Search

A number of human rights have come to play a material role in UK extradition law. An exception is that found in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 protecting the right to a fair trial. It plays only a partial and limited role. That role has experienced contrasting fortunes. Whilst the right has come to have a degree of applicability within the UK in extradition hearings its extraterritorial operation has been further restricted. This article analyses the limited role of the right to a fair trial in extradition and highlights that contrasting evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to flesh out the implications of seeing universal jurisdiction as a claim to authority. While the idea that jurisdiction is an exercise of authority may seem obvious, the article invites attention to the ‘claim’ inherent within it, particularly where the exercise of jurisdiction intrudes upon or displaces competing claims. Legal scholars and practitioners tend to focus on the legal source of authority to exercise universal jurisdiction. The consequence is a tendency to think in binary terms; a court either has jurisdiction, in which case the matter will proceed without further attention to the question of jurisdiction, or it does not, in which case the whole matter is at an end. Jurisdictional thinking invites attention to the need for those asserting such a claim to take responsibility for these claims to authority, encouraging responsiveness to the normative communities that such claims put into relation and the potential need to rethink conventional modes of operation. The article proceeds in two parts. Part 1 examines the deficiencies in the dominant ‘legal source’ narrative on universal jurisdiction. Part 2 assesses the value of understanding the legal-political dimension of universal jurisdiction as a claim to authority that must be understood, and justified, with attention to its purpose and the community (or communities) it is intended to serve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the scope of Great Britain's territorial criminal jurisdiction over cross-border bribery offences under the Great Britain's Bribery Act 2010. Topics include the scope of the territorial jurisdiction over bribery offences stated to be ambiguous since there is no authoritative guidance on how to determine whether a cross-border bribery offence is committed within or outside the Great Britain and comparison of the Bribery Act with the U.S. bribery law.

In this paper, to paraphrase Scheper-Hughes, we explore the contested legalities and illegalities of medical tourism. Increasingly, individuals are travelling outside of their home jurisdiction to access health services. This may be for a range of reasons: for speed, for cheapness or in some cases to bypass criminal restrictions at state level. This paper explores those who fall into the latter category and who travel to avoid statutory or regulatory prohibitions in relation to certain clinical procedures in England and Wales. In this paper, we consider the appropriate legal response to illicit transplant tourism. We examine the legitimacy of using extra-territorial jurisdiction to enforce the ban on the commercial trade in organs found in the Human Tissue Act 2004. We suggest that this, along with the recent Draft Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, provide an effective response to the transnational crime of illicit organ tourism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From ancient times, governments have prohibited bribery because of its negative implications in society and business transactions. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the work of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the United Nations Convention against Corruption have inspired the United Kingdom to revise its Bribery Act, expanding its extraterritorial provision to reach corporations with loose ties to the United Kingdom. However, the U.K. Bribery Act takes the extraterritorial arm of most bribery statutes and extends it to a harmful extreme; it may employ universal jurisdiction, an extraterritorial reach saved for the world's most egregious crimes. Even if Britain never uses the broad provision as the basis of universal jurisdiction, the Act creates a host of complex international issues including prosecuting attenuated cases. The U.K. should amend the Act to narrow its scope to match the extraterritorial reach that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and international conventions utilize and allow. The international community should work to prohibit bribery, but encourage each nation to do so on its own terms within its own cultural norms and appropriate boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented on the legal and constitutional issues arising from the U.S. Supreme Court case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in light of the developments on the law in Great Britain and Europe. It offers a brief overview of counter-terrorism law in Great Britain as well as analyzes the role of criminal law in the fight of the region against terrorism. The aspects of Great Britain and European counter-terrorism law are explored.

This study presents the mid-twentieth-century English lord of appeal, Lord Wright, as an innovative traditionalist judge. Judges have a duty to be creative, Wright believed, but only within the framework of existing legal authority. Wright explained his innovative traditionalist perspective in relation to precedent, public policy, and legislation, and he illustrated his perspective particularly by way of contributions to decisions on worker compensation, commercial contracts, restitution, and international criminal law. He was not always a bold judge, as is especially evident from his contribution to Liversidge v. Anderson. But his efforts to develop the law without undermining established precedents and statutory authority could be subtly effective. In contract and tort decisions, he consistently argued that personal liability should attach only to outcomes that could reasonably have been expected to come about. He was realistic, and believed courts must be realistic, about the tendency of the business world to be guided primarily by its own norms. He incisively criticized implied contract theory and advanced a conception of unjust enrichment that, in England, was considerably ahead of its time. In employment law, he added a twist to freedom-of-contract reasoning, arguing that if it is permissible for individuals to use their economic advantage to impose contractual terms on weaker parties, then it should also be permissible for those parties to combine and gain the upper hand. After World War II, he argued that the positive laws necessary for punishing war criminals already existed. This study draws these arguments together in an effort to capture Wright's judicial style and to show that some of his contributions to legal thought and doctrine run deep and are historically significant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on an update of the criminal justice bill in Great Britain. Use of live links in criminal proceedings; Right of appeal to prosecuting authorities; Possibility of a retrial after acquittal for certain offenses.

Focuses on the consistency of jurisdictional immunities and judicial self-restraint with the notion of international criminal law in Great Britain. Relationship between human rights and jurisdictional immunity laws; Account of the case against General Augusto Pinochet Duarte on acts of torture; Application of jurisdictional immunities to foreign heads of state.

The article discusses the extra territorial criminal jurisdiction in British Canada. When the Treaty of Paris, 1783, the Definitive Treaty between Great Britain and the revolting American colonies, divided the territory on the continent of North America, theretofore British, between the mother country and the new republic, there was doubt as to the boundary of some points. The parallel of 45 north latitude was the boundary from the Connecticut River west to the River St. Lawrence. And that west from that point the middle line of the Great lakes and connecting rivers was to be taken. Great Britain was in possession of territory south of the nth parallel and of the territory to the right of the Great Lakes and connecting rivers,

The article comments on the mistake made by a magistrates' court in declining jurisdiction for a claimant below 18 years old who was charged with a single offence of dwelling-house burglary in Great Britain. It cites that the judicial powers stated in the section 25(5)-(7) of the Magistrate's Courts Act 1980 are designed to allow the efficient correction of errors in relation to mode of trial.