Dazed and Confused: Accidental Mixtures of Goods and the Theory of Acquisition of Title

This paper explores the law of accidental mixtures of goods. It traces the development of the English rules on mixture from the seminal nineteenth century case of Spence v Union Marine Insurance Co to the present day, and compares their responses to those given by the Roman law, which always has been claimed as an influence on our jurisprudence in this area. It is argued that the different answers given by English and Roman law to essentially the same problems of title result from the differing bases of these legal systems. Roman a priori theory is contrasted with the more practical reasoning of the common law, and while both sets of rules are judged to be coherent on their own terms, it is suggested that the difference between them is reflective of a more general philosophical disagreement about the proper functioning of a legal system, and the relative importance of theoretical and pragmatic considerations.

The Effect of Human RIghts on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Convergence, Divergence or Realignment?

This article examines the contribution which the European Court of Human Rights has made to the development of common evidentiary processes across the common law and civil law systems of criminal procedure in Europe. It is argued that the continuing use of terms such as 'adversarial' and 'inquisitorial' to describe models of criminal proof and procedure has obscured the genuinely transformative nature of the Court's jurisprudence. It is shown that over a number of years the Court has been steadily developing a new model of proof that is better characterised as 'participatory' than as 'adversarial' or 'inquisitorial'. Instead of leading towards a convergence of existing 'adversarial' and 'inquisitorial' models of proof, this is more likely to lead towards a realignment of existing processes of proof which nonetheless allows plenty of scope for diverse application in different institutional and cultural settings.

Murder and the Ruthless Risk-Taker

The main focus of this article is the ways in which the problem of reckless murder is dealt with in the common law world. In a case of reckless murder it may not be possible to prove that the accused set out to kill or do serious injury; but the killing is nevertheless thought to merit classification as murder rather than manslaughter. This may be because the case is thought to be analytically indistinguishable from murder, or because the level of culpability demonstrated by the conduct in question is thought to deserve that stigma on other grounds. This article seeks, by reference to various common law systems, to analyse the different techniques used to classify the reckless killer as a murderer, and to compare their advantages and disadvantages in the light of the different rationales used to justify such a classification. The article concludes by arguing that the question whether reckless killers should be classified as murderers—and if so how—can only be decided by reference to broader conceptions of the nature of criminal culpability.

'Leaving Nothing to Chance'?: Joint Tenancies, The 'Right' of Survivorship and Unilateral Severance

The joint tenancy with its inherent right of survivorship is the most prevalent form of co-ownership in the common law world today. Most couples will be joint tenants of a family home, while relations (such as siblings) who purchase property together may opt for this arrangement. Inter vivos acquisitions aside, the huge intergenerational transfer of wealth within families on death can result in a joint tenancy, and it may also be a convenient estate planning device. The fact that property automatically vests in the surviving joint tenants on death is the reason why many people choose this form of co-ownership. However, there is one serious disadvantage. A joint tenancy is an inflexible form of landholding where relationships sour or family circumstances change over time, and co-owners want their respective `shares' of the property to pass to someone else on death. Where consensual severance is not possible, one joint tenant can sever unilaterally. The latter mechanism is vital in terms of giving effect to the wishes of the severing joint tenant, especially in situations of discord or a breakdown in relations with their fellow co-owners. However, unilateral severance also has serious implications for the non-severing joint tenant(s) who expected to inherit property through survivorship, and can impact significantly on ownership of the home and other family property. This article looks at unilateral severance as a means of subverting the right of survivorship. The focus is on personal and inter-family relationships, and the various legal issues and policy considerations associated with unilateral severance across the common law jurisdictions of Britain, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It assesses the various methods of effecting unilateral severance and proposes specific measures, as well as considering novel arguments for preventing unilateral severance based on contractual agreements to the contrary and proprietary estoppel.

New Technology and Researchers’ Access to Court and Tribunal Information: the need for European analysis

We discuss the limitations and rights which may affect the researcher’s access to and use of digital, court and administrative tribunal based information. We suggest that there is a need for a European-wide investigation of the legal framework which affects the researcher who might wish to utilise this form of information. A European-wide context is required because much of the relevant law is European rather than national, but much of the constraints are cultural. It is our thesis that research improves understanding and then improves practice as that understanding becomes part of public debate. If it is difficult to undertake research, then public debate about the court system – its effectiveness, its biases, its strengths – becomes constrained. Access to court records is currently determined on a discretionary basis or on the basis of interpretation of rules of the court where these are challenged in legal proceedings. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that there are significant variations in the extent to which court documents such as pleadings, transcripts, affidavits etc are made generally accessible under court rules or as a result of litigation in different jurisdictions or, indeed, in different courts in the same jurisdiction. Such a lack of clarity can only encourage a chilling of what might otherwise be valuable research. Courts are not, of course, democratic bodies. However, they are part of a democratic system and should, we suggest – both for the public benefit and for their proper operation – be accessible and criticisable by the independent researcher. The extent to which the independent researcher is enabled access is the subject of this article. The rights of access for researchers and the public have been examined in other common law countries but not, to date, in the UK or Europe.

Notes from Some Small Countries: A Study of the 'New Punitiveness' in Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand

In recent years there has been a remarkable surge of interest in the concept of punitiveness in theoretical criminology. Accounts serve to emphasise rupture over continuity, drawing attention to the increased focus on managerialism, risk and expressive penal policies in countries such as England and the US. Criticisms of these accounts have drawn attention to the weak empirical base for such assertions and the continued relevance of local cultural, historical and political conditions in mediating the effect of more punitive trends. In light of the relative neglect of smaller jurisdictions in this literature it was decided to locate these debates in three small common law jurisdictions, namely, Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand over the period 1976-2006 with a view to assessing the empirical evidence for penal change. This was done using a broader definition of punitiveness than normally employed incorporating indices relating to the ‘front end’ (eg police powers) as well as the ‘back end’ (eg prison and probation) of the criminal justice system. Data were collected on the three case studies using a multi-method approach involving examination of extensive quantitative data, interviews with key criminal justice stakeholders and documentary analysis. The data provide some support for the ‘new punitiveness’ thesis in these countries through a pattern of increased legislative activity aimed at controlling violent and sexual offenders and significant increases in the lengths of sentences imposed. However, analysis of qualitative data and a larger number of variables reveals distinctly different patterns of punitiveness over the thirty year period in the three countries. It is argued that the study holds important lessons for comparative criminology into the ‘new punitiveness’. There is a need for qualitative as well as quantitative data; for multiple rather than singular indices across a wide range of areas (juvenile justice, prison conditions, etc); and for ‘front end’ as well as ‘back end’ indices.

Taking as Giving, Appropriation as Access: Transfers of Land Development Rights and China’s Recent Experiments

Economic development at both the domestic and global levels is associated with increasing tensions which are inextricably linked to the meaning and allocation of property rights, which has a great impact on appropriation of resources and may lead to different paths of development. “Taking”-- the appropriation of private land for public needs -- is a typical example that exhibits those tensions, posing a challenge to the conventional conception of property as individualistic and exclusive rights of possession, use, and disposition and to the associated neoliberal model of development. Should the individual landowner be left to bear the cost of a regulatory intervention which endures to the wider benefit of the whole community? How to mitigate the tensions between private ownership and public regulation? If we take the liberal concept of property, then private property seems to be in constant conflict with public interests and wider social concerns. Meanwhile, community, situating between the state and the individuals, and community’s relationship to development rights, have not provoked enough discussion. The paper explores the different ways land development rights might be seen both in Western, essentially common law systems, and in China, especially now and in view of two case studies. An empirical example in Wugang, China reveals the importance of integrating the “community lens” proposed by Roger Cotterrell into studies of the transfer of land development rights. Reading through the community lens, taking could be giving and appropriation could also be access. This approach provides a new perspective to re-evaluate the relationship between legal appropriation and development.

The Right to a Fair Fight: Sporting Lessons on Consensual Harm

This article critically assesses the criminal law on consensual harm through an examination of the legality of fighting sports. The article begins by considering fighting sports such as bare-fisted prize fighting (dominant in the nineteenth century). It then, in historical chronology, examines the legality of professional boxing with gloves (dominant in the twentieth century). Doctrinally, the article reviews why and how, in a position adopted by the leading common law jurisdictions, fighting sports benefit from an application of the “well-established” category-based exceptions to the usual bodily harm threshold of consent in the criminal law. Centrally, fighting sports and doctrinal law on offenses against the person are juxtaposed against the theoretical boundaries of consent in the criminal law to examine whether and where the limit of the “right to be hurt” might lie. In sum, this article uses fighting sports as a case study to assess whether the criminal law generally can or should accommodate the notion of a fair fight, sporting or otherwise, predicated on the consent of the participants to the point that the individuals involved might be said, pithily, to have extended an open invite to harm.

'All Good Things Must Come to an End': Terminating Co-Ownership Under the 'Old' Partition and Sale Rules

Despite its benefits, co-ownership of land creates problems where relations between the parties
have soured, or one person simply wants to extricate themselves from this arrangement. The
remedies of compulsory partition and sale allow one joint tenant or tenant in common to terminate
co-ownership against the wishes of the others, by seeking a court order to this effect. Throughout
parts of the common law world, this has be en based on nineteenth century English legislation namely
the Partition Act 1868, the key elements of which remain in force in Western Australia,
South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory. This article provides an up-to-date
analysis of the law on compulsory partition and sale as derived from the 1868 Act and analogous
provisions, drawing not only on Australian cases, but on frequently overlooked decisions from
courts in both parts of Ireland and in parts of Canada, as well as ‘old’ English judgments on the
1868 Act.

Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms in Ireland – Laissez faire approach?

This chapter examines the legal framework applicable to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ireland, bearing in mind the limited presence of GMOs. As a member of the European Union (EU), a specific, process-based regime applies regarding the authorisation and regulation of GMOs. This is intended to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection and also enable producer and consumer choice. This regime is highly harmonized, but allows some flexibility regarding its implementation and, soon, the potential to opt-out from cultivation in part or entirely. Although, Ireland has only legislated on the area to the extent and in the manner required by the EU, it may avail of the opt-out in future – understandable in light of the lack of any cultivation currently and the green image of Ireland.
Complementary horizontal legislation and common law principles, relevant to labelling and varying forms of liability, deal with most issues that might arise quite comprehensively. However, they are quite complicated, overlapping and untailored and it is worth considering whether specific legislation should be developed to deal with liability related to GMOs.
Overall, Ireland holds varying stances to different forms of GMOs, with the greatest acceptance and use of GM-feed for pragmatic reasons. It has not developed a specific Irish approach, copy-pasting EU legislation and relying upon existing law to deal with any issues. This is understandable in light of the high level of harmonization and limited presence of GMOs in Ireland, but nonetheless will need to be developed as the availability of GMOs increases.