The Denning Law Journal最新文献

{"title":"Non-Apology in the Age of Apology","authors":"Aliza Organick","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1793","url":null,"abstract":"After more than two decades winding its way through a variety of United Nations (UN) mechanisms, in September 2007 the world’s indigenous peoples welcomed the news that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (hereinafter the Declaration) was at last approved by the vast majority of nation-states.2 The four settler3 states that opposed the Declaration initially (the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) have each in turn voiced their ultimate approval of the declaration and have issued statements in support to their indigenous citizens. In spite of the fact that these statements expressed a measure of regret for past wrongs committed, not one of those endorsements embodied a formal apology. Now that the Declaration has entered its eleventh year, many continue to question to what extent these endorsements have meaningfully advanced reconciliation for indigenous peoples and whether these endorsements were authentic in their stated desire to do more than just acknowledge the aspirations contained in the Declaration. This comment will examine the framework for political apologies in general and then consider the endorsements of the Declaration by the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in light of contemporary apology theory. The article will then examine affirmative actions taken by those states following their endorsements in order to advance the claims of indigenous peoples and look at whether these actions have fallen short in providing meaningful redress for centuries of past wrongs.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126410987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does the failure to provide equitable access to treatment lead to action by NHS organisations: the case of biologics for South Asians with inflammatory bowel disease?","authors":"A. Farrukh, J. Mayberry","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1708","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1708","url":null,"abstract":"Aims: The purpose of this study was to identify whether NHS Trusts where discrimination in the delivery of care to patients from the South Asian community had been demonstrated had taken any actions to address the issue over the subsequent year.Methods:   Freedom of information requests were sent to three trusts which had provided evidence of disparate provision of biologic therapy to patients with Crohn’s disease, their associated Clinical Commissioning Groups and Healthwatch organisations to seek evidence they had remedied the situation. Requests were also sent to the Care Quality Commission, NHS Improvement and the Equality and Human Rights Commission seeking examples where they had responded to inequitable delivery of care related to ethnicity.Results: No organisation had any evidence of responses to the situation, many unable to accept its existence.Conclusion: Legal duties are discussed and the only remedy appears to be through the tort of negligence.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117024001","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Introduction to the 2019 General Election","authors":"Sarah Sargent, James Slater","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1790","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1790","url":null,"abstract":"The Editorial Team of the Denning Law Journal are pleased to offer its 2019 General Edition, which covers a range of topical issues that fall within the remit of the journal and keeps faith with Lord Denning’s vision and far-sightedness. The aim of the Denning Law Journal is to provide a forum for the widest discussion of issues arising in the common law world and the Commonwealth, and also to embrace wider global issues of contemporary concern.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"37 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132831275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings: Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif (2019)","authors":"J. Hatchard","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1795","url":null,"abstract":"The January 2019 ruling of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in Solicitors Regulation Authority v Sharif1 highlighted the care that legal practitioners must take in order to satisfy their anti-money laundering obligations and the serious consequences of any failure to do so. This is the subject of a separate note in this issueof the Denning Law Journal.2 However, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal applied the criminal standard of proof in the case. The question as to whether this is now the appropriate approach is the subject of this note.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121993586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Fédération Equestre Internationale Speaks for the Horse Who Has No Voice and the Court of Arbitration for Sport Listened: Equine Welfare and Anti-Doping in Equestrianism","authors":"L. Donnellan","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1792","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1792","url":null,"abstract":"The strict liability standard employed by the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) in equine doping cases has been a source of contention among academics, riders and trainers. The FEI Disciplinary Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) have consistently upheld the standard and no alternative has been considered. At the core of the application of the strict liability standard has been the protection of the equine athlete. With the dual aims of the protection of equine athletes and equality between competitors, the FEI imposes a provisional equine suspension when a horse’s sample records an adverse analytical finding. The standard of strict liability and the imposition of provisional suspensions together put the welfare of the horse to the fore. While the intentions of the FEI have been based on this noble premise, ambiguities and inconsistencies have undermined the effectiveness of the Equine Anti-Doping and Controlled Medication Regulations (EADCMRs).","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131361754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"“Escaping the Sunken Place: indefinite detention, asylum seekers, and resistance in Yarl’s Wood IRC”","authors":"Aidan Seymour-Butler","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V31I1.1674","url":null,"abstract":"The Law Society has recently raised concerns about the UK’s migration system, stating that ‘failures in UK immigration and asylum undermine the rule of law’. Nowhere are those problems more apparent than in the UK’s handling of migrants and asylum seekers in detention centres. A particular recurring issue that speaks to the Law Society’s concern is the absence of a defined time limit for immigration detention. The possibility of indefinite detention has been a source of tension both within British politics, and within UK immigration detention centres. An example of this can be understood with reference to the Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in Bedfordshire, known for its controversial and rebellious past. In 2015 Nick Hardwick, a former chief prisoner inspector, labelled the Centre a place of ‘national concern’, after examining the mistreatment of vulnerable detainees. Yarl’s Wood’s problematic history, seems to have continued into the present, following a detainee led hunger strike that resulted in ‘renewed concerns’ over health care in detention centres. In addition to protesting the standard of medical treatment received by detainees, the strikers’ underlying focus was on indefinite detention.  The Home Office’s response to these strikes was unsympathetic, it sent a letter to detainees suggesting that their continued participation in the strike may in fact result in their removal being accelerated. Although, the hunger strike ended in March 2018 the Home Office’s response to the strike raised some interesting legal and philosophical questions about human rights and resistance in detention centres. In order to grapple with some of these issues, this paper has been separated into two parts. The first part will attempt to contextualise the existing immigration regime and explore how legal disputes might fit within the broader scheme of opposing indefinite detention. It will also briefly examine the legal challenges that may arise from the use of threats of accelerated deportations.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128275048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"THE COMMONWEALTH PRINCIPLES (LATIMER HOUSE) ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT: TWENTY YEARS ON","authors":"P. Slinn, K. Brewer","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V30I2.1700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V30I2.1700","url":null,"abstract":"2018 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Latimer House ‘process’ which commenced with the drafting of the Latimer House Guidelines for the Commonwealth on Good Practice Governing Relations between the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary. Since then the Latimer House Guidelines have been transformed into the Commonwealth Principles (Latimer House) on the Relationship between the Three Branches of Government which have been endorsed by Commonwealth Heads of Government on several occasions. This article assesses the role of the Latimer House process over the last two decades against the background of the Commonwealth’s evolving commitments to good governance and the rule of law. In Part 1 explores the role of the Commonwealth in supporting good governance and the rule of law whilst Part 2 considers and evaluates the Latimer House process itself. Part 3 reviews the development of the Commonwealth Principles in practice whilst in Part 4 some specific implementation issues concerning the Judiciary are discussed. Part 5 considers the future development of the Commonwealth Principles whilst Part 6 provides a conclusion and overview.","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133037332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"READING DOWN SECTION 44(i) OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION AS A METHOD OF AFFIRMING AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP IN THE 21st CENTURY","authors":"Noa Bloch, Kim Rubenstein","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V30I2.1699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V30I2.1699","url":null,"abstract":"Until 2017, the most recent disqualification of a member of the Australian Parliament under section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution (‘Constitution’) was Senator Heather Hill in 1998. Remarkably, since 2017, almost twenty years after Sue v Hill, ten parliamentarians have resigned or been disqualified, triggering a series of by-elections. The catalyst for this flurry of activity occurred in July 2017, when Greens senator Scott Ludlam announced that at the time of his election, he was a citizen of New Zealand and was incapable of sitting in parliament under section 44(i). He was the first of ten senators and members of parliament to be referred to the High Court of Australia in the cases of Re Canavan and later Re Gallagher on questions of eligibility under section 44(i). Eight of these parliamentarians were disqualified, sparking national debate around parliamentary representation and membership within the Australian community. Since Re Canavan and Re Gallagher and indeed well before those cases, the section had and has continued to attract popular, journalistic, parliamentary and academic criticism. Consequently, there have been calls for a referendum on section 44(i) for a significant period of time. While the authors support this call, this article reflects on the cases and develops a different interpretive approach to section 44(i) which if argued by the parties and adopted by the Court, would have rendered a referendum unnecessary. By drawing on the earlier section 41 of the Australian Constitution case of R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka and its majority judgment, as well as drawing upon the minority judgment of Murphy J and a more recent feminist judgment written by Kim Rubenstein, one of the authors of this article, we argue that the principles of representative democracy and the sovereignty of the people could have acted as a frame to read down section 44(i). Had this approach been adopted, the Court could have effectively placed the decision around disqualification of parliamentarians around the issue of dual citizenship, back into the hands of the elected representatives","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"281 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122941688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"IN PRAISE OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: LESSONS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH","authors":"J. Hatchard, J. Scutt","doi":"10.5750/DLJ.V30I2.1696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/DLJ.V30I2.1696","url":null,"abstract":"Constitutions come in all shapes and sizes. Some provide for a federal or confederal structure whilst others adopt a unitary model. Internal ethnic, religious or other factors may determine the structure and distribution of constitutional powers, issues that are often of less significance in a constitution written for a more homogenous population","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122006434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"ROAD RULES FOR OUR COUNTRY - AUSTRALIA’S CONSTITUTION AND AUSTRALIA’S FIRST PEOPLES","authors":"G. Perrett, P. Dodson","doi":"10.5750/dlj.v30i2.1702","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/dlj.v30i2.1702","url":null,"abstract":"There was a time when most Australian drivers would encounter a particular kind of defaced road sign in their travels. Speeding along the National Highway near the Broome turn-off in Western Australia or dodging kangaroos on the back roads of western Queensland around St George, drivers could see a sign urging them to “FORM ONE LANE” transmogrified by some local wit to read “FORM ONE pLANEt”. Graffiti on signs in a vain attempt to make them say something else can be mildly amusing but completely ineffective. However, while it is dangerous (and illegal) to interfere with road signs, sometimes tinkering with an original symbol can achieve something worthwhile, and substantial. ","PeriodicalId":382436,"journal":{"name":"The Denning Law Journal","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115098857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}