DOCSLIB.ORG

Addressing the Legitimacy Deficit in the Canadian Administrative State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Addressing the Legitimacy Deficit in the Canadian Administrative State Procedural Fairness and Citizen Control: Addressing the Legitimacy Deficit in the Canadian Administrative State by Edward Clark A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Juridical Science Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Edward Clark 2017 Procedural Fairness and Citizen Control: Addressing the Legitimacy Deficit in the Canadian Administrative State Edward Clark Doctor of Juridical Science Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2017 Abstract The Canadian administrative state has changed significantly since the first half of the twentieth century, but legal scholarship has paid scant attention to how such changes might affect the administrative state’s legitimacy. This thesis argues that the traditional mechanisms for legitimating the increasingly complex and diffuse administrative state are no longer sufficient, particularly in the context of delegated law-making. It uses a republican model of legitimacy to argue for the necessity of citizen control over administrative decision-making. It is incumbent on Canadian administrative law to help provide this citizen control. A concern with legitimacy is consistent with the first principles of administrative law and judicial review, and the doctrine of procedural fairness is well placed to further the participatory vision of legitimacy the thesis employs. Further, the history of procedural fairness shows that legitimacy of decision-making has always been a core concern of the doctrine. However, more recent developments, including a fixation on adjudicative decision-making and the refusal to apply procedural fairness to delegated law-making, mean that Canadian administrative law does not sufficiently facilitate citizen control. This ii is inconsistent with both the internal values of Canadian administrative law and the civic republican vision of legitimacy. There is, however, a separate line of bylaws jurisprudence which more generously extends procedural fairness to delegated law-making. The thesis argues this bylaws jurisprudence is a good starting point to build from. The experience of comparative administrative law makes it even clearer that Canadian administrative law is able to do this legitimating work. The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia all provide broader participation rights in the law-making sphere with weaker tools than are available in Canada. Further, the domestic aboriginal law duty to consult and accommodate make it clear that the Canadian courts are already comfortable imposing broadly applicable procedural rights. Building from this comparative and cognate jurisprudence and the bylaws cases mentioned above, the thesis argues that it is possible with only limited substantive changes to the law to develop the doctrine of procedural fairness to provide broad participatory rights in the delegated law-making sphere, thereby securing the legitimacy of the administrative state. iii Acknowledgements At one level, writing a doctoral thesis is an intensely solitary experience. At another, there is no way I would have completed this endeavour without the support and assistance of many other people. Thanks are due first of all to the members of my supervisory committee, Jennifer Nedelsky and Andrew Green, whose comments (from very different perspectives) made this thesis a better piece of work, and in particular my supervisor, David Dyzenhaus. David’s remarkable responsiveness and insightful engagement with my ideas were crucial in refining what this thesis was about and immeasurably strengthening the robustness of its reasoning. It is through his influence that I discovered I was not, in fact, a lawyer masquerading as an academic but an academic who had spent some time as a lawyer. I am also grateful for the detailed written comments from my external examiner, Alistair Price, and the oral feedback from the rest of my defence committee, notably Richard Stacey. I have also benefitted enormously from discussions at various times with Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere, Dean Knight, and Claudia Geiringer. The administrative staff at the Faculty of Law were unfailingly helpful and supportive, throughout the doctoral process, and I am grateful in particular for the assistance above and beyond the call of duty I have received from Mariana Mota Prado, Whittney Ambeault, and Tracey Gamiero. Similarly, my doctoral colleagues at the University of Toronto were a great source of support and community over the last seven years, so thanks to all of you, but particularly Stuart, Jacob, Mike, Gail, and Ubaka for being important sounding boards at various times throughout this process. Closer to home, the consistent support from my colleagues at the Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law, particularly my “corridor mates” Bevan Marten and Estair Van Wagner, has been greatly appreciated. Finally, I would not have completed my doctorate without the encouragement of my family. My uncles, Robert Clark and the late Lloyd Hoppins, gave me material support iv when it was really needed. My parents, Alan Clark and Linda Tucker, have provided unending assistance, both practical and emotional, while my brother, Ben Clark, was always willing to share his experiences of life as a doctoral student when things got tough. Most importantly, this thesis is for my fiancé, Edward Yong. I would not have started this thesis without you, and I most certainly would not have finished it. v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 CHAPTER II LEGITIMACY AND PARTICIPATION ................................................................... 11 A THE BURDEN OF LEGITIMACY .......................................................................................................... 12 1 The Capacity to Interfere – or Impose Duties ............................................................................ 16 2 Non-Arbitrariness ....................................................................................................................... 19 3 Depth and Breadth of Domination .............................................................................................. 22 4 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 24 B DELEGATED LEGISLATION AND LEGITIMACY .................................................................................. 25 1 Legitimacy Cannot Be Transmitted ............................................................................................ 25 2 The Case for Participation in Delegated Law-Making ............................................................... 31 3 Summary .................................................................................................................................... 34 C THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AS A DIALOGIC SPACE....................................................................... 35 D CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER III PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LEGITIMACY .................................................. 41 A THE LAW MUST STEP IN .................................................................................................................. 42 B JUDICIAL REVIEW, PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS, AND LEGITIMACY ....................................................... 45 1 The Purpose of Judicial Review ................................................................................................. 46 a Red and green light theory ..................................................................................................... 47 b Administrative law seeks to promote both rights and legitimacy .......................................... 51 c Summary ................................................................................................................................ 56 2 Natural Justice and Legitimacy .................................................................................................. 56 a The history of natural justice ................................................................................................. 57 b The development of modern procedural fairness ................................................................... 62 C CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 69 CHAPTER IV PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS IN CANADA ................................................................ 71 A THE CANADIAN CONTEXT................................................................................................................ 72 B THE PROBLEM OF BATES V LORD HAILSHAM .................................................................................. 77 C THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS IN CANADA........................................................... 78 D AN INCONSISTENT DOCTRINE .......................................................................................................... 86 1 An Adjudicatory Fixation ........................................................................................................... 87 2 The Problem of Inuit Tapirisat ................................................................................................... 91 a The legislative powers argument ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Capitalisation of Business Rates: an Empirical Study of Tax Incidence in Six London Boroughs
    THE CAPITALISATION OF BUSINESS RATES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TAX INCIDENCE IN SIX LONDON BOROUGHS Nigel Mehdi Submitted for the Degree of PhD London School of Economics & Political Science 2003 1 UMI Number: U615607 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615607 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 SJbZlOl Z9 d SZZIH l Abstract THE CAPITALISATION OF BUSINESS RATES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF TAX INCIDENCE IN SIX LONDON BOROUGHS ABSTRACT This work is concerned with tax shifting and capitalisation of recurrent taxes on immovable property, known as business rates in the United Kingdom and payable by occupiers of business property. The empirical research seeks to identify to what extent business rates are transferred into rents and thus capitalised. If the tax is capitalised, then freehold owners will bear the burden of the tax. If not, the tax may be shifted in some other way, for example, reducing the occupiers’ profits or increasing the prices charged to customers. The extent of any tax shifting will be affected by the value of any benefits received by the occupier in exchange for the tax paid.
    [Show full text]
  • Charities Act 1993
    Charities Act 1993 1993 CHAPTER 10 An Act to consolidate the Charitable Trustees Incorporation Act 1872 and, except for certain spent or transitional provisions, the Charities Act 1960 and Part I of the Charities Act 1992. [27th May 1993] Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART I THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS AND THE OFFICIAL CUSTODIAN FOR CHARITIES 1 The Charity Commissioners (1)There shall continue to be a body of Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, and they shall have such functions as are conferred on them by this Act in addition to any functions under any other enactment for the time being in force. (2)The provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution and proceedings of the Commissioners and other matters relating to the Commissioners and their officers and employees. (3)The Commissioners shall (without prejudice to their specific powers and duties under other enactments) have the general function of promoting the effective use of charitable resources by encouraging the development of better methods of administration, by giving charity trustees information or advice on any matter affecting the charity and by investigating and checking abuses. (4)It shall be the general object of the Commissioners so to act in the case of any charity (unless it is a matter of altering its purposes) as best to promote and make effective the work of the charity in meeting the needs designated by its trusts; but the Commissioners shall not themselves have power to act in the administration of a charity.
    [Show full text]
  • Ultra Vires Rule: Its Substance and Significance 17 A
    Public Law within Government Sustaining the Art of the Possible T.P.B. Rattenbury 9780230_553026_01_prexii.pdf 1/17/08 11:39 AM Page i Public Law within Government This page intentionally left blank 9780230_553026_01_prexii.pdf 1/17/08 11:39 AM Page iii Public Law within Government Sustaining the Art of the Possible T. P. B. Rattenbury 9780230_553026_01_prexii.pdf 1/17/08 11:39 AM Page iv © Timothy Rattenbury 2008 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2008 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Devolution of Government in Sri Lanka:Legal Aspects of the Relationship Between Central and Local Government an Historical A
    THE DEVOLUTION OF GOVERNMENT IN SRI LANKA:LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AN HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE STUDY A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON AS AN INTERNAL STUDENT OF THE SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. SHIRANI ANSHUMALA BANDARANAYAKE JANUARY 1986 ProQuest Number: 11010518 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 11010518 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Abstract In the context of recently accentuated communal divisions in Sri Lanka,the thesis seeks to examine how far present schemes for the decentralisation of Government provide for a degree of local autonomy which may be sufficient to accomodate divisive and S£C.£.£>£ionist tendencies. The question is approached through an analysis of the legal elements In the relationships between the central and local government authorities,traced through the historical evolution of the law from ancient times and specially from the early colonial period. The thesis contains eleven Chapters including a general introduction and a conclusion and is divided into three parts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of Spending Cuts in Local Government: a Case Study of Four English Local Authorities, 1984/85
    IHE ACADEMIC REGISTRAR Room 15 UMVE3SI7Y OF LONDON SENATE HOUSE MALtT STREET LONDON VVC1E 7HU .*■ ^ THE MAKING OF SPENDING CUTS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT: A CASE STUDY OF FOUR ENGLISH LOCAL AUTHORITIES, 1984/85 A thesis submitted for the PhD examination (London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London) Stephen Cope May 1994 UMI Number: U062742 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U062742 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 T i-V^S £ S F ^ j ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge my deep gratitude to Professor George Jones of the London School of Economics and Political Science for his constant flood of advice and generous stream of support he gave me while preparing for and writing this thesis. Also, I would like to thank the many councillors and officers of Bedfordshire County Council, Kent County Council, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, and others, for their kind cooperation in undertaking the research - please see the list of those interviewed in appendix A.
    [Show full text]
  • A Shared Ambition for the Future of Local Government Final Report
    Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government Final Report March 2007 Sir Michael Lyons Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government Final Report Sir Michael Lyons March 2007 London: The Stationery Office £50.00 © Crown copyright 2007 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Coat of Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be sent to: Office of Public Sector Information Information Policy Team St Clements House 2-16 Colegate Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 e-mail: [email protected] Lyons Inquiry contacts This document can be found on the Lyons Inquiry website at: www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk The Lyons Inquiry website will be transferred at a later date to the National Archives website at: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk Printed on at least 75% recycled paper. When you have finished with it please recycle it again. ISBN: 978-0-11-989854-5 PU041 Printed by The Stationery Office 03/07 361408 Thanks go to Chelmsford Borough Council, Nottingham City Council, Southampton City Council, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Trafford Council for supplying some of the images used on the cover of this document. Preface From the beginning of this Inquiry in the autumn of 2004, I have taken the view that questions about local government taxation and the funding of local services are not simply matters for technical analysis, but need instead to be considered in a wider context.
    [Show full text]
  • Transport Act 1968
    Status: Point in time view as at 05/04/1994. This version of this Act contains provisions that are not valid for this point in time. Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Transport Act 1968. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) Transport Act 1968 1968 CHAPTER 73 An Act to make further provision with respect to transport and related matters. [25th October 1968] Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Power to amend and repeal conferred by Transport (Scotland) Act 1989 (c. 23, SIF 126), s. 14(3)(d) C2 Act excluded by Transport Act 1981 (c. 56, SIF 126), Sch. 4 Pt. I para. 2(1)(3) C3 Provisions of the Act requiring transport managers for operating centres for authorised vehicles under goods vehicle operator's licences repealed (E.W.) by Transport Act 1982 (c. 49, SIF 126), Sch. 5 para. 6 C4 This Act is not necessarily in the form in which it has effect in Northern Ireland C5 Act modified (1.6.1993) by S.I. 1993/1119, regs. 3, 4(1), Sch. 1 (as amended (2.7.2012) by S.I. 2012/1659, Sch. 3 para. 32(3) (with arts. 4-6)) Act modified (1.6.1993) by S.I. 1993/1119, regs. 3, 4(2), Sch. 2 Act: power to apply conferred (S.) (4.1.1995) by 1994 c. 39, s. 40, Sch. 5 Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles the Party Politics Of
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Party Politics of Political Decentralization A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Kathryn Tanya Wainfan 2018 c Copyright by Kathryn Tanya Wainfan 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Party Politics of Political Decentralization by Kathryn Tanya Wainfan Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Michael F. Thies, Chair In this dissertation, I ask why certain types of parties would agree to support creating or empowering sub-national governments. In particular, I focus on nationalized parties { those that gain support from throughout a country. Political decentralization can negatively impact nationalized parties in at least two ways. First, it reduces the amount of power a party can enjoy should it win control of the national-level government. Second, previous studies show that political decentralization can increase party denationalization, meaning regional parties gain more support, even during national-level elections. I argue that nationalized parties may support decentralization when doing so reduces the ideological conflicts over national-level policy among voters whose support they seek. By altering political institutions, a party may be able to accommodate differing policy prefer- ences in different parts of the country, or limit the damage to the party's electoral fortunes such differences could create. I primarily focus on the case of Scottish devolution in the United Kingdom, tracing the evolution of the British Labour Party's attitudes towards the issue. I argue that devolution became an integral part of the New Labour platform because it allowed the party to moderate its economic policies to cater to English preferences without losing Scottish votes to the Scottish National Party.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradox of Localism Exploring Rhetoric and Reform Promoting the Devolution of Power, from 1964 to 2017
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo The Paradox of Localism Exploring rhetoric and reform promoting the devolution of power, from 1964 to 2017 Sophia Ulrika Peacock Newnham College April 2019 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Declaration This dissertation is submitted according to the requirements of the Degree Committee of Land Economy. It does not exceed the regulation length of 80,000 words including footnotes, references and appendices.1 It is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as specified in the text. 1 Excluding the additional corrections as stipulated in the examiners’ report. 2 Summary Full name: Sophia Ulrika Peacock Thesis title: The Paradox of Localism – Exploring rhetoric and reform promoting the devolution of power, from 1964 to 2017 The Localism Act 2011 is one of many reforms over the past few decades aimed at English local government and its service delivery areas, with the expressed aim to empower citizens and oversee democratic renewal.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Place-Shaping: a Shared Ambition for the Future of Local
    Lyons Inquiry into Local Government Lyons Final Report Final Sir Michael Lyons Michael Sir Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government Final Report March 2007 March March 2007 Sir Michael Lyons Place-shaping: a shared ambition for the future of local government Final Report Sir Michael Lyons March 2007 London: The Stationery Office £50.00 © Crown copyright 2007 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Coat of Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be sent to: Office of Public Sector Information Information Policy Team St Clements House 2-16 Colegate Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 e-mail: [email protected] Lyons Inquiry contacts This document can be found on the Lyons Inquiry website at: www.lyonsinquiry.org.uk The Lyons Inquiry website will be transferred at a later date to the National Archives website at: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk Printed on at least 75% recycled paper. When you have finished with it please recycle it again. ISBN: 978-0-11-989854-5 PU041 Printed by The Stationery Office 03/07 361408 Thanks go to Chelmsford Borough Council, Nottingham City Council, Southampton City Council, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Trafford Council for supplying some of the images used on the cover of this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government and Communities Committee
    Local Government and Communities Committee Wednesday 21 September 2016 Session 5 © Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Information on the Scottish Parliament’s copyright policy can be found on the website - www.parliament.scot or by contacting Public Information on 0131 348 5000 Wednesday 21 September 2016 CONTENTS Col. SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION............................................................................................................................... 1 Council Tax (Substitution of Proportion) (Scotland) Order 2016 [Draft] ....................................................... 1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE 5th Meeting 2016, Session 5 CONVENER *Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) DEPUTY CONVENER *Elaine Smith (Central Scotland) (Lab) COMMITTEE MEMBERS *Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP) *Ruth Maguire (Cunninghame South) (SNP) *Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con) *Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) *Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green) *attended THE FOLLOWING ALSO PARTICIPATED: Professor David Bell (University of Stirling) Professor Kenneth Gibb (University of Glasgow) Joan Hewton (Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation) Professor Richard Kerley (Queen Margaret University) David Melhuish (Scottish Property Federation) Don Peebles (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Scotland) Les Robertson (Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation) David Thomson (Scottish Assessors Association) CLERK TO THE COMMITTEE Jane Williams LOCATION
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Repeals: Eighteenth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill
    The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 308) (SCOT LAW COM No 210) STATUTE LAW REPEALS: EIGHTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to the Parliament of the United Kingdom by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers January 2008 Cm 7303 SG/2008/4 £xx.xx The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman Mr Stuart Bridge Mr David Hertzell Professor Jeremy Horder Mr Kenneth Parker QC The interim Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Mr William Arnold.1 The Law Commission is located at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Drummond Young, Chairman Professor George L Gretton Professor Gerard Maher QC Professor Joseph M Thomson Mr Colin J Tyre QC The Chief Executive of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr Michael Lugton. The Scottish Law Commission is located at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh, EH9 1PR. The terms of this report were agreed on 3 December 2007 The text of this report is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk 1 At the date the report was signed, Steve Humphreys was Chief Executive of the Law Commission. William Arnold was appointed interim Chief Executive with effect from 7 January 2008.
    [Show full text]