Latest News

• May 2013
• April 2013
• March 2013
• Feb 2013
• Jan 2013

June 2013

Lack of clarity hinders implementation of EU Sex Equality Directive

At a national level, the efficacy of EU directives relating to sex equality is being undermined by a lack of clarity in the delineation of their personal scope, and in particular of the rights and entitlements applicable to ‘self-employed workers’, according to a European Commission report co-authored by UCL Reader in Law, Dr Nicola Countouris, and UCL Honorary Professor Mark Freedland FBA.

The report, The Personal Scope of the EU Sex Equality Directives , carried out by the European Network of Legal Experts in the Field of Gender Equality, aims to clarify how the personal scope provisions in both the main EU sex equality directives and the Pregnant Workers and Parental Leave Directives have been implemented by EU/EEA member states and candidate countries.

Drawing on expert comment from across the Europe, the report identifies a number of ways in which the nature of the Directives in question have implications within the labour market of nation states.

Identifying a number of regulatory overlaps and gaps in provision, the report concludes that:

“The somewhat scattered definition of the personal scope of the sex equality directives, coupled with the uncertainties deriving from the national definition of ( and the rights attributable to) ‘self-employed workers’ at a national and EU level, have to some extent mitigated against their fully efficacious implementation in the Member States.”

Discussing the report, Dr Countouris said: “The EU rightly takes pride in its record in the field of equality in general, and sex equality in particular. This report however highlights that, in spite of some six decades of steady progress in reducing inequalities between men and women, significant differences in the reach of EU anti-discrimination legislation across the many EU/EEA member states still persist. The report also reveals that some of these differences are partly due to the less than coherent and highly fragmented regulatory framework addressing gender inequality. The EU could do worse than trying to re-regulate this area of EU Social Law, by integrating its various instruments on equality between men and women (possibly along the lines of Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78) and clarifying their personal scope of application.”

June 2013

Increased religious diversity leads to upswing in secularism

Increased religious diversity, partly driven by migration, is ultimately leading to a greater separation between church and state, according to UCL Laws Lecturer Dr Ronan McCrea.

In an article published in Aeon magazine, Dr McCrea argues that although it may seem as though religion is playing an increasing role in public life, the upshot of such involvement is likely to be a formalisation of what were previously tacit conventions designed to limit religious interference with state activity.

Dr McCrea argues that increased religious diversity can result in a destabilising of the historically assumed relationship between a country and its dominant cultural symbolism. Such a destabilisation is likely to mean that what was once a largely uncontested space governed by a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ is now increasingly likely to be subject to legal delineation.

Dr McCrea said: “What we see is a general process under which greater religious diversity is making it difficult for religion in Europe to retain the residual political and symbolic roles that it has had until now. These roles relied on religion being seen as a national cultural symbol, and on implicit understandings that churches would largely steer clear of politics and would not use their legally privileged status to restrict criticism or mockery of religion to too great a degree.

“Such a system is proving unsustainable. There are now too many diverse cultural expectations about religion, its role in political life, and the degree to which it can be criticised or mocked. The more muscular religiosity of some migrant communities, among other factors, is provoking European governments to restrict religion firmly to the private sphere, and to render the public sphere a strictly secular one.”

June 2013

Saatchi assault caution exposes ‘embarrassing flaws’

June 2013

Arbitration Law module now recognized by Chartered Institute of Arbitrators

UCL Laws LLM International Arbitration Law module (LAWSG069) is now recognised by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and as such, is now part of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators' Recognised Course Provider (RCP) scheme.

This institute is UK based, and it provides education and training for arbitrators, mediators and adjudicators.

Students who successfully complete the International Arbitration module get free student affiliateship, meaning that they have access to certain areas of institute's website (including access to CIArb publications, invitation to networking events and lectures). Successful students also gain exemption from introduction and module 2 (module 2 is concerned with the law of international arbitration), if they would like to become a CIArb Member.

June 2013

Increased religious diversity leads to upswing in secularism

Increased religious diversity, partly driven by migration, is ultimately leading to a greater separation between church and state, according to UCL Laws Lecturer Dr Ronan McCrea.

In an article published in Aeon magazine, Dr McCrea argues that although it may seem as though religion is playing an increasing role in public life, the upshot of such involvement is likely to be a formalisation of what were previously tacit conventions designed to limit religious interference with state activity.

Dr McCrea argues that increased religious diversity can result in a destabilising of the historically assumed relationship between a country and its dominant cultural symbolism. Such a destabilisation is likely to mean that what was once a largely uncontested space governed by a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ is now increasingly likely to be subject to legal delineation.

Dr McCrea said: “What we see is a general process under which greater religious diversity is making it difficult for religion in Europe to retain the residual political and symbolic roles that it has had until now. These roles relied on religion being seen as a national cultural symbol, and on implicit understandings that churches would largely steer clear of politics and would not use their legally privileged status to restrict criticism or mockery of religion to too great a degree.

“Such a system is proving unsustainable. There are now too many diverse cultural expectations about religion, its role in political life, and the degree to which it can be criticised or mocked. The more muscular religiosity of some migrant communities, among other factors, is provoking European governments to restrict religion firmly to the private sphere, and to render the public sphere a strictly secular one.”

June 2013

UCL Laws tops Guardian University Guide 2014

The reputation of UCL Laws as one the world’s top institutions has been further confirmed following the publication of the Guardian University Guide 2014, which ranked the faculty as the top provider in the United Kingdom.

With UCL as a whole ranking fifth, the league table makes for positive reading for staff, students and prospective attendees alike.

The table is calculated using a number of key indicators, including student satisfaction, teacher to student ratio, spend per student and career prospects for students following the completion of their degree.

This year has seen UCL Laws score exceptionally high on student spend, student satisfaction and career prospects, all of which have ensured the faculty’s position at the top of the table.

May 2013

Dr. Ioannis Lianos participates in 3rd St Petersburg International Legal Forum

Dr. Ioannis Lianos participated in the 3rd St Petersburg International Legal Forum, chairing a panel on the important issue of the interaction of competition law with intellectual property rights. This is an important topic for all jurisdictions but a particularly hot topic in Russia at the moment, as the Russian Federation is contemplating a revision of the statutory provisions granting IP rights immunity from competition law. Ioannis Lianos is also the co-author (with professor Rochelle Dreyfuss from NYU Law School) of a report prepared for Skolkovo (the Russian Innovation Agency) on the interaction of competition law and IP rights, which was released a few days ago, and which can be read here

May 2013

Almost a quarter of jurors are confused about rules surrounding internet use during trial

Preliminary research, carried out by UCL Laws Professor of Judicial Studies, Cheryl Thomas, has revealed that almost a quarter of jurors are unclear about the rules surrounding internet use during trial. Published in the Criminal Law Review following a number of recent convictions of jurors for contempt, it is hoped that the findings will provide an empirical basis for any Law Commission reform proposals in this area.

The research, taken from the first of a four-stage project involving real Crown Court juries in England and Wales, reveals that amongst those who misunderstand the rules sixteen per cent believe they cannot use the internet at all, even to check their own emails, while serving on a jury; five per cent believe there is no restriction at all on their use of the internet during a trial; and two per cent believe they can look for information about their case during the trial as long as it does not influence their judgment.

Professor Thomas Said: “These findings show that the vast majority of jurors understand and follow the rules on how jurors can use new media during trial but that the message is not getting through and is confusing to a significant minority.

“Ensuring that trial by jury can effectively operate in the new media age requires empirical evidence about what jurors do, what they think and what are the best tools to provide them with to do their job to the best of their ability.

“Jury reforms in the past have often been based on anecdotal evidence and high profile or exceptional cases. Answers to the questions posed by the Law Commission in its consultation paper need to avoid these pitfalls.

“ In the new media age, jurors must understand the rules on improper conduct, know how and when to report improper conduct when they see it, and they should be able to do so with ease. If we ignore these critical factors, then we run the risk of creating the ideal conditions for a perfect storm of juror contempt.”

May 2013

Charles Mitchell edits book on the US law of unjust enrichment

Charles Mitchell, in collaboration with William Swadling, has edited a collection of essays on the US law of unjust enrichment, entitled The Restatement Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment: Critical and Comparative Essays. The publication of the Restatement Third, Unjust Enrichment and Restitution by the American Law Institute in July 2010 was an event of major importance, not only for the development of the law of unjust enrichment in the US, but also for global scholarship relating to this area of private law. The Restatement First appeared in 1937, and the Restatement Second was abandoned; hence the Restatement Third is the most significant survey of the American law on this topic for over 70 years. Private law has been a comparatively neglected area of study in US law schools for several decades, and this is particularly true of the law of unjust enrichment. However, the appearance of the Restatement Third has prompted a renewal of interest in the subject among US scholars, and it is hoped that the present volume of essays will contribute to this revival, while reflecting on the lessons to be learned from the Restatement by other legal systems. Featuring the work of leading scholars from the UK, Germany, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong and Australia, the essays undertake critical and comparative analysis of the Restatement, and offer fresh insights into the rules that it articulates.

May 2013

UCL Laws holds Inaugural Bentham House Conference on philosophical foundations of contract law

UCL Laws last week hosted the Inaugural Bentham House Conference on the theme of the philosophical foundations of contract law. The conference was organised by Professor Gregory Klass (Georgetown), Dr George Letsas (UCL) and Dr Prince Saprai (UCL). The conference was a major event in contract law and legal theory, bringing together the leading professionals in debates about the nature of the subject.

Topics covered during the event included the relationship between contract and moral practices such as promising, the role of distributive justice and economic analysis in contract law, and how contract doctrines like good faith, undue influence, and mitigation connect with basic moral concerns such as community, exploitation, fault and fairness.

One of the highlights of the conference was a rare opportunity to see Professor Randy Barnett (Georgetown) and Professor Charles Fried (Harvard) debate whether contract is based on promise or consent. The papers from the conference will be published by OUP in a volume edited by the conference organisers

May 2013

Dr Virginia Mantouvalou speaks at House of Commons on Overseas Domestic Workers

UCL Laws Lecturer, Dr Virginia Mantouvalou spoke at a House of Commons Panel Discussion on the new visa for overseas domestic workers, arguing that the visa regime, which ties overseas domestic workers to a particular employer, may be in breach of article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights that prohibits slavery, servitude, forced and compulsory labour.

The previous visa regime allowed the worker to change employer, and had been presented as best practice by the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation. Dr Mantouvalou suggested that the UK Government has to reassess its position on the issue in light of its international human rights obligations.

The event was hosted by Fiona MacTaggart MP and organized by the London-based organization Kalayaan

May 2013

Bentham Project publishes ‘ Not Paul, but Jesus Vol. III ’

The Bentham Project is pleased to announce the online publication of a preliminary edition of Jeremy Bentham’s Not Paul, but Jesus Vol. III. This is the first time that the third volume of Not Paul, but Jesus has been published in any form.

The first volume, appearing in 1823, was published under the pseudonym Gamaliel Smith. In the work as a whole, Bentham aimed to drive a wedge between the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul — between Christianity and Paulism. In this third volume, he focused on sexual morality. This version will eventually be superseded by an authoritative version in the complete edition of Not Paul, but Jesus in the Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham.

Not Paul, but Jesus Vol. III is now freely available to view online, and can also be downloaded as a PDF.

May 2013

UCL Hong Kong Club hosts reception with Dean of Laws, Professor Dame Hazel Genn

A reception for UCL Laws Alumni, current students, offer holders and their parents was held in Hong Kong on 26 April. The reception was generously hosted by Paul Hastings LLP, Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong, with UCL alumni Sammi Li and William Cheung taking the lead on arrangements at Paul Hastings. The evening provided an opportunity for the assembled guests to meet UCL Dean of Laws, Dame Hazel Genn as well as proving a wonderful social event and networking opportunity.

During the evening the Dean congratulated Laws alumnus Mr Justice Fok (pictured), who met with students and parents, on his recent appointment as a permanent judge of the Hong Kong Final Court of Appeal. Dame Hazel showed some slides of the recent Provost Portrait Competition, supported by Hong Kong alum Vincent Cheung, and talked about some recent research successes in UCL and in the Faculty of Laws.

The event forms part of UCL Law’s continued dedication to fostering ties and exchanging international legal expertise with its Alumni and students throughout the world.

Discussing the event, Dame Hazel said: "This was an excellent opportunity for prospective UCL Laws students and their parents to learn more about UCL Laws, to meet the Dean and some of our distinguished Hong Kong Laws alumni. I was delighted that the generosity of Paul Hastings LLP made this warm and enjoyable event possible. We hope to be able to do this more often in the future. We have a marvelous community of alumni in Hong Kong and it is wonderful to be able to regularly re-connect."

During the evening the Dean paid tribute to Paul Hastings Hong Kong Office Chair Derek Roth for enabling the use of the facilities for the evening and to Andrew Ng, Chairman of the UCL Hong Kong Club, for his continued support of UCL and the of Faculty of Laws.

May 2013

Professor Jane Holder appointed to 2013 Green Academy Change Programme

Professor Jane Holder (UCL Laws) is part of a UCL team selected by the Higher Education Academy to participate in this year’s Green Academy change programme, a process enabling HEIs to embed sustainable development in teaching and learning in more integrated and holistic ways.

The project team also includes Professor Anthony Smith (Vice-Provost Education), Richard Jackson (UCL’s Head of Sustainability), Josh Blacker (Global Citizenship programme), Natasha (Student Union Ethics and Environment Office). The team will be taking the following work programme forward over the next year:

- Mapping our current provision of education for sustainable education across the institution, and developing measures to monitor against the sector

- Embedding the principles of education for sustainable development in the new Global Citizenship Programme

- Looking to identify opportunities to develop both formal and informal education to address sustainability

The team will be sharing its findings over the next year, and will seek to engage both staff and students in the process.

Professor Anthony Smith, Vice-Provost (Education), said, "This is a fantastic opportunity for us to understand the breadth and depth of existing ESD provision at UCL, and in doing so discover where we might do more to embed sustainability in curricula and the overall student experience so all our students can graduate with the sustainability awareness and skills employers are increasingly looking for."

Richard Jackson, Head of Sustainability, said, "I’m pleased to be working with the Vice-Provost (Education) to ensure that our focus on sustainability as an institution goes beyond our buildings and energy use, and reaches into the curriculum."

April 2013

Case for French burqa ban unconvincing on a number of levels

France’s 2010 ban on the wearing of the burqa cannot be justified on the grounds of laïcité (the separation of church and state), equality, dignity or public policy doctrine, according to UCL Laws lecturer and co-director of the Institute of Global Law, Dr Myriam Hunter-Henin.

Delivering the ICLQ Annual Lecture ‘ The French ban on the burqa: Laïcité, National Identity and Religious Freedom’, Dr Hunter-Henin addressed the legal issues surrounding the ban from two distinct perspectives – namely, comparative law and international human rights.

Addressing the question of whether the burqa ban was a legal phenomenon specific to only France, Dr Hunter-Henin said:

"It has been suggested both by the opponents and supporters of the ban that the Act embodied French legal traditions in three key respects; laïcité, human dignity and social public policy.

"In terms of laïcité, we must accept that there is a different theoretical grounding to the 2010 burqa ban when compared to the 2004 ban relating to the display of ostentatious religious symbols in state schools. Laïcité is designed as a tool to ensure individual freedom of conscience. The 2004 Act because was confined to special places such as state schools whereas the 2010 ban falls within a different remit. Even the most virulent forms of laïcité cannot stretch beyond public services or public agents and be applied to places and people who in no way emanate from the State.

"Secondly, supporters of the ban argue that the burqa relegates its wearers to an inferior status which even if freely embraced is incompatible with notions of equality and dignity. The decision to wear a burqa covers a myriad of motivations. Reducing them all to one - the subordination of women – is necessarily too crude.

"Thirdly, in the case of recourse to social public policy, we see the 2010 ban being linked to article 5 of the declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, an article specifically designed to restrict state interference, and certainly not, as in this case, to justify it."

Dr Hunter-Henin then went on to argue that even if these three claims were considered legitimate by the European Court of Human Rights the case for a general ban would be discounted on the grounds of proportionality:

"It has been argued that the ban is a proportionate approach as it leaves private places and religious venues outside of its scope. But If the aim if to protect laïcité or social policy, a proportionate response would be one that is tailored to the aims.

“How can the 2010 ban claim to respect the requirements of proportionality when existing legislation was already in place so as to guarantee a smooth running of public services under the auspices of laïcité as well as unveiled participation into social life by all citizens when interaction was necessary?

"Indeed, It would be a mistake to believe that prior to the 2010 law the wearing of the burqa in France was boundless. On the contrary, a set of measures was already in place to prohibit the wearing of the burqa in many contexts: at school under the 2004 previous ban; in public services in respect of public officials ; in the vicinity of demonstrations, and so on. For the sake of laïcité and multiculturalism as well as for human rights, it is to be hoped that the 2010 ban will not become the new model for Europe."

April 2013

Human Rights Institute Welcomes Leverhulme Trust Visiting Professor Roberto Gargarella

The announcement that Professor Roberto Gargarella will be visiting the UCL Institute of the Americas on a Leverhulme Trust Visiting Professorship has been welcomed by Dr Virginia Mantouvalou, Co–Director of the UCL Institute for Human Rights:

"Professor Gargarella has made an outstanding contribution in the area of constitutional theory, social rights and democratic theory, and we will be delighted to also host him at the UCL Law Faculty and the UCL Human Rights Institute. We are also extremely pleased that he will give a Current Legal Problems lecture in the Faculty of Laws in 2014." Dr Mantouvalou is the Joint Editor of Current Legal Problems together with Dr Jeff King and Professor Charles Mitchell.

April 2013

Faculty Publishing - Charles Mitchell edits Restitution of Overpaid Tax

Charles Mitchell, in collaboration with Steven Elliott and Birke Häcker, has edited a collection of essays on Restitution of Overpaid Tax, published this month by Hart Publishing. The essays explore issues arising from the restitution of overpaid taxes from various perspectives, examining the tax background, various private law claims, alternative public law approaches, defences, and remedies. They cover the leading cases from Australia, Canada, England, the EU, Germany, and Ireland.

April 2013

Is the Catholic Church beyond redemption? – live-stream available

On 24 April, UCL Laws Lecturer Dr Ronan McCrea will be taking part in a controversial intelligencesquared debate, entitled ‘The Catholic Church is Beyond Redemption: Pope Francis Cannot Save It.’Commenting on the debate, which will be livestreamed here, Dr McCrea said: “The debate will hopefully shed some light on how liberal democracies can deal with religious claims and vice versa.”

April 2013

Faculty Publishing - Charles Mitchell edits Restitution of Overpaid Tax

Charles Mitchell, in collaboration with Steven Elliott and Birke Häcker, has edited a collection of essays on Restitution of Overpaid Tax, published this month by Hart Publishing. The essays explore issues arising from the restitution of overpaid taxes from various perspectives, examining the tax background, various private law claims, alternative public law approaches, defences, and remedies. They cover the leading cases from Australia, Canada, England, the EU, Germany, and Ireland.

April 2013

Dr Jeff King awarded prestigious Humboldt Research Fellowship

UCL Laws Senior Lecturer, Dr Jeff King, has been awarded a Humboldt Research Fellowship, provided by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in order that highly-qualified scholars might spend extended periods of research in Germany. Dr King will commence the German phase of a comparative project entitled 'the rule of law in the welfare state',which will explore the theme in Germany, France, Britain and the US.

April 2013

UCL Laws Alumnus appointed to Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong

Appeal judge Joseph Fok (LLB 1984) has been announced as a permanent judge of Hong Kong’s top court. He will replace the current incumbent, Mr Justice Patrick Chan Siu-oi from October of this year. The appointment marks the latest step in a meteoric rise which has included being the youngest ever barrister to be appointed Senior Counsel.

March 2013

‘We have to find ways to help citizens in need’ - UCL Centre for Access to Justice Launches

The launch of the UCL Centre for Access to Justice has been hailed as a landmark development in the ongoing battle to provide legal assistance to vulnerable communities.

Amidst reports that further cuts to the Legal Aid budget are to be added to the £350m of savings already earmarked by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, the launch comes at a time of upheaval in legal aid funding.

The Centre aims to promote the benefits of clinical legal education alongside the provision of pro bono legal advice to vulnerable members of the community. It will operate through the provision of free legal advice and representation, clinical legal education, student engagement, community service and research projects.

Speaking at the launch, UCL Dean of Laws Dame Hazel Genn said: "I have been determined to establish the Access to Justice Centre for some time. I have a strong belief in social and economic importance of the justice system. I believe that the hallmark of healthy society is not only that it ostensibly gives people rights – but that it provides the means of making good those rights. Access to the justice system is fundamental to the operation of the rule of law.

"My research over the years has demonstrated that, try as one might, sometimes the law is all you have when you are trying to resolve a dispute or problem, and that there is a significant unmet need among the public for information, advice and representation in relation to everyday legal problems.

"My ambition to establish an Access to Justice Centre has been made possible not only by the commitment of the Faculty and support by UCL, but by the generosity of donors - in particular our valued alumnus Stephen Perry."

Also speaking at the event, Lord McNally, Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, said: "Pro Bono is neither a panacea nor a replacement for legal aid, but it is important to acknowledge that it can be invaluable to some […] we should celebrate the work of the Centre for Access to Justice and all of the students involved."

The launch saw a panel including Sir Ross Cranston (High Court Judge, Sarah Hannett (Barrister, Matrix Cambers) and Lord Bach of Lutterworth (previously Shadow Justice Minister in the House of Lords) discuss the topic of 'Meeting Legal Needs'. They addressed the unique needs of vulnerable clients in the justice system and the problems faced by self-represented litigants.

Centre Director, Jacqueline Kinghan, praised students, many of whom spoke at the launch about their experiences: "Our students are a rich resource of legal knowledge and skills. This resource, coupled with their enthusiasm and commitment to social justice, has the potential to make an important contribution to meeting the legal needs of vulnerable individuals."

March 2013

Justice for Domestic Workers 4th year Anniversary, Panel Discussion with Dr Virginia Mantouvalou

On Sunday 17 March, the organization Justice for Domestic Workers celebrated its 4th year anniversary and International Women’s Day. The events included a documentary, presentations by migrant domestic workers, and a panel discussion with Dr Virginia Mantouvalou (UCL, Laws), Jamilla Duncan-Bosu (Islington Law Centre) and Catherine Kenny (Kalayaan). It was followed by writing a letter to MPs, as part of a campaign that will be launched to change the regime of the Overseas Domestic Workers’ Visa.

March 2013

UCL Victorious in LUMS competition

Student blog: Anthea Brookes

Recently a team of four UCL Laws students were fortunate enough to win the London Universities Mooting Shield. The UCL team consisted of Lukas Maly, Anthea Brookes, Imaan Gangi and Meera Rajah. The grand final of the competition was held on 6 March 2013 against Queen Marys University at the Allen and Overy offices in front of four esteemed judges.

LUMS is a mooting competition which spans the whole academic year.Ten universities throughout London are asked to compete in teams of four in a league-style format. The competition culminates in the grand final where the two teams with the highest number of points after each university has competed against each other battle it out in a winner-takes-all moot. In this year’s competition, UCL were trailing Queen Marys throughout, so we entered the final as the underdogs. Fortunately, after many challenging interventions throughout each participant’s speeches, UCL emerged victorious, claiming the title of LUMS champions.

LUMS is a fantastic competition to be involved in, not only to sharpen advocacy skills but also the competition has a fantastic social element to it where throughout the year you have the opportunity to get to your fellow teams. UCL has a fantastic track record in the competition, winning 4 times out of the 6 years it has been running.

February 2013

UCL win inaugural UCL-Kings Human Rights Debate

26 February saw three UCL students (Imaan Gangi, John Williams, and Michael Goldin) participate in the Inaugural UCL-Kings Human Rights Debate. Held at the Dickson Poon School of Law, the debate was run in conjunction with the UCL Centre for Access to Justice.

The teams debated the motion "This House believes in the use of positive measures in recruitment as an effective way to minimise inequality". The debate was chaired by the UCL CAJ's Shiva Riahi and judged by UCL's own Dr. Nicola Countouris, and King's professor and Matrix Chambers barrister, Aileen McColgan. Despite a good effort from Kings, the UCL team speaking in opposition to the motion, won the debate. Congratulations to UCL and Imaan, John and Michael.

March 2013

UCL Laws celebrates at annual Prizewinners ceremony 2013

UCL Laws this week paid host to its annual prizewinners ceremony; an evening designed to recognise outstanding contributions from both undergraduate and graduate students. The event saw some 65 prizes awarded to LLB, LLM and PhD students, in what UCL Dean of Laws, Professor Dame Hazel Genn called “ one of the highlights of the Faculty’s year”.

Describing the evening, Dame Hazel said:

“The prizes and scholarships are awarded to students who have achieved top marks in their examinations at UCL or whose academic distinction is such that the scholarship has been awarded to provide the opportunity to study at UCL.

“Our scholarship and prize winners are very special indeed - the best of the best - those whom we expect to go on to further academic distinction and then to become leaders in their chosen fields of work. To be awarded a Faculty prize or scholarship is to be given significant recognition as truly outstanding.”

UCL Laws Faculty Tutor, Olga Thomas paid tribute to the generous sponsorship of many of the wards:

“ This ceremony would not be possible without our sponsors, old and new, to whom we express our sincere gratitude.”

February 2013

UCL win inaugural UCL-Kings Human Rights Debate

26 February saw three UCL students (Imaan Gangi, John Williams, and Michael Goldin) participate in the Inaugural UCL-Kings Human Rights Debate. Held at the Dickson Poon School of Law, the debate was run in conjunction with the UCL Centre for Access to Justice.

The teams debated the motion "This House believes in the use of positive measures in recruitment as an effective way to minimise inequality". The debate was chaired by the UCL CAJ's Shiva Riahi and judged by UCL's own Dr. Nicola Countouris, and King's professor and Matrix Chambers barrister, Aileen McColgan. Despite a good effort from Kings, the UCL team speaking in opposition to the motion, won the debate. Congratulations to UCL and Imaan, John and Michael.

February 2013

Professor Ian Fletcher awarded honorary QC status

UCL Professor of International Commercial Law, Ian Fletcher has been awarded honorary QC status following an announcement by The Ministry of Justice that the Queen has this year sanctioned eight honorary silk appointments.

Professor Fletcher has had a long and distinguished career in the field of comparative insolvency law and international co-operation on insolvency matters. Called to the bar in 1971, Professor Fletcher has been a bencher of Lincoln’s Inn since 2003 and currently practises as a Barrister at South Square, Gray's Inn. He has played a leading role in work commissioned by the American Law Institute and International Insolvency Institute and his report on international co-operation is being used throughout the world as a basis for the conduct of international insolvency cases.

All honorary QC appointments are made following nominations from the public, which are then compiled by the government before being put before a selection panel.

The other appointees are: Former Herbert Smith senior partner Edward Walker-Arnott, chair of the Bar Standardsa nd visiting Professor at UCL Laws; Board Baroness Deech; Equal pay lawyer Stefan Cross; the Oxford Law Faculty’s Professor Mark Freedland; Doughty Street Chambers’ Professor Geraldine Van Bueren; 18 Red Lion Court’s Professor David Ormerod; and Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution deputy chief executive Eileen Carroll.

February 2013

Provost Portrait Competition and Dinner provide cause for celebration

The winner of the Provost Portrait competition was announced last night during an evening of celebration which included speeches by UCL Dean of Laws, Professor Dame Hazel Genn, and the departing Provost, Professor Malcolm Grant. The reception was then followed by a dinner generously supported by Vincent Cheung (LLB, 1963).

The event, attended by a number of senior figures from the judiciary and many laws alumni, was described by Dame Hazel as: “An evening to celebrate Malcolm’s achievements and to thank him for the unswerving support he’s given to the Laws Faculty throughout his decade as President and Provost of UCL.”

Praising Professor Grant’s achievements during his tenure, Dame Hazel went on to say: “Malcolm’s time has been nothing less than historic and we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. His legacy will be enduring and he leaves us in an extraordinarily strong position to move onwards and further upwards – outwards –in many different directions.

"In all this, Malcolm’s support for the Law Faculty has been unstinting – but without favouritism. He has given generously of his time to attend our events in what has been an unbelievably crowded schedule. He has applauded the achievements of our students and staff, made friends with our loyal alumni; and engaged readily with the distinguished judiciary and practitioners so closely associated with the Faculty. For all this Malcolm, we thank you.”

In a deviation from the traditional commissioned portrait of the outgoing Provost, it was decided to mark Professor Grant’s contribution by holding a portrait competition open exclusively to students and recent graduates of the Slade School of Fine Art.

The winning painting, which received a prize of £5,000 was produced by Slade student Martine Poppe who described her work as: “ hoping to show both the Provost’s role within UCL and the personable side of his nature.”

Following the announcement of the winner, Professor Grant paid tribute to both the artists and the nature of the competition itself: “ I would like to praise the extraordinary hard work of all of the entrants, who it must be emphasised did not have the benefit of extended sittings – the results are extremely impressive. Very special thanks to Vincent (Cheung), whose idea it was to hold the competition in this way, which is so different from the traditional Provosts’ portraits.”

Vincent Cheung, a UCL alumnus and a generous supporter of many Laws events, was also thanked by Dame Hazel: “Vincent’s enthusiasm for UCL after nearly 50 years is a wonderful phenomenon, he has been the most brilliant and loyal supporter of the Faculty.”

Joint second place in the competition, with a prize of £2,000 was awarded to Thomas Jenkins and Sorcha Williams, while runners up prizes of £1,000 were awarded to Ishai Rimmer and Tom Worsfold.

February 2013

UCL Laws Alumnus Nicos Anastasiade elected President of Cyprus

Conservative leader Nicos Anastasiade (1971, Shipping Law) has emerged victorious in the Cypriot presidential election, winning the runoff vote with 57.5 percent of votes polled. The election is seen by many Cypriots as being of particular importance due to on-going negotiations with the EU about a possible economic bailout.

February 2013

Europe, the Prime Minister, and the facts – seven questions for David Cameron

A number of high profile academics, led by UCL Professor of EU Law, Piet Eeckhout, have called on the Prime minister David Cameron to undertake discussion on EU membership only “On the basis of as complete and accurate a set of facts as possible”.

Dear Prime Minister,

Much has already been said about your speech on ‘the future of Europe’, delivered on Wednesday 23 January at Bloomberg, and much more remains to be said. As academics in the fields of EU law and international law, we express our hope that the debate on whether or not the UK should remain in the EU will be conducted on the basis of as complete and accurate a set of facts as possible. We would like to ask you a number of questions with that in mind. They are questions which you have left unanswered, despite the crucial importance of such answers for the debate.

What would “a new settlement in which Britain is at the forefront of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade” entail?

Will you be advocating the repatriation of some of the EU’s trade competences to the Member States, thereby allowing the UK and others to take individual or collective initiatives in that regard? Conversely, will you be arguing in favour of reinforcing the EU’s single voice in external trade, which has enabled it to create a more level playing field in trade negotiations from Washington to Beijing? Would more collective action in the field of foreign policy entail more initiatives such as the military operation in (or above) Libya, which was indeed collective, but mostly outside the framework of the EU? Or would it entail a reinforcement of the European External Action Service, headed by Baroness Ashton? Does the repeated blocking by the UK of collective EU statements in the UN (as reported in the Guardian:) represent the UK being at the forefront of collective action?

Can your proposal to “work together against terrorism and organised crime” be squared with your avowed desire to opt out of a great number of EU measures put in place precisely to combat cross-border crime?

The potentially self-defeating effect of such an opt-out has been highlighted a number of times by British former or current officials (see the Financial Times)

What do you mean when you ask the British people not to be “misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised”?

Incidentally, you are absolutely right that complete harmonisation is not desirable, which is of course why the Commission abandoned the idea in its 1985 White Paper on completing the internal market. It is also why the European Court of Justice, which you accuse of having “consistently supported greater centralisation”, has introduced the principle that Member States can keep their own product regulations, which must be recognized by other Member States.

What are the “huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions” and in what way is the Commission getting “ever larger”?

Surely the London branch of the Unified Patent Court, for which you fought so hard , cannot be an example of an “expensive peripheral European institution”? And would the amazing expanding Commission be the same that has proposed a 5% cut in staff combined with an increase in weekly working hours and lower salaries in certain areas?

In what way does the EU not have “enough focus on controlling spending” and what “programmes that haven’t worked” do you want to shut down?

It is of course perfectly true that the budget is large: 140 billion euro in 2011 to be precise . Nevertheless, the EU budget represents around 1% of EU-27 GDP whereas Member States’ budgets account for 44% of GDP on average. The average EU citizen in most Member States has to work well into the spring and summer until they have paid their tax contribution, while he or she has to work only four days to cover his or her contribution to the EU budget.

In light of your wish to address 'the sclerotic, ineffective decision-making that is holding us back', can we ask whether you are in favour of more majority voting?

That has always been the key to more effective decision-making. Or is there some other solution of which we are unaware?

In what way is the “more flexible, more adaptable, more open” European Union you advocate different from today’s EU?

The UK, as you rightly point out, is not in the Eurozone, or in Schengen, and is capable of opting out of EU policies in matters of international crime and immigration. It has not signed the fiscal compact (even if the current government is just as austerity-minded as Germany). Is the EU not adaptable, if one looks at the numerous Treaty changes there have been? Is it not open, having expanded so dramatically?

It would not be correct for us to ask you these questions without at least helping out with answering some of yours. Let us start with one: “And I would ask: when the competitiveness of the Single Market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport council, an education council but not a single market council?” Well indeed why not. The answer, it turns out, is rather simple. There is an internal market council. It was integrated with the industry and research council configurations in June 2002, in what is called the ‘Competitiveness Council’.

As you accurately put it: “It is time for the British people to have their say.” We hope that they will get the opportunity to do so on the basis of facts. We hope you may be able to answer our questions, so that everyone – including other member States – develops a better understanding of what kind of EU reform you are advocating.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Arnull (Birmingham) Catherine Barnard (Cambridge) Andrea Biondi (King's College London) Hugh Collins (LSE) William Cornish (Cambridge) Nicola Countouris (University College London) Paul Craig (Oxford) Egle Dagilyte (King's College London) Geert De Baere (Leuven) Piet Eeckhout (University College London) Pavlos Eleftheriadis (Oxford) Amandine Garde (Durham) Markus Gehring (Cambridge) Alicia Hinarejos (Cambridge) Angus Johnston (Oxford) Claire Kilpatrick (European University Institute) Panos Koutrakos (City University London) George Letsas (University College London) Virginia Mantouvalou (University College London) Cian Murphy (King's College London) Ronan McCrea (University College London) Eva Nanopoulos (Cambridge) Niamh Nic Shuibhne (Edinburgh) Federico Ortino (King's College London) Robert Schütze (Durham) Joanne Scott (University College London) Eleanor Spaventa (Durham) Anne Thies (Reading) Alexander Türk (King's College London) Lorenzo Zucca (King's College London)

February 2013

Judge juries based on the evidence – not on one very exceptional case

The hung jury in the Vicky Pryce case is extraordinary because it is extremely rare that a jury is unable to reach a verdict. The reality is that this happens less than 1 per cent of the time in jury trials. Therefore we should not be drawing conclusions about the jury system as a whole from this one very exceptional jury, according to UCL Professor of Judicial Studies and Director of the UCL Jury Project, Professor Cheryl Thomas.

Commenting on the case, Professor Thomas wrote:

If we expect juries to judge cases on the evidence, we need to judge juries based on the evidence – not one exceptional case.

All the evidence shows that we should not be suggesting that the jury in the Vicky Pryce case is symptomatic of any particular problems with the jury system.

Research over the last decade by the UCL Jury Project consistently shows that we have a system that is incredibly fair. Almost everyone is eligible for jury service and must serve. It is something that every member of the voting public between the age of 18 and 70 is eligible to do. Our research showed that juries chosen from such a representative group of people are systematically fair. We looked at every single jury verdict returned at every Crown Court in England and Wales over two years and we found no evidence of racial bias in juries or any postcode lottery – you are not more likely to be convicted in one part of the country than the other – and we found that juries appeared to be trying cases based on the evidence and the law.

Our 2010 study did say that there are some areas of concern with the jury system that need to be addressed. Most jurors told us they would like better information about how to conduct deliberations. A portion of jurors also admitted to using the internet to look for information about their case while the trial was going on. We are currently conducting research and testing out new tools with juries at court to address both concerns.

Vicky Pryce jury

There are probably many members of the Vicky Pryce jury that feel quite rightly aggrieved at the way the case has been reported and how they have been portrayed. The jury's questions to the judge indicate that it was not the whole jury confused about what to do – for instance thinking that it might be possible to return a verdict based on information that was not presented in the case. They would never have asked the question if they all thought that was possible. But clearly there was an issue about someone who did. The likelihood is that other jurors tried to persuade them against this view, but in the end they could not, so they said: "Well, let’s ask the judge".

It is the responsibility of the judge to explain the law and their role to the jury and it is the responsibility of the court to explain the legal process. The responsibility lies with the court system and the judiciary to ensure, as much as possible, that jurors understand what their responsibilities are, what the law is and how to apply it to the case that they have before them.

The Vicky Pryce jury is so exceptional because over 99 per cent of the time juries return a verdict. The impact on the defendant in this case is that there will be a re-trial. But with this very exceptional hung jury at least we do not have a verdict where we might be concerned that not everyone on the jury fully understood their responsibilities and their role.

The strength of our jury system is a fundamental one: we have the public involved in the administration of justice. What results is clearly a fair system in almost all instances, although occasionally you might have an unusual case or decision. But ultimately, all the research shows that in almost all cases, if you give a jury a job to do, they do it effectively, and they do it fairly. And the overwhelming majority of the public that take part in jury service come away with a much improved and positive view of the criminal justice system.

February 2013

Professor Ronald Dworkin: December 11, 1931 - February 14, 2013

"It is with great sadness that we note the death of Emeritus Professor of Jurisprudence Professor Ronald Dworkin. This is a tremendous loss. We extend our deepest sympathy to Professor Dworkin’s family."

- Professor Dame Hazel Genn, Dean of UCL Faculty of Laws.

A tribute by Professor Stephen Guest:

Professor Ronald Dworkin, who held joint appointments as a professor in Law and Philosophy with UCL Laws, the NYU School of Law and the New College of the Humanities of the University of London, died last night aged 81, in London, after suffering for some months from a rare form of leukaemia. He will be missed by many people world-wide, not just by his friends, nor just by the academic community, for through his writings in different genres and his genial and generous personality he had an enormous impact on many people beyond academia, including lawyers from all jurisdictions. He is well-known amongst judges and practising lawyers in America, Europe, Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Malaysia, China, and elsewhere.

He was extraordinarily gifted in all directions, not just philosophy and law. He was markedly articulate both in his speech and in his writing; he had great charm and great wit; he was a cosmopolitan American who regarded London as his main home, and who knew how to enjoy things, especially music and art. Above all, it was his frighteningly high intelligence that stood out – you felt this the instant you engaged in conversation with him. That level of intelligence contributed to the charisma he exuded in the forum in which he felt most comfortable: the long and intensive academic seminar. Although Ronnie had been Visiting Professor of Jurisprudence at UCL since 1984 and had already contributed a great deal to Jurisprudence at UCL before he became Quain Professor of Jurisprudence, it was the establishment by him then of UCL’s Colloquium in Legal and Social Philosophy from which UCL most benefited. That Colloquium combined with Laws the considerable talents in the Philosophy Department and those in the newly created Department of Political Science. Those who have attended the UCL Colloquia he for so many years chaired, or their counterparts at NYU, will surely not forget the extraordinary vibrancy, energy and concentration and (sometimes at least) the moments of sudden illumination during these debates.

His writings are testimony to his knowledge of many fields of philosophy. His outstanding facility of abstraction contributed to the penetrating commentaries he would make on highly specific issues, often defined in specific court cases on constitutional law, on abortion and euthanasia, on economic analysis of tort, and other cases. Many of these issues were aired in the New York Review of Books to which he was a regular contributor for decades. It was his enviable ability to move between the very abstract and the very specific and the at times uncanny – almost deceptive – clarity with which he could express thoughts of great complexity that drove the very great contribution he has made to the culture of rights. Ronnie understood, and was able to make many of us understand with him, that in healthy cultures, the abstract principles defining the status and dignity of human beings find their practical expression in the decisions of politicians and judges.

All these attributes are displayed in his two great books. The first of these, Law’s Empire (1986) is primarily on legal philosophy. He there argued for the view that moral judgement justifies legal reasoning through the idea that law should always display integrity. The second, Justice for Hedgehogs (2011) , is primarily on moral philosophy and sums up his contributions to this field drawing on many of his other detailed and important books, Taking Rights Seriously (1977), Freedom’s Law (1996), Sovereign Virtue (2000) and Justice in Robes (2006). Justice for Hedgehogs has an Enlightenment feel. Immensely fluent, it is driven by the fierce sense that the author is teaching us something of great importance, and proclaims the intellectual independence of judgements of value, particularly moral value, from empirical judgements.

Ronnie had many worldly distinctions. He was a graduate of Yale, Oxford and Harvard and had many honorary doctorates. He was a professor at Yale before becoming the Professor of Jurisprudence at University College Oxford as the successor to Professor H.L.A. Hart (who was so taken by Ronnie’s performance in his written examinations that he kept the papers for many years). He then held the Frank H. Sommer Chair of Law and Philosophy at NYU jointly with his chair at Oxford and he remained in that Chair until very recently. He resigned from Oxford in 1998 and took up the Quain Chair of Jurisprudence at UCL and, when he retired from that, in 2006, was appointed the Jeremy Bentham Chair in Jurisprudence at UCL. Ronnie was a Fellow of the British Academy, a Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and an honorary QC. He was also awarded a number of prizes for international distinction, including, in 2005, the Jefferson Medal (US), in 2006, the Luhmann Medal (Germany), in 2007, the Holberg Prize (Norway) and, in 2012, the Balzan Prize (Switzerland).

February 2013

UCL Wins the WCA Mediation Skills Competition and progresses to the final eight of the ICC Mediation Competition

By Chinelo Awa

Every year, the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators (WCA) offers students across the United Kingdom the opportunity to participate in its Mediation Skills competition. The competition, aims at assisting in training law students to understand the skills needed to be effective in negotiation and mediation by requiring students to act as lawyers and clients in the mediation of realistic commercial disputes. Mediators are given the opportunity to share their knowledge and experience with the next generation of legal practitioners and to encourage students to be effective users of mediation in the future. The competition which is judged by expert mediators and legal practitioners who volunteer their time freely, spans across one weekend and involves two preliminary mock mediation rounds after which teams find out whether they have progressed to the semi finals and subsequently the finals.

On Friday 11 January to Sunday 13 January, LLM students Adele Cameron and Chinelo Awa represented UCL for the first time in the 3rd WCA Mediation Skills Competition having learnt about the competition and the general rules on mediation during the ADR course at UCL. Dr. Maria Federica Moscati supervised them and their coach, Francisco Borquez who is also an LLM student, accompanied them. This year’s competition took place at Linklaters’ One Silk Street office. Eight teams participated.

During the weekend, Adele and Chinelo exercised the technical skills of identifying the underlying issues and interests in four commercial problems through the drafting of mediation plans. Their advocacy skills, responsiveness and problem solving skills were further tested in front of a panel of three judges per session. They competed against City University and Bristol University to progress to the semi-finals. After a very close semi-final against Nottingham University the UCL team progressed to the finals where they competed against City University and were crowned the winners of the 3rd WCA Mediation Skills Competition. The price for winning was an all expense trip to Paris to compete in the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Mediation Competition.

With a wider scope than the WCA Competition, the ICC Competition aims to train law and business students to better meet the dispute resolution needs of today’s global market, to know how and when to efficiently use mediation and how to deal with the cultural sensitivities implied in this process.

Filled with renewed adrenaline and high hopes for the future, on 8 February the UCL team boarded the Eurostar to compete at the 8th ICC Mediation Competition for six days.

Featuring over 200 mock mediation sessions, based on real cross-border commercial disputes, the Competition put the problem solving skills of students from 66 universities from more than 40 countries to the test. The UCL team demonstrated their mediation advocacy skills in the presence of some of the world’s leading commercial mediators including Jeremy Lack who trained under the late founder of the ICC Competition, David Plant. After competing in four preliminary rounds against four different universities from Hungary, the Netherlands, USA and France, Adele and Chinelo progressed to the final 16 where they successfully competed against St. John’s University School of Law for a spot in the final 8. Although they did not progress beyond the final 8, Adele and Chinelo found participating in the Competition to be an invaluable experience, which has changed the way they view commercial disputes and advanced their interest in Alternative Dispute Resolution. The international element of the competition was not lost on them. They made friends from all over the world and learnt from leading professionals across different fields of practice.

Both competitions are definitely opportunities worth investing in by the university.

February 2013

CJEU plays important and purposeful role in prohibiting discrimination

The CJEU has adopted an expansive and purposeful interpretation of the relevant EU Directives relating to age, disability, race, religion and sexual orientation, although key elements of EU anti-discrimination law in this field remain underdeveloped, according to a new paper by UCL reader in Law, Colm O'Cinneide.

Read the full paper, prepared for the use of the European Commission and published by the European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-discrimination Field, here.

February 2013

Court of Appeal verdict leaves government Workfare schemes in “tatters”

The Court of Appeal’s unanimous ruling that government Workfare schemes had been adopted ultra vires of the amended Jobseekers Act of 1995 will most likely leave this “morally questionable” aspect of welfare reform in “tatters”, said UCL Reader in Law and Coordinator of the Labour Rights Institute, Dr Nicola Countouris as he sought to clarify the exact nature of the verdict.

Dr Countouris said: "In what is undoubtedly a decision destined to cause considerable political controversy, the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 (the statutory instruments on the basis of which the current Government has adopted and implemented a series of controversial unpaid ‘work for your benefit’ schemes, such as the 'Sector Based Work Academy' and the 'Community Action Programme' ) had been adopted ultra vires, beyond the powers conferred by section 17A(1) of the Jobseekers Act 1995 (as amended) and therefore had to be quashed.

"In Pill LJ words: ' 51. (…) I am unable to conclude that the statutory requirement for the Regulations to make provisions for schemes of a prescribed description is met in regulations 2 and 3 of the 2011 Regulations. Simply to give a scheme a name cannot, in context, be treated as a prescribed description of a scheme in which claimants may be required to participate, within section 17A(1)’ Sir Stanley Burton added that: '76. Description of a scheme in regulations is important from the point of view of Parliamentary oversight of the work of the administration. It is also important in enabling those who are required to participate in a scheme, or at least those advising them, to ascertain whether the requirement has been made in accordance with Parliamentary authority'

"The Court of Appeal also confirmed the finding made by the Administrative Court on 6 August 2012 [2012] EWHC 2292 (Admin) that the two appellants, Ms Reilly and Mr Wilson, had been asked to participate to their respective programmes in breach of regulation 4 of the 2011 Regulations, that is to say without being provided the correct or sufficient information about the consequences of their failing to participate in such schemes.

"The Court however did not find that the schemes, unlawful as they were, also amounted to a breach of Article 4 of the European Convention, Van Der Mussele v Belgium [1983] (6 EHRR 163) considered. This decision means that a number of flagship ‘workfare’ schemes adopted by the Coalition Government are unlawful and have been adopted in breach of the powers conferred by Parliament. It is hard not to conclude that this particular aspect of the Government’s welfare reform policy is left in tatters by the present judgment, with unpredictable consequences in terms of costs for the taxpayer.

“The decision however does not go as far as suggesting that the controversial and morally questionable practice of asking unemployed persons to perform (unpaid) genuine economic activities for considerable periods of time, under the threat of having their unemployment benefits suspended or removed, is unlawful or tantamount to 'forced labour'. "

One of the barristers acting for the appellants was Dr Tom Hickman, Reader in Law at UCL.

Transcribe Bentham nominated for prestigious award

Transcribe Bentham, the double-award winning crowd-sourced transcription project administered by the Bentham Project, has been nominated in the Digital Humanities Awards 2012, in the ‘Best Digital Humanities Project for a Public Audience’ category. Projects are nominated by and voted for entirely by the public. Voting is open until midnight (GMT) on Sunday 17 February.

Transcribe Bentham digitises the vast collection of manuscripts written and composed by Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), the philosopher and reformer, and makes them available via a bespoke transcription interface for anyone, anywhere in the world to help transcribe. As of 8 February 2013, 5,021 manuscripts (an estimated 2.5 million words) have been transcribed or partially-transcribed by volunteers.

The project is a collaboration between the Bentham Project, UCL’s Centre for Digital Humanities, UCL Library Services, UCL Creative Media Services, the University of London Computer Centre, and the British Library and is currently funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Contempt of Court: changing landscape debated at UCL hosted event

The UCL Judicial institute has hosted a Law Commission Symposium on reform of the Contempt of Court Act, an event bringing together leading names from across the legal, law-enforcement and media professions to discuss the issues raised by the Law Commission in its Contempt of Court Consultation Paper.

Prompted by Attorney-General Dominic Grieve’s request that the law reform body expedite its review of the contempt laws, the symposium focused on the following areas: contempt by publication, contempt and modern media, jurors in contempt and contempt in the face of court.

The symposium centred on the role of new media and the internet, bringing into question what constitutes ‘publication’ in the new media age and to what extent non-traditional media channels can be said to contribute to ‘a substantial risk of serious prejudice’ in criminal jury trials as defined by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act.

Research carried out by UCL Professor of Judicial Studies, Cheryl Thomas, was highlighted at the symposium as it represents the only empirical evidence of the extent of internet use by jurors in this country.

The symposium heard Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the British Transport Police outline his concerns about police releasing potentially prejudicial information, calling for more clarity regarding what information should be released to the public and at what stage of the criminal process.

Many others, including representatives of a wide range of media organisations, called for the courts to “trust the jury” and not impose reporting restrictions in criminal cases in an attempt to prevent jurors from accessing information about their case but not presented as evidence in the trial. Professor Thomas argued that simply trusting the jury was not sufficient as it ignored clear evidence from jurors themselves that they are confused about the existing rules and want better tools to do their job.

Further questions were raised about the use of the internet by barristers to Google jurors in an effort to tailor their cases to particular jurors, Judge Alistair McCreath, Recorder of Westminster at Southwark Crown Court said: “ It sounds all wrong, we don’t conduct jury research for good reason and this goes against all of that – it stinks.”

The Law Commission consultation is due to close on 28 February with publication of a final report planned for Spring of 2014.

January 2013

LARCS students advise community groups

A group of students on the LLM LARCS (Legal Action and Research for Communities and Sustainability) course are advising community groups on a range of issues concerning accessing the infrastructure levy, financing renewables, and gaining charitable status.This work will also form the basis of a series of step-by-step guides to be published in association with Capacity Global, a leading social and environmental justice NGO, and UCL's Grand Challenge on Sustainable Cities. Last year's LARCS students have just published two such guides on asset transfer and gaining land for allotments.

Contempt of Court: changing landscape debated at UCL hosted event

The UCL Judicial institute has hosted a Law Commission Symposium on reform of the Contempt of Court Act, an event bringing together leading names from across the legal, law-enforcement and media professions to discuss the issues raised by the Law Commission in its Contempt of Court Consultation Paper.

Prompted by Attorney-General Dominic Grieve’s request that the law reform body expedite its review of the contempt laws, the symposium focused on the following areas: contempt by publication, contempt and modern media, jurors in contempt and contempt in the face of court.

The symposium centred on the role of new media and the internet, bringing into question what constitutes ‘publication’ in the new media age and to what extent non-traditional media channels can be said to contribute to ‘a substantial risk of serious prejudice’ in criminal jury trials as defined by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act.

Research carried out by UCL Professor of Judicial Studies, Cheryl Thomas, was highlighted at the symposium as it represents the only empirical evidence of the extent of internet use by jurors in this country.

The symposium heard Chief Constable Andy Trotter of the British Transport Police outline his concerns about police releasing potentially prejudicial information, calling for more clarity regarding what information should be released to the public and at what stage of the criminal process.

Many others, including representatives of a wide range of media organisations, called for the courts to “trust the jury” and not impose reporting restrictions in criminal cases in an attempt to prevent jurors from accessing information about their case but not presented as evidence in the trial. Professor Thomas argued that simply trusting the jury was not sufficient as it ignored clear evidence from jurors themselves that they are confused about the existing rules and want better tools to do their job.

Further questions were raised about the use of the internet by barristers to Google jurors in an effort to tailor their cases to particular jurors, Judge Alistair McCreath, Recorder of Westminster at Southwark Crown Court said: “ It sounds all wrong, we don’t conduct jury research for good reason and this goes against all of that – it stinks.”

The Law Commission consultation is due to close on 28 February with publication of a final report planned for Spring of 2014.

January 2013

Cuts bite: 30% of firms consider abandoning publically funded work

The future of firms relying on publically funded legal work remains uncertain after a survey, co-authored by UCL Laws’ Professor Pascoe Pleasence, Dr Nigel Balmer and Professor Richard Moorhead, revealed that 31 percent of firms questioned were considering pulling out of legal aid altogether. Personal injury firms also face the potential for economic shocks.

The report, A time of change: solicitors' firms in England and Wales, conducted jointly by The Law Society, the Legal Services Board and the Ministry of Justice surveyed over 2,000 law firms, making it both one of the largest pieces of research of its kind.

Focusing on the impact of economic and regulatory forces on the performance of solicitor’s firms, the report produced a number of striking statistics which, when considered collectively, paint a gloomy picture of the future of legal aid.

Of the firms surveyed, 33 percent of family firms said they intended to withdraw from legal aid compared with 20 percent of those offering welfare advice and 17.5 percent of those dealing with housing practices. Despite not yet facing competitive tendering, 14 percent of firms dealing with criminal legal aid revealed they were considering cessation.

Although the figures relating to employment advice and medical negligence cases were considerably lower, it remains telling that of those firms who suggested they were considering pulling out of legal aid, over a third had already begun the process of doing so.

In the introduction to the report, the authors talked about the ‘major challenge’ facing legal aid firms, stating: “In the legal aid sector, almost permanent freezes in rates of pay and increasing control over quality assurance (with associated rises in administrative costs) has led to a concentration of legal aid in fewer firms. This is not a new trend, but more recently real terms declines in rates of pay have been accompanied by an overall diminution in total spend on legal aid and on volumes of work.

“As noted above, even higher criminal legal aid – which has traditionally expanded – has begun to contract significantly. The recent economic climate is also likely to have impacted on staffing balances and, in particular, the utilisation of paralegal staff.”

January 2013

Implication of Strasbourg ruling on Article 9 goes beyond Nadia Eweida

The landmark judgement on the limits of religious freedom, handed down this week by the European Court of Human Rights, represents an important development in the approach to Article 9 according to UCL law lecturer, Dr Ronan McCrea.

In the case of Ms Eweida, the court ruled by five votes to two that in their attempts to protect their corporate image, her employers has failed to grant her religious beliefs sufficient weight. Discussing the ruling Dr McCrea outlined the importance of both the successful and unsuccessful appeals, stating:

“The lion’s share of publicity has gone the ruling in relation to Ms. Eweida, the only one of the four to win her case. However, her win was based on rather narrow factual questions and may be significantly less important than the rejection of the claims of MacFarlaneand, particularly, Ladele.

“The court found that in both Mr. MacFarlane’s and Ms. Ladele’s cases the employer’s policy “aimed to secure the rights of others which are also protected under the Convention”. It held that the UK was entitled to a wide margin of appreciation in reconciling clashing rights and their claims of a breach of the Convention was not made out. This is surely correct. Discriminatory acts have a moral significance beyond the deprivation of the relevant service.

“The judgement does signal a significant change is in relation to the right to adhere to one’s religious beliefs at work. In previous cases, the Strasbourg institutions indicated that where aclash between one’s religious duties and one’s the workplace duties arose, religious freedom was sufficiently protected by the right to resign and that work-related restrictions on religious practices (e.g, being required to work on the Sabbath), did not amount to an interference with religious freedom. Perhaps influenced by high levels of unemployment in the current crisis, the Court appears to have changed its approach. It now feels that “the better approach would be to weigh [the possibility of changing job] in the overall balance when considering whether the restriction [of freedom of religion] was proportionate.” This brings the Court’s approach to freedom of religion in the workplace into line with its approach to the protection of rights such as privacy and free expression. However, it gives employers a wide margin to decide what restrictions on religious expression the workplace actually requires.

“It would also be remiss not to note the extremely intemperate and disturbingly worded dissent of Judges Vucinic and De Gaetano who argued that the Court should have found in favour of Ms. Ladele. Interestingly, they distinguish freedom of conscience from the freedom to follow religiouspractices (such as diet clothing etc.) and argue that free conscience is not subject to limitations that Article 9(2) allows in relation to manifestation of religious belief. Without explicitly saying so, they also base their approach on the idea that discrimination cannot do harm beyond deprivation of service. It would have been useful for them to make this clearer but this is not the most notable failing in their dissent. More seriously, their judgement uses language that is notable for its intemperate nature and hostility to the very idea of gay equality."

December 2012

Savile investigations risk being hamstrung by time limitation

The ongoing police investigation into the activities of Jimmy Savile and other prominent figures risks being hamstrung by an outdated time limitation, says Dr Jonathan Rogers, Senior Lecturer in Law at UCL. Police and prosecutors will need to decide whether they can work around the limitation or whether they shall need to challenge its validity.

Dr Rogers has previously written in the New Law Journal about the problems caused by Section 37(2) and paragraph 10(a) to Schedule 2 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The effect of these provisions is that no one can be prosecuted under s.6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 for sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of 13-15 after one year has elapsed since the offence. The time limit no longer exists under the more recent Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force on 1 May 2004, but the 1956 Act still applies to all such acts committed before that date.

The potential impact of this, as discussed by Dr Rogers can be read in full here.

Evidence from Earth Observation Satellites: Emerging Legal Issues

Ray Purdy (UCL Laws) and Denise Leung (formerly Centre for Law and the Environment, UCL Laws- now World Resources Institute) are editors of a new book released in December 2012. The 450 page volume entitled Evidence from Earth Observation Satellites: Emerging Legal Issues is published by Martinus Nijhoff / Brill (Leiden).

Satellite technologies are rapidly improving, offering increased opportunities for monitoring laws, and using images as evidence in court. Evidence from Earth Observation Satellites analyses whether data from satellite technologies can be a legally reliable, effective evidential tool in contemporary legal systems. This unique interdisciplinary volume brings together leading experts from academia (e.g. McGill, Canberra, National Cheng Kung), government (e.g. U.S. Department of Justice, Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management) , international institutions (International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, International Standards Organization), industry and the judiciary to consider many emerging issues surrounding the use of these technologies in legal strategies. Issues examined include the evidential opportunities arising from technological developments, existing regulatory applications and operational experiences, and admissibility in courts and tools for ensuring the integrity of evidence. It also examines privacy impacts under existing legislation and provides a new conceptual framework for debating the acceptability of such surveillance methods

November 2012

Influence of economics in law making poses 'significant challenges' to profession

The expanding influence of economic analysis within the legal profession raises potentially transformative challenges for both decision makers and society in general, according to award winning research carried out by UCL Reader in Competition Law and Economics, Dr Ioannis Lianos.

Dr Lianos' work, recently awarded a prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize, investigates the increasing role played by economics in lawmaking, epistemological conflicts between the two disciplines and possible foundations for establishing a platform capable of maintaining a more equitable dialogue in the future.

Dr Lianos, who is also Director of the UCL Centre for Law, Economics and Society, explores the differing standards of validity demanded in regulatory economics when compared to academic economics as well as investigating the effect of the increased professionalization of economics on its relationship with the law making process.

Dr Lianos said: "The 'dismal science' of economics has never been more present in law design and enforcement than in recent decades. Economic evidence on the possible impact of regulatory and legislative texts is now frequently required prior to implementation and we are seeing it playing a role in ever more diverse areas of the law.

" However, this process transforms legal practice, as lawyers are increasingly required to work with economists in order to build effective legal arguments, theories and frameworks. Issues occur because economics used within a legal framework has different characteristics when compared with its use in an academic context where it can often be highly abstract and epistemologically contested.

"More needs to be done in order to preserve the pluralism of economic thought and the cognitive openness and critical awareness of the law to recent evolutions in economic thought. It is important that we look to provide the foundations for a more equal and dialectical interaction between the economics and the law. "

Community engagement tops agenda as UCL Laws visits Hackney

A one-day event co-hosted by the UCL Centre for Access to Justice, The Hackney Community Law Centre and The Justice Gap, has been hailed as a "powerful dialogue between law students and the wider community" by UCL Director of Clinical Legal Education, Jacqueline Kinghan.

The event, held at Mossbourne Academy in Hackney, was part of an ongoing project aimed at raising rights awareness and increasing legal knowledge amongst young people based in the area. Bringing together UCL Laws students, legal professionals and academics alike, the project forms an important part of UCL Laws' community and public engagement work.

Over two hundred 16-18 year olds assembled in order to answer questions about their perceptions of the legal profession and their knowledge of the law and legislation. Following this, Labour peer and former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Bach helped conduct a mock court hearing in order to give those in attendance an insight into the advocacy process.

Ms Kinghan praised the initiative, which also encourages increased respect between young people and the police, as " extremely well timed, following the recent Hackney CVS and Ipsos MORI report detailing perceived abuse of stop and search procedures in the area" before going on to commend the wider impact of the project:

" There is an obvious benefit to UCL Laws students in that they are able to experience the tangible, real-world application of their studies whilst also having the opportunity to practice their advocacy skills.

" However, in a climate of decreased welfare support, the impending decimation of the legal aid budget and continued restriction in access to justice for the very demographics who need it most, events such of this have a wider role to play ...

" We remain committed to increasing rights awareness within the community as well as raising the profile of the profession amongst groups which are traditionally underrepresented."

Death of civil court trials: a 'rule of law issue' requiring serious investigation

The long-term decline in the number of civil disputes coming to trial should not be viewed as a positive social development and will potentially corrode both respect for, and compliance with, legal obligations and responsibilities, according to UCL Dean of Laws, Professor Dame Hazel Genn.

Delivering the 36th F A Mann Lecture at Lincoln's Inn, Dame Hazel outlined a number of factors that have lead to a decline in the use of public court processes and prompted a shift towards ' private, largely unregulated procedures', before going on to outline concerns about potential deleterious impact as well as calling for sustained research into the issue.

Although rigorous, long-term studies into the 'vanishing trial phenomenon' in England and Wales are limited, Dame Hazel identified four key pressures that were shaping this particular section of the judicial landscape: increased costs of litigation (exacerbated by reforms to case management and pre-action protocols), private provider competition in the form of mediation and arbitration services, the 'judicial turn against adjudication' and governmental fiscal policy with attendant anti-litigation rhetoric.

Whilst acknowledging the potential advantages of mediating and arbitration in cases where ' both parties choose to do so', Dame Hazel outlined the potential consequences of such wholesale privatisation for the interests of both the judiciary and the wider community: "Trials provide opportunities for the courts to publically articulate the law, which is valuable for its own sake, doing justice for the parties and potentially deterring future misbehaviour by the defendant and others. But equally importantly, in efficiency terms, trials can reduce the number of future lawsuits by clarifying the law."

Closing by outlining the diverse implications of the continued shift away from trial and toward private settlement, Dame Hazel said: "These changes amount to a rule of law issues which concern the value of public adjudication, the loss of precedent in a common law system, and the unknown consequences of the unregulated processes and substantive outcomes of private dispute resolution.

"There are many important questions for which we currently have unsatisfactory answers; what are the standards and levels of competence in the average private process? Are we entering a period where there is a perception that precedent in being lost? Is there a case to be made for retaining certain cases within the private sector, and if so which? and, in the long-term, will this drift to a private, less-visible process erode confidence in the law and the protection of individual rights?".

Postgraduate environmental law symposium brings together top class research students

The UCL Centre for Law and the Environment Postgraduate Environmental Law Symposium (jointly organised with the KCL Dickson Poon School of Law) saw a gathering of environmental law research students for a full day of presentation, debate and discussion.

The event, co-organised by two PhD students, Emily Barritt (KCL) and Carrie Bradshaw (UCL), brought together over sixty participants, comprising postgraduate students and academics from institutions across Europe. The Symposium provided both a much-needed platform for student speakers, as well as an opportunity for research students to meet in person, share their research and collectively develop a lively research community on a topic of such contemporary relevance and import - environmental law and governance.

In an opening address, UCL Professor of Environment Law Richard Macrory CBE praised the potential of such events to "provide key opportunities for the development of innovative approaches and methodologies across both research and teaching." Before going on to say: "We are delighted that UCL, with its breadth of expertise in the area of environmental law and governance, is able to play host to such an innovative and worthwhile event."

Comprised of seven thematic sessions, the topics covered a truly diverse range of topics: from socio-legal and cultural perspectives on environmental law to economic analysis; emerging and interdisciplinary environmental methodologies; environmental adjudication by the ICJ and in the WTO; as well as sessions on two important environmental regulatory techniques - public participation and emissions trading.

Sessions allowed students to present for 15 minutes, followed by lively and challenging debate chaired by a number of expert academics: Professor Maria Lee (UCL), Dr Frederico Ortino (KCL), Dr Liz Fisher (University of Oxford), Professor Philippe Sands (UCL), Dr Eloise Scotford (KCL), Dr Rachael Walsh (Trinity College Dublin) and Professor Catherine Redgwell (UCL).

Summing up the event, co-ograniser Carrie Bradshaw highlighted how: "The richness and variety of approaches adopted by the speakers exemplifies the way research students are ably grappling with the methodological challenges facing environmental law scholars today. The presentations were truly interdisciplinary, and a key theme which emerged from the day was the importance of identifying not only the research questions we ask, but the research questions which we don't ask. The symposium has been a testimony to the high quality of research being carried out by early career academics at a range of institutions across Europe."

The event was generously funded by UCL Centre for Law and the Environment and the UCL Graduate School. The reception was kindly sponsored by Francis Taylor Building.

Letwin's views on environmental regulation receive mixed reception

Cabinet Minister Oliver Letwin's spirited defence of a newly announced policy concerning civil sanctions under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 received a mixed reception at an event hosted by the UCL Centre for Law and the Environment.

The Event, The New System of Environmental Enforcement and Sanctions: From Principle into Practice, saw Mr Letwin defend a written ministerial statement released by Business Minister Michael Fallon earlier that same day.

The statement revealed that generally orders granting regulators the powers to impose civil sanctions involving financial penalties instead of a criminal prosecution will only be permitted by Government if they are restricted to companies with more than 250 employees. Other sanctions referred to in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act including enforceable undertakings and stop notices remain applicable without restrictions relating to the size of the business concerned.

Addressing the event, Mr Letwin said: " The desire to avoid criminalization is admirable, and we share this underlying ethos. However, in my experience, although reasonable most of the time, some regulators may end up pulling the levers that are available to them.

"If you are BT for instance, and the regulator pulls the lever, you will have an army of lawyers to oppose any actions that you consider unreasonable. In this sense, regulators can be acutely conscious of who they are dealing with, acting against the most vulnerable who may not be able to oppose the sanction, whereas they are often far more reluctant to go after the big players."

However, attendees, including a variety of professionals and academics from across the sector, raised a number on concerns regarding Mr Letwin's position. Oppositional comments from the floor included suggestions that Mr Letwin had mistakenly believed the burden of proof to be lower in civil sanctions when compared with criminal (the Act specifically requires a criminal standard of proof); had failed to appreciate that the current Orders clearly express a presumption of innocence in that the regulator has the burden of proving its case if an appeal is made; that he had made a simplistic assumption that the larger the company the more likely they are to cause "serious damage'; and that he had demonstrated a less than sound understanding of the environment tribunal system. Despite these objections, many of the assembled expressed positivity regarding the government's gradual acceptance of civil sanctions, considering that as late as March of this year there were hints that it might abandon the system altogether.

Osborne's 'employer-owner status' is socially regressive and deeply problematic

Government proposals to create a new employment status which provides company shares of between two thousand and fifty thousand pounds in exchange for the relinquishment of a suite of employment rights has been roundly condemned in a consultation response produced by the Institute of Employment Rights and co-authored by Dr Nicola Countouris (UCL Reader in Law), Professor Mark Freedland (UCL Honorary Professor ), and Jeremias Prassl ( Oxford University). The report concludes that the proposals are " unnecessary, harmful to workers rights, marred with legal pitfalls and possibly contrary to EU law."

Despite recent assurances from Nick Clegg relating to flexible working and maternity entitlement, the report argues that a number of significant issues still remain. Dr Countouris and his co-authors said

" Our response was able to identify a wide range of problems with the proposals as they currently stand. There is evidence that legal precedent regarding employment contracts has been ignored which when considered alongside some misinterpretations of the remits of EU law and the Human Rights Act makes for a less than solid basis for implementation.

" Beyond this, the ideological implications are deeply troubling. An employee- owner would be relinquishing significant rights without receiving any of the benefits of a traditional shareholder, such as voting privilege or profit share, in return. Added to this, a buy-back policy implemented immediately following the termination of an employment contract would seem to leave workers open to exploitation at the very point at which they are likely to be economically vulnerable.

"Our view is that the economic evidence of the effects that deregulation may have over hiring and firing decisions by businesses is scant and contradictory. [ ... ]. What is certain, on the other hand, is that the introduction of a fourth (and less protected) employment status would further segment the British labour market (going against the clear advice of both the OECD and the European Commission), and have a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable sectors of the labour market and society, and in particular younger workers and women.

" The level of advice and guidance a company would need if they chose to implement these changes, coupled with the attendant risks of tribunals and contract disputes, would also most likely mean that there was little long term financial benefit to be had for employers. There is scant evidence that reforms such as this have any positive impact whatsoever, whether they be economic or ethical. I for one, hope this proposal never sees the light of day."

Dramatic rise in DIY litigants to have devastating effect on access to justice

Looming cuts to legal aid will exacerbate an already growing trend for self-representing litigants, leading to an 'inevitable deterioration in effective access to justice', according to UCL Dean of Laws, Professor Dame Hazel Genn.

Following a 40 percent rise in self representing litigants (SRLs) to well over half a million per year, leading judges, academics and lawyers have predicted that next year's cuts to legal aid may well see the operation of the civil justice system reach crisis point.

There are fears that this 'perfect storm' of factors will create a lose-lose situation. With many litigants being forced to self-represent out of economic necessity and access to a legal aid and advice dramatically reduced, it is likely that cases themselves will become longer and more expensive, thereby offsetting the initial financial imperative of reform.

Speaking at the Reform club's Atkin Memorial Lecture, Dame Hazel said: "Most people contemplating involvement in legal proceedings need skilled advice and many ultimately need representation because of the complexity of the factual or legal issues involved in their cases, or because of their lack of the basic skills needed to present their cases to a court.

"How, then, is early constructive advice and representation to be offered in a climate of scarce legal aid? Advice agencies and lawyers through their pro bono activities already contribute a considerable amount of support to SRLs. The challenge in the future will be to maintain and, if possible, enhance supply and improve co-ordination.

"In the end, however, the pro bono activities of lawyers, advice agencies and university legal clinics can only seek to ameliorate what will inevitably be a deterioration in effective access to justice. We are moving into a new era of diminished support for citizens seeking to vindicate or defend their rights. To a significant extent we are following in the footsteps of other jurisdictions that have historically provided modest or minimal provision for access to justice. This is regrettable.

"In the absence of legal aid and reduced advice services what will happen to those seeking access to courts whose purpose is to serve all members of the public in the peaceful resolution of disputes? How can we make our procedures more accessible and maintain the quality and values that have characterised our system of justice? There are no simple solutions. Preserving access and delivering justice for SRLs will take considerable imagination and determination."

Stock market an "elite playground" irrelevant to businesses and savers

Anglo-American equity markets have ceased to have a significant impact on either businesses or traditional middle-class savers, meaning their primary function has been reduced to an "elite playground for the wealthy", according to award-winning research by UCL Laws Senior Lecturer, Dr Marc Moore.

Moore's work, recently awarded a prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize by the Leverhulme Trust, investigates the increasingly abstract relationship between the perceived health of the markets and the operational experience of both businesses and savers.

Dr Moore, who is also Deputy Director of the UCL Centre for Commercial Law, questions traditional understandings of the market's social function, and argues that they are of ever-decreasing importance in the contemporary financial world.

Dr Moore said: "As a society we attach great importance to the stock market. The FTSE 100 Index is announced each day on the national news, and we frequently regard a rising or falling stock market as a general barometer of the economic health of the nation. However, few people in society have direct contact with financial markets, and even fewer have an understanding of how (if at all) they actually affect our lives as ordinary citizens.

"It is frequently claimed that equity (or 'stock') markets are both an invaluable source of working capital for business corporations, and also a crucial generator of income streams to sustain pensions, insurance policies, and other socially essential financial services. However, on closer inspection, this no longer seems to paint an accurate picture of their importance.

"Over recent years, the relative share of corporate equity holdings in the hands of orthodox institutional shareholders such as occupational pension funds, mutual funds and insurers has rapidly declined. Increasingly, it would appear that overseas-based hedge funds, and other specialist investment vehicles associated with the global 'super-rich', are fast becoming the dominant investor base in London. Meanwhile, large corporations have come to rely less and less on the stock market as a source of ongoing business finance.

"Against this background, it is reasonable to consider whether the stock market is a truly relevant institution any more either for businesses or middle-class savers, or whether it is more accurate to view corporate equity markets today as an elite playground for the wealthy, whose effects on the living standards of ordinary citizens are marginal at best."

Double award cements UCL Law research reputation

The reputation of UCL Laws as a centre of elite research has been further cemented following the announcement that Dr Ioannis Lianos and Dr Marc Moore have both been awarded prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prizes. The double achievement means UCL Laws were awarded two out of only five available law awards, a feat unmatched in the category.

The prizes are awarded to outstanding scholars who have made a substantial and acknowledged contribution to their particular field of study, recognised at an international level, and where the expectation is that their greatest achievement is yet to come.

Each award, designed to be used over a two or three year period can be used for any purpose which can advance the Prize holder's research, with the exception of enhancing the Prize holder's salary.

Dr Lianos' prize acknowledged his work on the interaction of economic thought with the legal system, whilst Dr Moore's award comes on the back of hid work on Anglo-American corporate law and governance; capital markets and theory of the firm.

UK falls short - leaving domestic workers at risk of 'modern slavery'

Legislative loopholes mean many domestic workers are employed in conditions that meet the emerging definition of 'modern slavery', according to Dr Virginia Mantouvalou, UCL Law lecturer and Co-Director of the UCL Institute for Human Rights.

Domestic workers, defined as those employed by private households for tasks such as cleaning and child-care, are given inadequate legal protection regarding the minimum wage, health and safety at work and maximum hours worked.

Recent changes to immigration laws have further compounded these issues. Migrant workers who accompany their employers need a special visa that ties them to the employer. They can no longer change employers, regardless of their treatment, without risking deportation- a move Dr Mantouvalou described as "a dispiriting step in the wrong direction".

These factors, in conjunction with economic changes and the informality of the employment relation in question, have contributed to these workers' precariousness. As a result, high numbers of domestic workers are suffering abuse at the hands of their employer.

The claim is borne out by the alarming results of recent reports of international and national bodies such as the International Labour Organisation, the European Union, Human Rights Watch and Anti-Slavery International. Findings from the survey of the London-based NGO Kalayaan, for instance, revealed that from those that registered with it in 2010, 60 per cent were not allowed out unaccompanied, 65 per cent had their passport withheld,54 per cent suffered psychological abuse, 18 per cent suffered physical abuse or assault and 3 per cent were sexually abused.

Dr Mantouvalou said: " Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights prohibits slavery and servitude. The European Court of Human Rights has shown that it is willing to find a breach of the provision in cases of severe denials of freedom, obligation to provide services and little or no ability to change the situation.

"In the case of domestic workers, we are in the process of acknowledging that in a disturbing number of cases, employment conditions meet the definition of modern slavery. Workers are excluded from certain legal rights, and remain vulnerable to abuse, because they have very few alternatives other than severe poverty or homelessness. The statistics show that workers are being routinely abused ... put simply, their life can become an object of their employer's control.

"There are positive signs of political good-will on this subject, not least from US President Obama's talk in September 2012. However, the sad fact remains that the UK is falling behind international standards. It needs only to look to certain other European countries to find solutions to the many obstacles they claim are preventing them doing more to protect workers who are amongst the most vulnerable in our society."

Student blog: Magic Circle Debate 2012

The Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre has seen heavyweights such as Christopher Nolan, Michael Caine and Leonardo DiCaprio but last Thursday it played host to six more. The chosen debaters from the Magic Circle and Herbert Smith Freehills, each looking to bring pride and a bottle of wine back to their firm that night, set aside the pre-debate reception biscuits and chatter as they gathered ready.

The motion was 'This House believes that when a burglar enters a person's home, they leave their human rights at the door'. Certainly the packed lecture theatre audience was in for a treat, even if forced to sit on the stairs due to high demand, as the debaters showed why they work in some of the most prestigious legal firms in the world.

The Proposition spoke eloquently about how the burden of responsibility for the consequences of a self-defence conflict should lie with the trespasser and should not be prejudiced against property-owners. They implored us to place ourselves in the shoes of the home-owner, frightened by a trespasser in their own home, who in the split second has to understand the seemingly blurred legal concept of 'reasonable' force. Also arguing that it was reasonable in a world, where even in the UK, criminals are armed to a degree that home-owners should share that ability, so as also to deter thieves and others from breaking and entering.

The Opposition pointed to evidence from around the world especially from the United States of America that this kind of approach led to some particularly violent and often unjustifiable incidents of homicide. Also offering that it was not a valid way of creating a deterrent to hardened criminals intent on entering a persons home; because unlike in countries with more relaxed gun laws there was no lethal force allowance, therefore not offering a sufficient warning to those considering such action. They also contended that the idea of arming home-owners was one that would create an arms war that would spiral out of control and one that law-abiding home-owners could not win. Adding the concern of the added threat posed to those who did not wish to arm themselves as a collateral consequence of this race to the top.

All speakers spoke passionately in favour of their side, invoking oratorical powers of reason and persuasion. In the end the prestigious Magic Circle Debate Trophy went to Kevin Smith from Clifford Chance and the runner-up was Charlotte Yan from Freshfields as judged by The Rt Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob. But congratulations must go to all the participants from Slaughter and May, Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Freshfields, Allen & Overy and Herbert Smith Freehills. Credit must be given to Blaise Matthews (Speaker Secretary, UCL Law Society) and the Committee for taking the lead and conducting an impressive event. As Magic Circle Debates go, the event was a smashing success.

Luke Blackett

October 2012

'Beaming' technologies will pose major threat to legal and policing systems

On-going developments in the remote presence technology 'beaming' will pose a number of challenges to traditional legal values and existing police structures, according to UCL Law Senior Research Fellow in Environmental Law, Ray Purdy.

'Beaming', backed by a major European Commission project, is aimed at further developing the ability of people to 'travel' instantaneously to locations elsewhere, enabling them to interact verbally and physically in a variety of environments.

The increasingly affordable technology, which operates using a broadband network connecting the 'user' with an avatar such as a robot, looks set to problematize a number of pre-existing legal structures and assumptions.

Discussing some of the possible implications of the technology, Mr Purdy said: " It is possible that beaming may become a favourable technology of those with unfavourable attitudes, allowing criminals in one country to commit offenses remotely. Questions may well arise about where, and under who's jurisdiction, the offence has been committed.

" There are also significant concerns about accountability; if an act of violence is committed, how will intent be determined and who takes responsibility? the defendant or the company, or companies, behind the technology?

" The list goes on; outsourcing of employment may substantially disrupt labour laws, anonymous avatars will make policing harder, not leastbecause forensic evidence will be a thing of the past, and what becomes of our existing concept of 'trespassing' in a future where people can 'beam' elsewhere whether they are invited or not?

"Beaming will represent a major technological leap and debates and planning as to possible impacts and suitability of legislation should take place amongst legal and regulatory bodies sooner rather than later."

Russia's accession to the WTO driven by ego not economy

The accession of Russia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is unlikely to bring about domestic economic reform and is best considered as an attempt to achieve external validation and public parity, according to UCL Laws Senior Lecturer and Co-Director of the WTO Scholars Forum, Dr Fiona Smith.

Richard Connolly, a Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Birmingham, discussed the issues of placing too a great a transformative burden on the accession: " I would be very cautious not to overstate the importance of this, it is not a 'game changer- any changes will ultimately be driven by domestic unrest."

Similarly, Phillip Hanson, Professor of the Political Economy of Russia and Eastern Europe at the University of Birmingham emphasised the role played by the preexisting business climate: " WTO membership is no guarantee whatsoever of economic freedoms or sound economic management. The informal codes of Russian business seem unlikely to change anytime soon."

Event Chair, Dr Smith summarised: " There is a general feeling of skepticism about the impact that WTO membership will have. Both the regulated and unregulated complexities of doing business and passing legislation in Russia will ultimately remain too great an obstacle- especially without strong and consistent political good-will regarding reform.

"When this is considered alongside Putin's posturing on the matter, it is difficult to suppress the feeling that accession is more about ensuring good PR than a genuine attempt to change business practice."

Landmark symposium on cards as UCL delegation heads to Beijing

A one day symposium, co-organised by UCL Laws, Hong Kong University Law School and Renmin University Law School Beijing, will see scholars, practitioners, judges and policy makers meet to explore issues surrounding comparative criminal law, national security, fair trials and the rule of law.

The event, to be held on 25 October, will enable leading global voices to exchange views, best practice and debate on a variety of topics pertaining to comparative criminal law and the rule of law, representing an exciting and unusual opportunity for all those in attendance.

The UCL Laws delegation will consist of Dean of Laws Dame Hazel Genn DBE QC, Senior Lecturer Dr Jeff King, and Reader in Law Mr Colm O'Cinneide, all of whom will be accompanied by The Rt Hon Lord Justice Goldring, Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales.

In addition, the event will be attended by UCL alumnus and long-term Laws supporter Winston Chu and his family, whose generous sponsorship of the symposium has gone a long way towards making the event possible.

Discussing the import and possible impact of the symposium, Dame Hazel said: " This symposium represents a monumental opportunity for both cross-cultural and cross-discipline exchange, focusing on some of the most pivotal questions facing not only the judiciary but society as a whole. In a world increasingly predicated on all things international, events such as this stand as an example of fruitful, dynamic and forward-thinking practice. There is little doubt in my mind that the impact of this event will still be discernable long after the final paper has been given."

The symposium will include a mock Judicial Review Hearing, drafted and performed by Dr King and Mr O'Cinneide and presided over by Lord Justice Goldring, in which the central issues will be the extent to which law can control the state's treatment of suspected terrorists.

Speaking about the purpose of the mock hearing, Mr. O'Cinneide, who is also vice-president of the European Committee on Social Rights, said: " This hearing presents an opportunity to see how the British and other European legal systems deal with the very cutting-edge of national security law, with respect both to the detention of persons on the basis of secret evidence and the deportation of persons suspected of terrorist activity."

Four academic papers focusing on aspect of the criminal justice system in the UK, China and Hong Kong will also be delivered in what promises to be an outstanding day of international exchange and debate.

Forcing Apple to acknowledge defeat sends 'unequivocal message'

The Court of Appeal ruling insisting that Apple publicly clarify that Samsung products did not infringe their design sends an 'unequivocal message' that in cases of exceptional commercial uncertainty courts are willing to go beyond the requirements of the European Enforcement Directive, according to Senior UCL Laws Lecturer Ilanah Simon Fhima.

By throwing out Apple's bid to reverse the original publicity order, the Court of Appeal has demonstrated a willingness to ensure that both claimants and defendants play their part in any ongoing clarification deemed necessary.

The unusual move follows a period of confusion generated by two contrary, but equally well-publicised, rulings that occurred in quick succession. HHJ Birss' decision in the UK that Samsung's products did not infringe was swiftly followed by further action by Apple in Germany where infringement was found and Apple successfully gained a pan-European injunction.

Although having two conflicting ruling so close together is not unprecedented, the sheer amount of public interest in the dispute ensured that the contradictory messages generated by each case inevitably trickled down to consumers, prompting the need for clarification.

Discussing the ruling, Dr. Fhima said: "The Court of Appeal has sent an unequivocal message that, where intellectual property infringement proceedings cause commercial uncertainty, the courts are willing to force both unsuccessful IP owners and defendants to set the record straight. This goes further than the Enforcement Directive, which only mentions publicity by defendants. While this is not intended to punish the parties, those that contribute to the uncertainty (as Apple did here) must expect there to be consequences."

Government posturing on self-defence protects police more than householders

Announcements by the Minister of Justice promising to strengthen the laws of self-defence do nothing to advance preexisting protection of householders. So far, attempts to protect householders have done far more to protect the police in cases of suspected brutality, according to Dr Jonathan Rogers, UCL Senior Lecturer in Laws.

The announcement, strongly backed by the Prime Minister, will make no substantive change to a system which already treats householders as victims and will only rule against them in cases where retaliation is deemed 'grossly disproportionate'.

Discussing the current state of the law on this matter, Dr Rogers cautioned against ignoring the 'true cause for concern', namely the protection of police forces who have been suspected of using undue violence:

"Preferring to support the householder is rather a no-brainer, and in their hurry to proclaim their loyalties, parties ignore or deny what is known to all criminal lawyers - that the law is already on the side of the householder as far as it can possibly be, and nothing further can be done to make it more favourable.

"The law operates on the basis of what the householder fears the situation may entail. The law also makes allowance for the fact that the householder might to some extent over-react in the panic of the situation, by requiring the jury to consider whether he had an honest and instinctive belief that he was acting reasonably. It has been this way for several years. When Labour introduced legislation to this effect in section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, none of it changed the law at all, as later confirmed by the Court of Appeal

"The Conservatives had promised unspecified further action in their election manifesto and have since passed s. 148 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 which provides that there is no strict duty to retreat when attacked. But no one had thought there to be a strict duty to retreat since the 1960s. Now they want to clarify that the householder will only be found guilty for injuring the burglar if his use of force was "grossly disproportionate". But it will change nothing. A jury can, and will, reach the same result already by deciding that whatever was done was reasonable, provided that the householder honestly and instinctively thought he was acting reasonably..

"Meanwhile there are genuine problems in the law of self-defence. For the householder, confronting a burglar is a one-off experience. For the police it may be different. But they are still shown the same indulgence; and some officers, it seems, have gone on and on using excessive force and escaping the consequences of their actions by saying each time that they believed they acted reasonably. It can become a vicious circle. On the first occasion there may have been a genuine over-reaction, but when nothing happens as a result, the danger is that it becomes the norm. We know that vast numbers of complaints of police brutality go unsubstantiated every year and the IPCC has long since lost credibility over the issue. The officers are almost never prosecuted and when compensation is paid to the victims, it is in an out-of-court settlement with a confidentiality clause attached.

"So, the police officer Simon Harwood managed to persuade a jury that he honestly and instinctively thought he was acting reasonably to keep public order when he shoved and beat a clearly unarmed and unstable Ian Tomlinson while he was walking away. Similarly the four Metropolitan Police Officers accused of gratuitously beating Babar Ahmad were controversially acquitted, even though a large out-of-court settlement had been made in respect of Ahmad's injuries which included a concession that he had been the victim of a "serious prolonged and gratuitous assault". What do these cases have in common? Specifically, that after the officers were acquitted, we heard of the enormous catalogue of previous similar accusations that had been leveled at the officers in the past and had never been taken seriously enough. Householders have long been well covered by the law of self-defence. But the police are too well covered and this is the true cause for concern in this area of the law."

Honorary degree awarded to "breathtakingly gifted" Lady Justice Hallett

UCL Laws graduation saw the award of an Honorary Doctorate of Law (LLD) to the Rt Hon Lady Justice Hallett DBE, one of only four female Court of Appeal judges, the first woman to chair the Bar council and someone widely regarded as one of the leading lights of the legal profession.

Since being called to the Bar in 1972, Lady Justice Hallett has been appointed to a number of prestigious positions including that of high court judge, member of the court of appeal, Treasurer of the Inner Temple and vice-president of the Queen's Bench Division.

Speaking at the graduation, Dean of Laws Dame Hazel Genn DBE QC, said: "Dame Heather is a superb barrister, and is now one of the most senior and most respected judges in England and Wales. She is not only breathtakingly gifted at practising the law, but also she can stand back and reflect on it- and this she has done in a number of high-profile speeches that have brought her invitations to lecture abroad.

"Closer to home, one particular instance of this stature was her colossal achievement as Coroner at the inquest into the deaths of the 52 victims of the 7/7 bombings in London and into the deaths of the four bombers. It was a hugely fraught inquiry, with public emotion running very high. The course and conduct of that inquiry mattered profoundly.

"Dame Heather served us all supremely well. She handled the inquiry with an awe-inspiring combination of clear-sightedness, sophistication, thoughtfulness and compassion. Miraculously, she squared a number of circles, many of which might easily have turned vicious; most particularly she fulfilled the responsibilities of the inquest in relation to the bombers in a way that was acceptable to the bereaved.

"Her report was welcomed in all quarters; it was, and remains, a landmark. Of course, the issues raised by those appalling events will not go away; they will continue to haunt us. But if we are now in a better position to handle that haunting, it is because of her work. It is not going too far to say that the nation is profoundly in her debt.

"If one views her achievement in the context of the legal profession at large, two aspects of what she has done and what she is strike one as particularly admirable. One is that she went to a state grammar school; the other is that she is a woman. And, let's face it, those two facts do somewhat set her apart from the vast majority of senior judges in England and Wales at the present time."

Britain approaching a 'pivotal moment in professional and business life'

Recent political rhetoric demonstrates a growing consensus that Britain is approaching a 'pivotal moment in professional and business life', says UCL's Professor Richard Moorhead in the lead up to a new seminar series on financial regulation.

Speaking in the wake of declarations from Labour leader Ed Miliband promising to uphold 'not only the letter but also the spirit' of the Vickers report, and comments from Conservative MP Andre Tyrie expressing concern over 'gaps in the law', Professor Moorhead said:

"A succession of banking and media scandals have shown how systems have developed which protect managers more than shareholders and shareholders more than society. It is time to examine the ethical logic of law and management practice in our corporations and professions. Incentives and rules have been structured to reward and protect the risk-taking of managers within a toxic culture of short-termism.

"That is precisely why UCL's Centre for Ethics and Law is running a series of events on law and the ethics of Capitalism. The first of these, Between Law and Markets: Is there a Role for Ethics and Culture in Financial Regulation, will be held on Wednesday 10 October.

"Here, Dan Awrey, HHJ William Blair and Prof Kershaw will be arguing that process-oriented regulation, backed by a credible threat of both public enforcement and reputational sanctions, and radical reforms of the core governance arrangements of financial institutions are needed if we are to have a more effective and ethical financial industry."

September 2012

UK human rights reform may prove to be a 'difficult and thankless' task

The current state of human rights law in the UK is compatible with constitutional principles, the democratic process and the rights of the individual. Attempts to recalibrate it may prove to be a difficult and thankless task, according to a new report authored by Colm O'Cinneide, Reader in Law at UCL, for the British Academy Policy Centre.

The report, Human Rights and the UK Constitution, investigates some of the key issues surrounding UK human rights law, including the controversial relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and UK courts. Set against a backdrop of continuing public debate, which reached fever pitch last year following the ECHR ruling on UK prisoner voting, the findings represent a timely and incisive contribution to the ongoing dialogue.

Completion of the report was overseen by a steering group of leading scholars of constitutional law - Professors Vernon Bogdanor, John Eekelaar, David Feldman, Sandra Fredman, Conor Gearty (all Fellows of the British Academy) and Francesca Klug (LSE). The report has also been rigorously peer reviewed by a number of prominent legal experts, including academics, barristers and former judges.

Lawyer involvement in the Hillsborough disaster

The legal and judicial issues surrounding the Independent report on the Hillsborough disaster have been explored in various press outlets by Professor Richard Moorhead, Director of UCL Laws Centre for Ethics and Law and Professor Cheryl Thomas, Co-Director of the UCL Judicial Institute.

Intellectual Property Law tops the agenda during China visit

Debates surrounding intellectual property law, its manner of adjudication and enforcement were explored during a week-long visit to Shanghai and Beijing undertaken by The Rt Hon Professor Sir Robin Jacob, Sir Hugh Laddie Chair of Intellectual Property Law at UCL and Co-Director of the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law.

The trip, which included meetings at Tongji University, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, the Shanghai High People's Court, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration (SIPA) and the Supreme People's Court in Beijing provided a platform for discussion with some of China's most notable academics, influencers and policy makers in the field of intellectual property.

Amongst the various topics discussed were the bifurcation debate, the calculation of damages, the problem of co-existence of trade marks and judicial information exchange channels with China.

Reflecting on the visit, Professor Jacob said:
"This trip has proved an invaluable experience in terms of information exchange, the sharing of best practice models and the discussion of the most current and pressing developments in the field.

It remains a vital that opportunities such as this are undertaken, they allow the fostering and strengthening of professional and educational links, the development and maintenance of communication channels and the possibility to discuss future collaborations and projects.

The amount the Chinese have achieved and the sheer caliber of discussion has been incredibly impressive. I am in no doubt that there will be significant follow up from this trip. I expect to maintain and foster the relationships with all those whom I met."

Major breakthrough as HIV/AIDS case is put before European Court of Human Rights

The first ever case relating to HIV/AIDS discrimination in the workplace was declared admissible and is to be heard before the European Court of Human Rights following work by George Letsas and Virginia Mantouvalou, Co-Directors of the UCL Institute for Human Rights.

The case concerns applicant I.B.- a HIV-positive individual, who was dismissed from his job when colleagues found out that he had HIV, and refused to work with him.

I.B. challenged the dismissal as unlawful. However, the Greek Court of Cassationupheld the dismissal on the ground that the employer was not motivated by hostility towards his HIV status, but by the desire to ensure the peaceful running of her business.

Speaking about the case, on which the court is expected to rule in 2013, the Co-Directors said:
"We are very pleased that the Court has declared the case admissible, not leastbecause some 90% of the applications submitted are declared inadmissible. Our claim is that the applicant suffered discrimination on the basis of his HIV-status. This remains the case even though his employer did not have discriminatory motives, and only cared about business efficiency. There is widespread discrimination and social exclusion in Europe towards persons with HIV/AIDS. States have positive obligations to take action."

UCL Laws Judicial Visitor elected President of the European Court of Human Rights

Judge Spielmann, Judicial Visitor at the UCL Faculty of Laws and the UCL Institute for Human Rights, has been elected President of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

A judge at the Court since 2004, Section President since 2011, and elected Vice-President in July 2012, Judge Spielmann succeeds Sir Nicholas Bratza whose mandate will come to an end in October 2012.

Discussing the appointment, Co-Directors of the UCL Institute for Human Rights, George Letsas and Virginia Mantouvalou said:
"Judge Spielmann is an outstanding judge, whose judicial and extra-judicial writings have been pivotal to the continuous development of the case law of the Court. His election to President is fantastic news for human rights advocates in Europe. It is also great news for our Faculty with which he has strong links"

Judge Spielmann has written the preface of George Letsas's book, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (2009, Oxford University Press). He has also judged theannual UCL Human Rights Moot Competition in Strasbourg since 2008. In 2012, Judge Spielmann co-edited the book The European Convention on Human Rights: A Living and Dynamic Instrument, with contributions by Virginia Mantouvalou and George Letsas. The book was launched at UCL in February 2011.

Hungarian government should scrap controversial law forcing judges to retire at 62

The Hungarian government should respect the ruling of the Constitutional Court and repeal controversial new legislation lowering the mandatory age of retirement for judges to 62, according to a new report co-authored by UCL law lecturer, Dr Ronan McCrea.

The report, Courting Controversy: the Impact of the Recent Reforms on the Independence of the Judiciary and the Rule of Law in Hungary, undertaken by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), outlines a number of recommendations in the wake of controversiallegislative reforms, including a new Constitution, which came into force at the beginning of 2012.

Containing the findings of the IBAHRI fact-finding delegation which visited Hungary inMarch of this year, the report acknowledges that although the rationale behind the attempts to make the judicial system faster and more deficient are to be welcomed, several key legislative aspects pose a severe threat to judicial independence.

Speaking of the provision regarding mandatory retirement age, Sternford Moyo, Co-Chair of the IBAHRI, said:
"Aside from violating EU non-discrimination law, the retroactive effect of the law clearly undermines judicial security of tenure, and deprives the Hungarian judiciary of the accumulated experience of its most senior judges. The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute calls on the Hungarian Government to repeal the offending legislative provisions and to provide effective remedies for those judges who have been forced to retire."

Other recommendations suggested by the report include:

• The Government of Hungary consider establishing a panel to review the new Constitution to assess how it is operating in practice and to suggest amendments. Such a panel should include membership from across the political spectrum;
• The Government of Hungary cease the practice of overturning Constitutional Court judgments with which it disagrees. A constitutional review panel should consider the issue of restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, the Government should provide for the possibility of legal aid for admissible constitutional challenges and review the constitutional amendments that restrict locus standi and the ability of individuals to vindicate their constitutional rights in court; and
• The Government of Hungary refrain from using non-standard parliamentary procedures in order to legislate in areas affecting fundamental aspects of public life and, in general, should seek to engage with opposition groups and civil society on a more frequent and systematic basis.

Christian win in Strasbourg would represent 'remarkable abandonment of established caselaw'

In the case of the four British Christians claiming violation of their right to manifest religious faith, The European Court of Human Rights must consider the implication of discriminatory acts beyond deprivation of service, according to UCL law lecturer, Dr Ronan McCrea.

The case, which will centre around the applicant's claim that UK law inadequately protects their rights under articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, has prompted widespread debate on the issue of conscience exemptions from anti-discrimination legislature.

Arguing against the assertion that the debate should centre on the adequate provision of services, Dr McCrea said:
"To do so misses a fundamental aspect of anti-discrimination laws. The wrong done by signs in 1960s boarding houses that said 'No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs' went well beyond the denial of accommodation. Discriminatory acts have a moral significance beyond the deprivation of the relevant service. No one would say that Rosa Parks had suffered no relevant harm if there had been available to her in Montgomery,Alabama, a second bus company which had no discriminatory seating arrangements, even if that second company's buses were more comfortable and frequent."

Dr McCrea also cautioned that any exemptions granted by the court could not be "selectively conferred" only on those whose beliefs fell nominally within the mainstream, before adding:
"It would be a remarkable abandonment of their established caselaw if the Court of Human Rights were to decide that the Convention on Human Rights mandated an approach that precluded national governments from taking account of the very serious moral harm done by discriminatory acts beyond deprivation of a particular service in legislating in the area of anti-discrimination."

Lawyer involvement in scandal points to wider issue of ethical regulation

The involvement of lawyers in the banking and hacking scandals illustrates a wider need for better regulation of professional ethics, according to a new report led by Professor Richard Moorhead, Director of the Centre for Ethics and Law at UCL.

The report, Designing Ethics Indicators for Legal Services Provision, which follows a period of increased market liberalisation and key legislative changes, outlines a series of tools designed to assist in monitoring the likelihood of individuals complying with core ethical obligations over time.

Part of ongoing research in to the impact of the Legal Services Act (2007), the report has been welcomed by Chief Executive of the Legal Services Board, Chris Kenny as a "thorough and imaginative report- a sound basis not just for further debate but for solid action to pursue the issues it raises"

Professor Moorhead, said:
"There is a growing recognition amongst professional regulators and sophisticated legalservice suppliers that properly managing the ethics of their service goes beyond providing codes of conduct and policing complaints.

"That has law not been untouched by the financial and hacking scandals is a reminder of the central public interest in ethical lawyering. Our market for legal services is world leading in many respects, not least market liberalisation.

"We can and should also evolve cutting edge approaches to professional ethics. This report shows that better tools can be developed to understand and promote the ethicality of practice."

August 2012

Apple lawsuit could have lasting impact on innovation

The ongoing patent dispute between Apple and Samsung could have a lasting impact on innovation, according to leading expert on branding and intellectual property law, Ilanah Simon Fhima.

The claim follows news that Apple are acting rapidly to ensure the banning of eight Samsung smartphones on the back on the billion dollar plus fine handed to its rival for copyright infringement.

The move, which has been seen by many as an attempt to capitalise on legal momentum in order to obtain a substantial business benefit, will first need to be assessed by Judge Lucy Koh against four different criteria.

Ilanah Simon Fhima, co-director of UCL’s Institute of Brand and Innovation Law, suggests that the case is the latest in a long line of complex litigation that may ultimately have ramifications for future innovation:

"The fact that Apple is now trying to convince Judge Lucy Koh to enjoin eight of Samsung's models in the US in addition to having been awarded $1.05bn last week is indicative of the complexity of this type of litigation.

A UK finding had ruled that Samsung’s machines aren’t as “cool” as Apple’s and did not infringe Apple’s design rights. In the US case however it was ruled that Samsung had infringed Apple’s design patents for its iPhone and had copied aspects of their functionality, including the method of zooming in on text through finger taps.

This case highlights the very different nature of IP litigation across the globe and raises a number of important questions, not least about how the jury managed to complete the highly complicated damages calculation in only two and a half days.

More broadly, it is important to consider what effects these rulings will have on encouraging (or inhibiting) innovation."

'Tawdry' Sun publication unsurprising

The Sun newspaper's decision to break rank and become the first UK media outlet to publish naked photographs of Prince Harry has been branded 'unsurprising' by leading expert in media law, Eric Barendt.

The publication, described by the paper as an "editorial choice made in the face of clear public interest", has prompted widespread debate about the powers of the Press Complaints Commission, the long-term impact of the Leveson Enquiry and the role played by domestic law in the internet age.

Responding to the publication, Eric Barendt, Emeritus Professor of Media Law at UCL, cast doubt on the veracity of the public interest argument and claimed the case raised important questions surrounding personal privacy:

"I am not at all surprised that the Sun decided to defy the Palace, and risk a possible rebuke from the PCC, by publishing the Prince Harry photos. However, its public interest argument is extraordinarily thin- much thinner than the argument which lost in the Max Mosley case. But once the photos had appeared world wide on the internet and yesterday in an Irish paper available in the UK, it could argue that the Prince's privacy, like his clothes, had been discarded- the photos were in the public domain.

The whole tawdry affair shows how difficult, perhaps impossible it is, effectively to protect personal privacy in the age of the Internet and global publication- It will be interesting to see how much the Sun circulation went up today."

The press complaints commission have yet to comment on the case, referring only to generic procedure in the wake of any complaints it may receive.

Reasons for Team GB's Olympic success revealed by Nigel Balmer's research

Dr Nigel Balmer, UCL Laws Reader in Law and Social Statistics, was interviewed on US National Public Radio (NPR) and in the Telegraph explaining how his detailed analysis of host national medal success in the Olympic Games since World War II strongly predicted Team GB's success at London 2012. The research revealed that host countries win three times more medals in home Olympics, and home advantage was greatest in subjectively judged sports like boxing and gymnastics. The research also revealed that host nations continue to enjoy increased medal success in the following Olympics, so Team GB can expect the success to continue in Rio 2016.

Centre for Law, Economics and Society at UCL Laws (CLES) launches new website

The Centre for Law, Economics and Society at UCL Laws (CLES) has launched its new website. This includes information on the exciting research initiatives undertaken by the Centre, the people involved in them and information on the Centres' forthcoming and past events.

July 2012

Getting it write!

UCL Law's Douglas Guilfoyle contributed to an on-line discussion of best practice in academic writing on the Guardian's higher education network blog on Friday 28 July. Topics included the art of good writing, whether academic writing really has to be dull and stilted, and whether academics can ever be irreverent, accessible or bloggers without losing professional credibility.

John Tasioulas Gives Evidence at the Leveson Inquiry

John Tasioulas, Quain Professor of Jurisprudence at UCL, was one of seven philosophers to give evidence on 16 July to the Leveson inquiry on media ethics. He was interviewed as part of a panel, together with Prof. Susan Mendus (York) and Prof. Jennifer Hornsby (Birkbeck), that addressed a variety of topics including rights and duties, the relations between free speech and freedom of the press, and issues of privacy..

Dean Hazel Genn Visits Malaysia and Singapore

Dean of UCL Laws, Professor Dame Hazel Genn, recently visited Singapore and Malaysia on a trip organised by the University of London, International Programmes. Dean Genn was invited by the Chief Justice of Malaysia to attend the 46th Malaysian Council of Judges Conference 2012 held on 8-12 July in Kota Bharu. She gave a lecture on The First Five Years of the New English Judicial Appointments system. The Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tan Sri Arifin Bin Zakaria, is a UCL Laws alumnus (LLM 1979).

Pictured right: Dean Genn with The Rt Hon Tun Arifin bin Zakaria (Dato' Lela Negara), Chief Justice Of The Federal Court of Malaysia; The Rt Hon Tan Sri Md Raus bin Sharif, President of the Court of Appeal of Malaysia; The Hon Tan Sri Abdull Hamid Bin Embong, Federal Court of Malaysia Judge.

The conference was attended by some 150 senior Malaysian judges, including all members of the Federal Court and Court of Appeal. The Dean was guest of honour at its dinner, where all guests wore traditional clothing and watched a splendid performance of local singing and dancing. The Dean was invited to join the performers on stage and test her dance skills.

Dean Genn also gave lectures in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on mediation developments in England. While in Singapore, she met distinguished UCL alumni who are members of the senior Singapore judiciary: Appeal Court Justice Chao Hick Tim (LLB 1965) and Justice Belinda Ang (LLM 1978), Chair of the Singapore Mediation Council. Justice Ang and members of the Council entertained the Dean with lunch at the Singapore Supreme Court to discuss mediation developments and practice in Singapore.

UCL Laws continues to foster ties and exchange international legal expertise with its prestigious Alumni, in jurisdictions in Asia and worldwide.

Arad Reisberg awarded a UCL International Teaching Excellence Bursary

Dr Arad Reisberg has been awarded a UCL International Teaching Excellence Bursary (on 6 July). The bursary will be spent as part of Dr Reisberg's visit to the U.S between August-December 2012. Dr Reisberg has been appointed a Visiting Professor of Law for the Fall Term 2012 at Brooklyn Law School. He will be teaching an advanced course in corporate law in which he will be piloting and experimenting in innovative assessments and running a couple of weeks of workshops/clinics geared towards exploring new techniques and technologies to enhance student engagement and provide more support and feedback on performance. While in the US, Dr Reisberg has also been invited to provide guest seminars at Fordham Law School (as part of the Comparative Corporate Governance Distinguished Lecture Series co-sponsored by the Corporate Law Center and the Office of International and Non-J.D. Programs), Columbia University and at Penn Law School (Institute for Law and Economics).

UCL Current Legal Issues Colloquium 2012 - Law and Global Health

Avoidable and preventable death and disease are among the major challenges facing the world today. UCL is in an excellent position to help overcome the barriers to global health through legal frameworks, medical and other solutions. The Law and Global Health colloquium on 2-3 July 2012 brought together some of the worlds' leading multidisciplinary experts to explore the problems and innovative solutions to global health. The Current Legal Issues series was started by Prof Michael Freeman (pictured left) and has been held at UCL since 1996.

Global Health in its broadest sense connotes well-being in a state of justice. Reducing injustice and enhancing global health is a matter of practical action, and the use and construction of law is central to this process. In a public lecture held on 2 July, as part of the Law and Global Health colloquium, Prof. James Orbinski (University of Toronto, right) drew on his twenty five years of international experience to argue that global health law is most effective when it has a plural grounding in pragmatism, the high ideals of humanity, human rights and the pursuit of the public good.

Completion of the ALI-III Transnational Insolvency Project

After a six-year gestation period, the Final Report for the Transnational Insolvency Project, jointly undertaken by the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute, has been successfully presented to separate meetings of the two organisations. Initiated in February 2006, the project's aim was to formulate globally-applicable principles and guidelines for the conduct of international insolvency cases. The Joint Reporters for the project, Professors Ian Fletcher (UCL) and Bob Wessels (Leiden University) were assisted by international experts from more than 30 countries across five continents.Their Report contains 37 Global Principles for Cooperation in Global Insolvency Cases and 18 Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases, in each case accompanied by detailed commentary.

First presented to the membership of the ALI at its 89th Annual Meeting in May in Washington DC, the Report was subsequently adopted by the International Insolvency Institute at its 12th Annual Congress in Paris in June 2012. The next phase of the project will involve the publication and dissemination of the Principles and Guidelines to all relevant actors and agents engaged in international insolvency matters, notably judges and practitioners.

Mellon Funding Enables UCL/British Library Partnership on Transcribe Bentham

UCL's Bentham Project has received a grant of $538,000 from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, for a project entitled The Consolidated Bentham Papers Repository (CBPR). This funding is effective from October 2012 for a period of two years. It will continue the success of the award-winning crowdsourced manuscript transcription project, Transcribe Bentham, which is digitising and making available UCL's vast Bentham Papers collection, which runs to some 60,000 manuscript folios (c. 30 million words).

Transcribe Bentham is a collaboration between the Bentham Project, various UCL departments, and volunteer transcribers worldwide. Under this new funding, a new partner will be added to the group: the British Library. In the CBPR, much of the remainder of the UCL Bentham Papers will be digitised, along with the entirety of the British Library's own Bentham collection, which runs to 12,500 folios (c. 6 million words). The material will reunite the collection (digitally) for the first time since Bentham's death in 1832.

Read more news from Oct 2011 - June 2012

Read more news from Jan-Oct 2011

Read all news from 2010

Faculty of Laws - University College London - Bentham House - Endsleigh Gardens - London WC1H 0EG Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 2000

© UCL 1999–