The doctrine of necessity and the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment: Is there any justification?

In Australia, the legal basis for the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment is ad hoc and unclear. There is no comprehensive legal framework that authorises and regulates the detention of, for example, older people with dementia in locked wards or in residential aged care, people with disability in residential services or people with acquired brain injury in hospital and rehabilitation services. This paper focuses on whether the common law doctrine of necessity (or its statutory equivalents) should have a role in permitting the detention and restraint of people with disabilities. Traditionally, the defence of necessity has been recognised as an excuse, where the defendant, faced by a situation of imminent peril, is excused from the criminal or civil liability because of the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. In the United Kingdom, however, in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) and R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L, the House of Lords broadened the defence so that it operated as a justification for treatment, detention and restraint outside of the emergency context. This paper outlines the distinction between necessity as an excuse and as a defence, and identifies a number of concerns with the latter formulation: problems of democracy, integrity, obedience, objectivity and safeguards. Australian courts are urged to reject the United Kingdom approach and retain an excuse-based defence, as the risks of permitting the essentially utilitarian model of necessity as a justification are too great.

Putting a Price on Prisoner Release: The History of Bail and the Future of Parole

In this article, we argue that the history of bail foretells the future of parole. Under a plancalled the Conditional Post-Conviction Release Bond Act (recently passed into law inthree states), US prisoners can secure early release only after posting ‘post-convictionbail’. As with pre-trial bail, the fledgling model would require prisoners to pay a percent-age of the bail amount to secure their release under the contractual responsibility of acommercial bail agency. If release conditions are breached, bounty hunters are legallyempowered to seize and return the parolee to prison. Our inquiry outlines the origins of this post-conviction bond plan and the research upon which it is based. Drawing on the‘new penology’ framework, we identify several underlying factors that make for a ripeadvocacy environment and set the stage for widespread state-level adoption of this planin the near future. Post-conviction bail fits squarely within the growing policy trendstoward privatization, managerialism, and actuarial justice. Most importantly, though,advocates have the benefit of precedent on their side, as most US states have longrelied on a system of commercial bail bonding and private bounty hunting to manageconditional pretrial release.

International Coordination in Cross-Border Bank Bail-ins: Problems and Prospects

Bail-in is quickly becoming a predominant approach to banking resolution. The EU Bank Recovery Resolution Directive and the US Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s single point of entry strategy envisage creditors’ recapitalisations
to resolve a failing financial institution. However, this legislation focuses on the domestic aspects of bail-in, leaving the question of how it is applied
to a cross-border banking group open. Cross-border banking resolution has been historically subject to coordination failures, which have resulted in disorderly resolutions with dangerous systemic effects. The goal of this article is to assess whether bail-in is subject to the same coordination problems that affect other resolution tools, and to discuss the logic of international legal cooperation in bail-in policies. We demonstrate that, in spite of the evident benefit in terms of fiscal sustainability, bail-in suffers from complex coordination problems which, if not addressed, might lead to regulatory arbitrage and lengthy court battles, and, ultimately, may disrupt resolutions. We argue that only a binding legal regime can address those problems. In doing so, we discuss the recent Financial Stability
Board’s proposal on cross-border recognition of resolution action, and the role of international law in promoting cooperation in banking resolution.

Is the Lunatic Detention Act of 1917 appropriate for modern Gambia?

RESUMO: OS distúrbios mentais, neurológicos e devidos ao abuso de substâncias tem uma grande prevalência e peso em todo o Mundo. O objetivo principal deste estudo é contribuir para a melhoria dos direitos humanos das pessoas com deficiências mentais na Gâmbia, através de uma revisão e análise críticas de uma obsoleta legislação de saúde mental do País o "Lunatic Act Detention (LDA) de 1917".----- ABSTRACT: Mental, neurological, and substance use disorders are highly prevalente and burdensome worlwide. The violations of human rights directed towards people with this disorders compound the problam. This study mainly aims to contribute do the improvement of human rights of people with mental disabilities in Gambia by doing a critical review and analysis to the countries outdated mental health legislation - Lunatic Detention ct (LDA) from 1917.

Départements de MM. les fermiers généraux pour le Service des fermes royales unies pendant la première année du bail de Pierre Carlier

[Acte. 1726-08-24. Versailles]

Département de MM. les fermiers généraux pour le service des fermes royales unies pendant la 2e année du bail de Me Pierre Carlier

[Acte. 1727-12-12. Paris]