The Double Life of Duke of Somerset v Cookson, or a Legal Excavation of the Corbridge Lanx

Duke of Somerset v Cookson (1735) occupies an important place in English legal history as a leading authority for Chancery jurisdiction to order specific delivery of movable property where an award of damages would be inadequate. The property at issue was the Corbridge lanx, now in the British Museum, but then claimed as treasure trove by the duke of Somerset as lord of the manor of Corbridge. This paper re-examines Cookson as the first reported English decision relating to treasure trove, and uses later treasure trove claims by the duke of Somerset's successors to the manor of Corbridge, the dukes of Northumberland, to shed fresh light on the 1735 decision and on the development of treasure trove practice from the eighteenth century onwards.

Transitional justice, demobilization, and peacebuilding amid political violence: Examining individual preferences in the Caribbean coast of Colombia

The conventional wisdom in the transitional justice literature is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. This article suggests that this may also be true within a given state. The current paper reports on quantitative and qualitative data from 184 participants in a survey conducted in the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Results suggest widespread support for transitional justice mechanisms – such as perpetrator accountability, public acknowledgement and structural change – but dissatisfaction with national-level initiatives, specifically the 2005 Justice and Peace Law. Yet, despite a distrust of the national government and protracted conflict, individuals report social trust, community cohesion and reliance on local government institutions. These attitudes and behaviours suggest that decentralised transitional justice mechanisms may be more effective in meeting victims' needs. Moreover, analyses indicate that individual preferences are influenced by community factors, such as the presence of demobilised paramilitaries, which can be addressed through more localised approaches to promote peacebuilding. The paper concludes with best practices derived from the findings.

An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person’s wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past thirty years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.