The Human Rights Act 1998 – Future Prospects

It is now over fifteen years since the Human Rights Act was enacted in November 1998. Although in legal terms it is difficult to argue with the proposition that the Act is working in an effective manner, in political terms the Act remains one of the most highly debated pieces of legislation on the UK statute books. In recent years there have been numerous calls for the repeal of the Act, and for its replacement with a ‘UK Bill of Rights’. Such calls led to the establishment of a Commission on a Bill of Rights, which issued its final report in December 2012. Little progress has since been made on the issue. One notable occurrence however was the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill, a Private Member’s Bill which was eventually withdrawn in March 2013. This article seeks to assess the current situation regarding the bill of rights debate, and ultimately the question of the future prospects of the Human Rights Act, an issue of immense legal significance. Overall, it will be questioned whether the enactment of a UK Bill of Rights would constitute an improvement on the current position under the Human Rights Act.

After the Critique of Rights: For a Radical Democratic Theory and Practice of Human Rights

The critique of human rights has proliferated in critical legal thinking over recent years, making it clear that we can no longer uncritically approach human rights in their liberal form. In this article I assert that after the critique of rights one way human rights may be productively re-engaged in radical politics is by drawing from the radical democratic tradition. Radical democratic thought provides plausible resources to rework the shortcomings of liberal human rights, and allows human rights to be brought within the purview of a wider political project adopting a critical approach to current relations of power. Building upon previous re-engagements with rights using radical democratic thought, I return to the work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe to explore how human rights may be thought as an antagonistic hegemonic activity within a critical relation to power, a concept which is fundamentally futural, and may emerge as one site for work towards radical and plural democracy. I also assert, via Judith Butler's model of cultural translation, that a radical democratic practice of human rights may be advanced which resonates with and builds upon already existing activism, thereby holding possibilities to persuade those who remain sceptical as to radical re-engagements with rights.

Droit de la preuve appliqué au commerce électronique au Canada: droit civil / common law

Cet article traite des règles de preuve dans un contexte électronique, et souligne les différences et similitudes entre les systèmes retenus par les provinces de common law et de droit civil. Il présente certains principes généraux, ainsi qu’un bref survol du droit de la preuve face à l’avènement de l’immatériel. Il englobe une analyse des règles d’admissibilité de la preuve telles que la règle de la meilleure preuve, et l’exception au ouï-dire, ainsi que la force probante des documents électroniques. Il envisage, enfin une application pratique, soit la signature électronique.

Revolution blues: the reconstruction of Health and Safety as a ‘common-sense’ form of regulation

This paper provides a review of the last five years of policymaking in the area of health and safety law; this includes multiple reviews, legislative reform, and the reframing of rhetoric around the issue. It characterises this as a process of social construction of a new ‘universe of meaning’ around health and safety regulation, which provides a basis for a particular, narrow, neoliberal conception of regulation and responsibility to permeate the mainstream. Deliberative and public-facing policymaking processes have been utilised as a key element of this process.

Status of tailings dumps : let D5s go working in the past?

It was decided in the De Beers v Ataqua Mining (Pty) Ltd that ''tailings dumps'' created by mining companies before the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDA") came into operation are not governed by its provisions because such dumps are not "residue stockpiles" or "residue deposits" for purposes of the MPRDA. Ownership of tailings dumps is determined by the common law principles of accession. Ownership of a movable dump has to be transferred by one of the recognised forms of delivery of movables. Processing of these dumps will, however, still be subject to compliance with South African environmental, health and safety laws in general. It is submitted that mine dumps or tailings dumps created upon the exercise of "old order mining rights" before the commencement of the MPRDA and even after commencement of the MPRDA until eventual termination of the "old order mining rights" are not subject to the extensive, mining, environmental, empowerment provisions of the MPRDA. Termination of "old order mining rights" takes place upon: (i) refusal of an application for conversion of a mining right during (or even after) the period of transition, (ii) conversion into and registration of new order mining rights during (or even after) the period of transition or (iii) termination of unconverted "old order mining rights" on 30 April 2009. To the extent that this decision has made it possible to embark on a shorter and less cumbersome route in the reprocessing and eventual disappearance of most tailings dumps, it is to be welcomed from an economical, environmental, job creation and aesthetic perspective. Proposed amendments to the MPRDA to undo the impact of the De Beers decision should be carefully considered against these mentioned benefits and a possible finding that it may amount to an expropriation without compensation.

Extended supervision or civil commitment for managing the risk of sexual offenders : public safety and individual rights

Since the early 1990’s, there has been a proliferation of legislative initiatives in North America, the United Kingdom, and Australasia that are intended to improve public protection from high risk sexual offenders. These laws include extended supervision of sexual offenders once released from prison and indefinite involuntary civil commitment to secure treatment facilities following the expiration of a prison sentence. The enactment of these laws has sparked intense debate and numerous legal challenges on a variety of issues, including the need to strike a proper balance between public safety and the rights of individual offenders. Recent challenges to Extended Supervision Orders in New Zealand have included the assertion that this approach is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. This article compares the use of Extended Supervision Orders in New Zealand to the use of civil commitment of Sexually Violent Predators in the United States, and particularly in California, which currently confines the largest number of offenders under this type of commitment. It is argued that Extended Supervision is more flexible, less intrusive, less punitive, and less costly than civil commitment. The degree to which it is effective in improving public safety remains an empirical question.

Sacred rules, secular revelations : the conceptions of rights in pre-modern Europe

This paper is an attempt to reflect on the methodological approaches that I bring to ‘reading law’ in my current project on understandings of individual rights in the legal and theological texts of the twelfth- and early thirteenth-century Middle Ages, entitled ‘Sacred Rules, Secular Revelations: The Conceptions of Rights in Pre-Modern Europe’

Ignorance of the law as a defence to rape : the destruction of a maxim

In DPP v Morgan, the House of Lords correctly concluded that an accused who entertained a genuine belief that a woman was consenting to carnal knowledge of her person could not be convicted of the common law crime of rape as such a belief and the requisite mens rea to convict were mutually exclusive of one another. Though England and Wales have resiled from this position by virtue of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s. 1 (b), which allows for conviction upon proof that the accused did not reasonably believe that the complainant was consenting, the Morgan principle has retained its vitality at common law as well as under the various statutory crimes of rape that exist throughout Australia, most notably the provisions of s. 38 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Despite a long line of Victorian Court of Appeal decisions which have reaffirmed the Morgan principle, the court has construed s. 37AA(b)(ii) of the Act as leaving open the possibility of an acquittal despite the fact that the accused acted with an awareness that one or more factors that are statutorily deemed as negating consent under s. 36(a)-(g) of the Act were operating at the time of his or her sexual penetration; specifically, the court held that the foregoing factors do not necessarily preclude a jury from finding that the accused acted in the genuine belief that the complainant was consenting. This article endeavours to explain how the accused could be aware of such circumstances at the time of penetration, yet still entertain such a belief. The article ultimately concludes that such an anomaly can only be explained through a combination of the poor drafting of s. 37AA(b)(ii) and the court's apparent refusal to follow the longstanding precept that ignorance of the law is never a defence to a crime, ostensibly prompted by its adherence to the cardinal precept that legislation is not to be construed as superfluous.