Whose land was it anyway? The Crichel Down Rules and the sale of public land

The guiding principle of compulsory purchase of interests in land in England and Wales is that of fairness, best stated in the words of Lord Justice Scott in Horn v Sunderland Corporation when he said that the owner has “the right to be put, so far as money can do it, in the same position as if his land had not been taken from him”. In many instances, land acquired by compulsion subsequently becomes surplus to the requirements of the acquiring authority. This may be because the intended development scheme was scrapped, or substantially modified, or that after the passage of time the use of the land for which the purchase took place is no longer required. More controversially it may be that for ‘operational reasons’ the acquiring authority knowingly purchased more land than was required for the scheme. Under these circumstances, the Crichel Down Rules (‘the Rules’) require government departments and other statutory bodies to offer back to the former owners or their successors, any land previously so acquired by, or under the threat of, compulsory purchase.

Extending the golden thread? Criminalisation and the presumption of innocence

It seems to be widely accepted that the presumption of innocence, and the attendant standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' properly apply in the courtroom as a procedural principle directly grounded in the moral imperative to avoid punishing those who should not be punished. In this article I argue that if this is correct, then we ought be as careful about what we criminalise, as we are about who we punish, since people can be wrongfully punished by criminalisation errors as well as by conviction errors.

The Spanish Ambassador and Samuel Daniel's Vision of the Twelve Goddesses: A New Document [with text]

The performance of Samuel Daniel's masque The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses at court on January 8, 1604 took place in the midst of the preliminary negotiations that would lead to the signing of the Anglo-Spanish peace at Somerset House the following August. Philip III sent a special ambassador to England to congratulate James on his accession, and a series of tussles between Juan de Tassis and his French counterpart ensued. As a recently-discovered document in the Archivo General de Simancas reveals, Anna of Denmark intervened personally to insure that de Tassis, and not the Frenchman, attended the masque. This was a clear signal of James and Anna's peace aims, which de Tassis conveyed to the King of Spain; moreover, he enclosed in his dispatch a text of Daniel's masque which he clearly considered both political intelligence and of interest to the theater-loving Hapsburg monarch. The Simancas text of the Daniel masque is a new version, hitherto unknown, which adds to our knowledge of the circumstances in which the first Stuart masque was performed. Here we present a transcription and annotated translation of both de Tassis' letter and the text of the masque he had compiled for Philip III. (B. C.-E. and M. H.)