Council Directive 2004/707 on transporting retired people (fictitious), adopted on 1 November 2000, requires all Member States: a. to implement measures by March 2007 giving all retired EU workers beyond the age of 65 years the right to travel within the
Council Directive 2004/707 on transporting retired people (fictitious), adopted on 1 November 2000, requires all Member States: a. to implement measures by March 2007 giving all retired EU workers beyond the age of 65 years the right to travel within the Member State on all forms of domestic public transport free of charge; and b. to implement measures by March 2008 giving all EU workers the right to claim one complimentary flight per year to any other EU Member State from any national airline. Sadie is a Polish national living in London who, at 65 years old, has recently retired from her job as a part-time care assistant in the local nursing home. Now that she has more time on her hands, she wishes to spend more time with her family in Birmingham by travelling by train to see them on a fortnightly basis. She asks Virgin company, the company operating the trains from London to Birmingham, to allow her to travel for free. Virgin refuses to do so. Bill, a Spanish national was a teacher for 15 years in Spain before he moved to the UK. After working for 3 years as a secondary teacher in the UK, he decided to take life easier and stopped his job. At 55, he has agreed with friends that he will take care of their gardens as long as they cook for him afterwards. He now wishes to spend the winter of every year in Spain where the warmer climate is better for his health. Bill goes
Antigone: "and Justice for all…"
Megan Yamamoto Thill, B. Humanities Core 1A October 16, 20 Antigone: "and Justice for all..." Sophocles' Antigone revolves around the issue of how justice is defined and carried out. Both main characters, Creon and Antigone, claim to have the law and Gods on their sides. Each side presents their case with adequate evidence that their reasoning is the absolute truth and that their version of carrying out justice is correct. Creon believes that his power of being king will justify his action of leaving Polynices unburied, while Antigone leans more towards tradition of burial for her form of justice. However, it is their inability to come to a compromise over the absolute definition of justice, in addition to the lack of a solid and unambiguous explanation of the word, which leads their conflict to escalate to drastic heights. The Oxford English Dictionary defines justice as the ability to be righteous, fair and truthful when dealing with a certain situation. In Sophocles' Antigone this definition of justice is partially applied to both Creon and Antigone's state of affairs. On the one side, Creon gives his outlook on justice through his action of leaving the dead body of Polynices unburied. He believes that justice will be served in this manner to the so-called traitor for fighting against his city. However, on the opposing side is Antigone who believes justice will be
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
Observation in Magistrate Courts
Magistrates Court Observation This essay will attempt to give a detailed account of an observation in a Magistrates Court. With reference to history from authors such as Skyrme and official web sites, put together by the magistrates association. In the latter part of the twelfth century, in 1195 King Richard I 'commissioned certain knights to preserve the peace in unruly areas' (magistrates-association). Their responsibilities were to the Crown, and included the maintenance of the law and to enforce it as far as possible. From this time on, the Bench, or the Magistrates as we know them now were known as 'Keepers of the Peace'. An Act in 1327, made it law that 'good and lawful' men were to be 'appointed in every county to 'guard the peace'; Justices of the peace still have the power over disruptive and disorderly people. The power and decisions made are not of a punishment, but more as a deterrent to prevent the offender from recommitting the crime (magistrates-association). It was not until 1919 that women were able to become magistrates. This was when the removal of the Sex Disqualification Act came into practice. On the 31 December 1919, Mrs Ada Summers, Mayor of Stalybridge became the fist female magistrate. Then on the first January 1920, at least six other women were appointed to the same post. From year to year this number had significantly increased and
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
![Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/951898/listing/951898_1.jpg)
Criminal Law Advice to client. This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 1861[1] and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary t
R v David Harris ADVICE TO CLIENT This advice relates to the charges against David Harris for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s. 47, Offences Against the Person Act 18611 and wounding or causing actual bodily harm with intent contrary to s. 18 OAPA 1861. 2The first part of this advice concerns the incident involving David's sister Florence resulting in the s.47 OAPA 1861 charge. In a s.47 offence, both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) 2of either assault or battery must be proven[RM1]. The AR for battery is the infliction of unlawful force on another person3, which is immediately satisfied as David indeed inflicted unlawful force on Florence by "pulling her out of the way", which then, in relation to Florence's sprained ankle, occasioned actual bodily harm. Bodily harm has its ordinary meaning and includes any hurt calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim-such harm need not be permanent, but must be more than transient and trifling.4 Therefore, the sprained ankle is sufficient for the s.47 charge. 3The MR for s. 47 is that of assault or battery-intention or recklessness as to the infliction of unlawful force. At the time that David committed the offence, he was furious at Florence stating that she would not allow him to leave if he was going to cause trouble. It could be argued that the MR for injuring
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
