudes.
LABOUR LAW COURSEWORK BY ADRIAN SHUM. TITLE: Critically assess how effective employment law is as a means of altering social attitudes. To assess how effective employment law is a means of altering social attitudes I aim to thoroughly examine whether respective legislation has sufficiently enabled women to enter and progress in professional employment on an equal footing with men. Hence, has there been a lifting of the so called 'glass ceiling', which Browne defines as, "An invisible barrier of discrimination which makes it difficult for women to reach the same top level in their chosen careers as men."1 Alternatively, I aim to evaluate, does the mere avoidance of discrimination carry with it little prospect of significant overall improvement in the socio-economic position of women. Thus, is there a need in the UK for more proactive measures such as legislation permitting or even obliging positive discrimination and compulsory affirmative/positive action, to remove the inequalities that remain. Before doing as such I feel it is imperative to differentiate between and explain what positive discrimination and affirmative/positive action are. Positive discrimination is where for example an employer restricts applicants for a particular job to women or automatically appoints a woman, and the only reason for such is that women may be underrepresented in the position in
Art and part liability
Criminal Law Coursework Word Count: 1,692 In Criminal Law, the principle of art and part liability is a form of derivative criminal liability. Consider and explain how criminal liability might be established on an art and part basis. In addition, consider how an individual may be held liable for the unintended consequences of a course of criminal conduct, and how such an individual might defend any such allegations. Art and part liability is a form of derivative criminal liability meaning: "where two or more people engage together in committing a crime, each actor is equally guilty of the whole crime irrespective of the particular role played by each individual".1 A typical example of art and part liability is a bank robbery. For example, a gang perform the physical act of the crime: the actus reus; the robbing of the bank, with one man sitting in the getaway car. All men are guilty of the crime. If one member inside the bank panics and kills someone, the getaway driver is as guilty of murder as the killer and all the gang members involved. There are, however, defences available to reduce the extent of criminal liability, for example, if the accused was unaware that the killer had a weapon and made no prior agreement or planning for the carrying or use of the weapon, then he would not be responsible for the murder, there would be no art and part liability for this
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Before 1986 the police dealt with all prosecutions brought forward. However, this became a critical issue as it was argued that the organisation dealing with the crime enquiry should be independent from the organisation dealing with the prosecution. Inattention of the prosecutions dealt by the police, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure concluded after a report that it would be beneficial if the prosecutions were a self-governing establishment. After the analysis of the report the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was finally set up and began running in 1986. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 established it. As from 1986 all prosecutions were done by the CPS, which meant the police and the CPS now conducted different roles within the criminal justice system. The head of the CPS is the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP). The Attorney General appoints the DPP, who must be a qualified lawyer for at least 10years. Below the DPP are the Chief Crown Prosecutors who are head of one of the 42 areas of which the country is dived up and below them is the Branch Crown Prosecutors who head their sub-divided CPS branch. Within the legal system the police have the duty to obtain as much evidence against a defendant. Once gaining all relevant evidence, they have the option of doing any of the following with the suspect. They can take no further action, they can give an
Parliamentary sovereignty. " Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being Qualified. (R(Jackson and others) v Attorney General . Discuss
'Our constitution is dominated by the sovereignty of Parliament. But parliamentary sovereignty is no longer, if it ever was, absolute ... It is no longer right to say that [Parliament's] freedom to legislate admits of no qualification whatever. Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament which Dicey derived from Coke and Blackstone is being Qualified'. (R(Jackson and others) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, per Lord Hope of Craighead). At the heart of the British Constitution lies the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The sovereignty of the parliament is predominantly defined by Dicey as: "Parliament having the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament"1. Further Dicey stated that there are three key rules that need to be followed for the Parliament to be absolutely sovereign and these are the following: Parliament can make or unmake any law; Parliament cannot bind its successors and most importantly that no one can question Parliament's laws. Historically the principle received statutory recognition in the Bill of Rights 16892 where it was stated: ""That the pretended power of super sending of laws, or the execution of laws by regal authority without
Parliamentary Supremacy - the question of whether membership of the EU has diminished the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, will be explored, with reference to legal authorities and academic opinion.
In the year of 1973, the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community. Twenty years later, the UK signed the Treaty on European Union (or Maastricht Treaty) and became a member state of the European Union1[MD1]. Being a highly controversial and debated topic, the question of whether membership of the EU has diminished the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, will be explored, with reference to legal authorities and academic opinion. Parliamentary supremacy is a key principle of the British constitution that is based on the concept that Parliament is the supreme maker of English legislation and has the power to make or unmake any law they see fit.2 Whether these laws were morally or politically improper, did not matter as Parliamentary supremacy permitted Parliament to make such laws and they would still be held valid (Madzimbamuto)3. The constitutional theorist A.V. Dicey had very strong views on Parliamentary sovereignty and described it as 'the keystone of the law of the Constitution'. He believed that since the laws which were passed through Parliament were subject to intense scrutiny, it would be ensured that only good laws would make it through Parliament. In effect, these laws made by Parliament were not restricted by neither content nor territorial region.4 This idea was utilised by Sir Ivor Jennings who gave the well-known example of Parliament
![Under the current law, homeowners are permitted to use "reasonable force" against intruders.[3] However this standard is criticised for being unclear and weighted too much in favour of the intruders.[4] Under the proposed law, homeowners would be convicte](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/950247/listing/950247_1.jpg)
Under the current law, homeowners are permitted to use "reasonable force" against intruders.[3] However this standard is criticised for being unclear and weighted too much in favour of the intruders.[4] Under the proposed law, homeowners would be convicte
Introduction Following the high profile cases of Tony Martin and Munir Hussian,1 the UK Conservative Party has signaled it will introduce new laws providing householders with a stronger defense against criminal liability where they use force to defend themselves against intruders.2 Under the current law, homeowners are permitted to use "reasonable force" against intruders.3 However this standard is criticised for being unclear and weighted too much in favour of the intruders.4 Under the proposed law, homeowners would be convicted only where they used force that was "grossly disproportionate".5 This essay discusses whether such legislative reform is appropriate by first looking at how the current law operates and its main areas of criticism. It then analyses the proposed law and considers whether it adequately improves on the current law. The current law As a general rule in common law, householders are entitled to use "reasonable force" to protect themselves, others or their property.6 This rule provides householders with a justifiable defence against a charge of murder or other levels of assault where they kill or injure the intruder.7 The burden of proving the householders did not act in defence rests with the prosecution.8 The Court has made it clear that "reasonable force" bears the same meaning in the context of defence as section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967
Chain of causation problem question. The given case is concerned with the law on homicide in English Criminal Law. Albert is likely to be accused of three different offences; the death of Bert amounting to involuntary manslaughter, the injuries suffered
Albert is a drug-dealer. One evening, selling heroin up a dark alley, he is first approached by Bert, with whom he has dealt several times in the past. Albert sells him the drug. Bert goes home, injects himself, and dies that same evening from an overdose. Next Albert is approached by Carol, whom he has never met before, but correctly supposes to be already heavily addicted. She is so desperate for the heroin that, at her request, he holds her arm steady while she injects herself there and then with the heroin he has supplied. Carol has a seizure and hits her head against a wall, resulting in severe bruising, but no lasting injury. Finally, Albert is approached by Diane, whom he knows well, and, at her suggestion they both go to her flat. There Diane injects herself with the heroin that Albert supplies. She passes out and Albert carries her to her bed, lying down beside her. When he awakes next morning Diane is looking very pale and is not conscious. Albert decides just to leave her there. Diane dies that afternoon from the heroin injection, never having recovered consciousness. The medical evidence is that her life would very likely have been saved had she received medical attention earlier in the day. Discuss the criminal liability of Albert, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory. You need not consider offences under the Misuse of
Criminal Law - A Miscarriage of Justice.
Criminal Law. Assignment 1. Part B. A Miscarriage of Justice. Hemis No:198788. Word count:3,000 As there is no material regarding this case 'in print' as of yet, all sources of information used have been attached as appendices. Sally Clark. o On the 9th November 1999, after a four week trial at Chester Crown Court, Sally Clark was found guilty and convicted of the murder of her two children. o The Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body which investigate miscarriages of justice in England, sent Sally Clark's case to the Court of Appeal. o On the 2nd October 2000 at the Court Of Appeal, the guilty verdict was upheld. They ruled that the case against Sally Clark was 'overwhelming' despite the support of fresh evidence. o The Criminal Cases Review Commission has ordered, that the case should go back to the Appeal Court because of the new medical evidence put forward, contained in a report overlooked at the original trial, which shows that Harry, the second baby to die, suffered from staph aureus at the time of his death, which almost certainly killed him o Sally is now serving the forth year of her life sentence. The case of Sally Clark is a long and difficult one to understand. There are no precedents in this area of law and no books have been published regarding this case, as it has not yet been recognised by the courts. This is a landmark case and Sally Clark
UCTA problem
Robert and his wife, Lucy, decide to take dance classes at a local Salsa dance club. They used to go to ballroom dance classes at the same club some years ago. Because Salsa dancing has become so popular, they book the classes in advance. On the back of the receipt a printed clause says ?"For terms and conditions please see the notices in the club?". On the inside of the club door a large notice is pinned up. The notice reads, ?"The club will not accept responsibility for any loss suffered by customers?". At their first dance class, the dance instructor, Paul, who also owns the club, demonstrates an energetic step and falls over, knocking Robert to the ground. Robert?'s arm is broken and his Rolex watch is damaged beyond repair. When Lucy goes to the cloakroom to get her coat, she finds that the coat has been stolen. Advise Robert and Lucy. .0 Area of Law The area of law are exclusion clauses, the Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977(hereinafter known as UCTA) and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, 1999 (hereinafter known as UTCCR). 2.0 Issues There are a few issues to be looked at for the case. They are:- Whether the notice and clause are incorporated into the contract? Whether UCTA and UTCCR applies? Whether Robert can claim damages on his broken arm and Rolex watch? Whether Lucy can claim damages on the stolen coat? 3.0 Application 3.1 Methods of
Criminal Justice
Running Head: CRJ SCENARIO Criminal Justice Scenerio Leslie Capurro Criminal Justice 102 Randy Floccini Truckee Meadows Community College In this paper I will discuss what I would morally and personally do in a scenario. The scenario places me in a tough position between my job, and my significant other. I have to choose to give my significant other up to the police while risking my job, or still risk my job and not turn my significant other in. Criminal Justice Scenario One morning I woke up at my usual time, and I continued on with my daily routine as I headed off to my job at the Reno Police Department. I was more tired that day than normal because my husband had come home the night before acting strangely. I thought that was going to be a busy day. We'd already gotten a call to keep an eye out for a red Mercedes-Benz, apparently it was involved in a hit and run accident the night before. With no luck finding the Mercedes-Benz I headed home at the end of my shift to find a rental car in the garage. I asked my husband why he had the rental car and he would only tell me that someone had backed into the red Mercedes-Benz, and that he had dropped it off to be repaired at a shop. I became a bit suspicious but didn't really think much of it. Six months down the road my husband came to me and told me that he was the person who was involved in the hit and run in the red
