DOCSLIB.ORG

Student Law Journal, Volume

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Student Law Journal, Volume GRAY’S INN STUDENT LAW JOURNAL VOLUME VII E DITED BY N ICHOLAS H ALL Association of Gray’s Inn Students LONDON · 2015 CONTENTS Foreword Counsel’s Advice to the Conservative Party on Putting into 1 Effect its Manifesto Commitment to Reform the Human Rights Act - Michael Beloff Essay Prize Winner Mark Greaves Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998: Requiring 13 Strasbourg to be the Floor and Ceiling of UK Human Rights Development Jemma Gordon To What Extent will the Immigration Bill (2013) Affect 27 UK’s Obligations Simon Cox Beaming Rights Home, Including Social Rights: 37 A Comment on Lord Kerr’s Dissenting Judgment in the Benefit Cap Case Christoph Futter Tackling Tax Evasion 43 Ebbe Rogge The US and UK’s Takeover Regimes 53 Constantinos Pashiardis The Extent of a Company’s General Meeting’s 67 Corporate Decision-Making Powers Kelvin Hong Who’s to Blame? A Call for Reform of Fault Based Divorce 75 Luke Tattersall Powers of Attorney: A Licence to Steal? 85 Charlie Greenwood Does the Law on Assisted Suicide Need Reforming? 91 Mary Brodie Individuals with Personality Disorders and the Law 103 Hannah Williams What is a House? 113 Nikolaos Michalakis Contract Law Under Duress 121 Rebecca Cross Reparations Regime: The Future of International Justice 127 or an Empty Promise? Mariya Peykova The Case for International Humanitarian Law to also 139 Apply to Internal/Non-International Armed Conflict Meredoc McMinn The Art of Article 5 151 Andrew Otchie A Critical Analysis of Biosecurity and Aviation Health 171 Borders in the UK Stephen Hill Woodland v Essex County Council 185 Samuel Parsons A Feminist Approach to Evans v UK 193 Malaeka Kazmi Should a More Generous Approach to the 207 Three Certainties be Applied? Naomi Dean Judicial Review 500 Years in the Making: 215 Richard III and the Burials Act 1857 Philippa Byrne What Causes Prison Suicide? A Sociological Exploration 223 Nicholas Hall FOREWORD Nicholas Hall It is a privilege to have been entrusted with the compilation of this volume of the Gray’s Inn Student Law journal, now in its sixth year. The response to the call for articles this year has been overwhelming, and I have endeavoured to accommodate as many submissions as possible. This edition bears witness to the diverse interests and specialisms of the student membership of the Inn, and editing the Journal has been an education in itself. I am most grateful to all those who contributed to the production of the Journal. Special thanks must go to the Education Department of Gray’s Inn and my peers of the AGIS Committee who have worked hard to maintain the inclusive ethos underpinning the Gray’s Inn Student Law Journal. A combined team effort continues to provide students each year with the prospect of engaging academically with the law, developing further an area of interest, and sharing their perspectives on topical legal issues. In addition, it is a unique opportunity offered by Gray’s Inn that enables those published to reference their work in legal applications and discuss it further in scholarship and pupillage interviews. It is my hope that as well as providing interesting and useful reading, this Journal might serve to attract future students to join the community that underlies this publication, and to get involved in the Committee responsible for arranging it. As with last year’s volume, this edition of the journal is available online from the Gray’s Inn website and in printed form. Finally, the real stars of this publication are the dozens of students who took the time to submit work for consideration. Their cooperation and patience is highly appreciated. Thank you all. G RAY’ S I NN S TUDENT L AW J OURNAL 11 COUNSEL'S ADVICE TO THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY ON PUTTING INTO EFFECT ITS MANIFESTO COMMITMENT TO REFORM THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT Mark Greaves I. Introduction The Conservatives’ proposal to reform the Human Rights Act is set out in a Paper entitled ‘Protecting human rights in the UK’. This advice will thus first summarise this paper in terms of the guiding principle, the three underlying aims of the reform and the nine key objectives designed to effect those aims. Secondly, each of those nine objectives will be considered in turn. Thirdly, the possibility of withdrawal from the ECHR will be considered, either as a temporary or permanent measure. Fourthly, finally, the essay will consider the problems of the devolution dimension. II. The Conservatives’ Paper summarised The guiding principle of the Conservatives’ reform to the way human rights laws works in Britain is ‘to restore common sense and put Britain first’. The three underlying aims of the reform are 1) to make the Supreme Court supreme in interpreting European Human Rights Convention (‘Convention’) rights; 2) to make Parliament supreme in legislating on Convention rights; 3) to ‘clarify’ those Convention rights themselves. The Conservatives propose nine key objectives to bring about these aims. The nine objectives are: 1) the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’); 2) the introduction of a new Bill of Rights that puts the text of the Convention into primary legislation; 3) a clarification of the Convention Rights; 4) breaking the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’); 5) ending the ability of the ECtHR to force the UK to change the law; 6) preventing UK laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’; G RAY’ S I NN S TUDENT L AW J OURNAL 22 7) limiting the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases; 8) limiting the reach of human rights cases to the UK; and 9) amending the Ministerial Code to remove ambiguity. III. The nine key objectives considered A. Repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 Parliament may do this, because Parliamentary Sovereignty means that it may do anything. However, as a constitutional statute, HRA may only be repealed impliedly, not expressly.1 This measure will not create any conflict with the ECtHR as it is a purely domestic matter. B. The introduction of a new Bill of Rights that puts the text of the Human Rights Convention into primary legislation This proposal makes reference to the ‘original document’ of the Convention and thus, taken at face value, suggests that the whole Convention as it stood in 1950, unamended by protocols, would be incorporated into UK law.2 It is submitted that, understood as such, this would be inadvisable for two reasons. Firstly, failure to incorporate the protocols would be likely to place the UK in breach of the Convention. Secondly, the incorporation of the additional Articles 1 and 13, which were deliberately left out of HRA, would seem to be inconsistent with the desire ‘not [to] introduce new basic rights through this reform’ and, as seen in objective 7 (which seeks to limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases), to reduce the number of human rights challenges brought against Parliament. It is therefore submitted that the Convention and protocols, less Articles 1 and 13, be put into primary legislation. If this is done, then there is unlikely to be conflict with ECtHR on this point. 1 Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2003] QB 151 (at 62-63, per Laws LJ) 2 ‘Protecting Human Rights in the UK’ (2014), p.5 G RAY’ S I NN S TUDENT L AW J OURNAL 33 C. A clarification of the Convention Rights Three illustrations of Convention Rights in need of clarification are given, each of which will be considered in turn. i. Alteration of the real risk test in deportation cases The Conservatives’ paper calls for a ‘clearer test’ than the ‘real risk’ test used in deportation cases, but does not explicitly state what the test will be. It is submitted that the desire underpinning the proposal is not merely a test that it is clearer, but one that also raises the threshold. This is submitted since a ‘real risk’ test is criticised as being ‘by no means even a likelihood’3 and one of the examples given under the heading ‘The Case for Change’ is the fact that ‘foreign nations who have committed very serious crimes in the United Kingdom…have been able to use the qualified rights in the Convention…to justify remaining in the UK.’4 It is assumed that this refers to cases such as Chahal v The United Kingdom and Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom, and, following from this, the desire of the Conservatives is to make it more difficult to have government action precluded or delayed on human rights grounds.5 It is submitted that a ‘likelihood’ test, as referred to in the paper, is neither clear nor necessarily raises the threshold. In R v Sheppard, Lord Diplock described the word ‘likely’ as ‘imprecise…capable of covering a whole range of possibilities from 'it's on the cards' to 'it's more probable than not’ and in that case held that it should be understood as ‘excluding only what would fairly be described as highly unlikely’.6 It is therefore submitted that if the Conservatives do wish to raise the threshold, the test could be altered to the ‘balance of probabilities’, as this is a clear test that is familiar to judges and applies ‘likely’ in what Lord Birkenhead described in Re H (Minors) as its ‘everyday usage…in the sense of more likely than not’.7 3 ‘Protecting Human Rights in the UK’, p.6 4 ‘Protecting human rights in the UK’, p.3 5 Chahal v The United Kingdom (2007) 23 EHRR 413; Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 56 6 R v Sheppard [1980] 3 All ER 899, at [405] 7 Re H (Minors) [1996] 1 AC 563, at [65] G RAY’ S I NN S TUDENT L AW J OURNAL 4 4 However, one reservation about this test must be mentioned.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Immigration, (2021)
    Right to respect for private and family life: immigration, (2021) Right to respect for private and family life: immigration Last date of review: 02 March 2021 Last update: General updating. Authored by Austen Morgan 33 Bedford Row Chambers Convention rights - from the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and given further effect by scheduling to the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) have applied incontrovertibly in domestic UK law since 2 October 2000. There was considerable discussion from 1997 about which rights would be litigated in future years, on the basis of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) at Strasbourg, in the three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom (UK): England and Wales; Scotland; and Northern Ireland. Some commentators anticipated that art.8 (the right to respect for private and family life) would be important, as the basis of a new domestic right to privacy. Few, if any, predicted that the family life aspect of art.8 would play a significant role in UK immigration law and practice; this regulates the entry (and possibly exit) of non-nationals, whether as visitors, students, workers, investors or residents. Overview of Topic 1. This article looks at legislative, executive and judicial attempts to limit such art.8 cases since 2000, a project led by successive Secretaries of State (SoS) for the Home Department, of whom there have been six Labour, one coalition Conservative and three Conservatives in the past 20 years. 2. It considers the following topics: the structure of art.8 in immigration cases; how the SoS might theoretically limit its effect in tribunals and courts; the failed attempt to do so through the Immigration Rules; the slightly more successful attempt to do so through statute; the mixed response of the senior judiciary; and future prospects.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPLANATORY NOTES Immigration Act 2014
    EXPLANATORY NOTES Immigration Act 2014 Chapter 22 £11.00 These notes refer to the Immigration Act 2014 (c. 22) which received Royal Assent on 14 May 2014 IMMIGRATION ACT —————————— EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. These explanatory notes relate to the Immigration Act which received Royal Assent on 14 May 2014. They have been prepared by the Home Office in order to assist the reader in understanding the Act. They do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament. 2. The notes need to be read in conjunction with the Act. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Act. So where a section or part of a section does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. 3. A glossary of abbreviations and terms used in these explanatory notes is contained in the annex to these notes. SUMMARY 4. This Act is in 7 parts. 5. Part 1 of the Act, and Schedules 1 and 2, contain powers to enable the removal of persons unlawfully in the United Kingdom (“the UK”), enforcement powers, restrictions on bail and additional powers to take biometric information. 6. Part 2 amends rights of appeal, limiting immigration appeals to circumstances where there has been a refusal of a human rights or asylum or humanitarian protection claim, or where refugee status or humanitarian protection has been revoked. It also provides a power for the Secretary of State to certify that to require an appellant who is liable to deportation to leave the UK before their appeal is determined would not cause serious irreversible harm, in which case the person may only appeal from outside the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • 17935A Certainties of Subject Matter of Trusts What China May Learn from English Trust Law (1).Pdf
    Canterbury Christ Church University’s repository of research outputs http://create.canterbury.ac.uk Please cite this publication as follows: Zhang, D. (2018) Certainty of subject matter: what China can learn from English trust law. Trusts and Trustees, 24 (10). pp. 1020-1030. ISSN 1363-1780. Link to official URL (if available): https://doi.org/10.1093/tandt/tty154 This version is made available in accordance with publishers’ policies. All material made available by CReaTE is protected by intellectual property law, including copyright law. Any use made of the contents should comply with the relevant law. Contact: [email protected] Certainty of subject matter: what China can learn from English trust law By Daoning Zhang* Abstract: China transplanted English trust law in 2001. This article examines the judgment of a recent case delivered by the Supreme Court of People’s Republic of China on the issue of the certainty of subject matter of trusts. It analyses the reasoning and judgment of the Court in the light of English trust law and considers what China may learn from the well-established English trust law principles and doctrines. 1. Introduction of Chines trust law Since last a few decades, trust law was widely used for commercial purposes, whereas traditional trusts were donative trusts. 1 China, as a new learner of trust law, directly enacted Chinese trust law for financial institutions to make investments. The history of the modern Chinese trust law can be traced back to 2001when the Trust Law of People’s Republic of China (TLoPRC) came into effect.2Since then, trusts had been used as a popular vehicle for collective investment purpose by financial institutions named as ‘trust companies’.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard of York Gives Battle Again
    Richard of York Gives Battle Again Andrew Hogan About 40 miles from here, in 1485, Richard III unwittingly brought the Middle Ages to an end by losing the Battle of Bosworth Field to the victorious Henry Tudor. The defeated king’s remains were taken to Leicester and lost. Found in 2013, the Divisional Court on 26th November 2013 will hear the substantive challenge brought in relation to their re-interment and location of the dead king’s final resting place. The challenge brought by the Plantagenet Alliance Limited has already generated some interesting ancillary litigation in the field of protective costs orders: on 15th August 2013 Mr Justice Haddon-Cave granted permission to bring judicial review and also made a protective costs order on the papers. On 26th September 2013 the court heard a number of applications, including one to vary or discharge the protective costs order. In a full and careful judgment given on 18th October 2013 the court handed down its reasoned judgment reported at [2013] EWHC 3164 (Admin). The Law Relating to Protective Costs Orders The learned judge began by restating the substantive law that prescribes when and in what circumstances the court will exercise its discretion to make a predictive costs order: 17. The general principles governing Protective Costs Ordered were restated by the Court of Appeal in R (Corner House) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2005] 1 WLR 2600 (CA) at [74] as follows (see also The White Book at paragraph 48.15.7): (1) A protective costs order may be made at any stage of
    [Show full text]
  • 6. the Immigration Act 2014 and the Right to Rent David Smith
    6. The Immigration Act 2014 and the Right to Rent David Smith INTRODUCTION The Right to Rent is a new concept created by the Immigration Act 2014. It is distinct from the right to work and the right to reside and is a slightly lower standard than both of these in that it is available to people who are not eco- nomically active and have no recourse to public funds or a right to work in the UK. The essential purpose of the system, as with much of the Immigration Act 2014, is the creation of the so-called hostile environment for illegal migrants originally flagged by Theresa May in a 2012 interview in the Telegraph given when she was Home Secretary (Kirkup & Winnett, 2012). More recently this has been recast as the ‘compliant environment’ with a set of rules that those who might potentially interact with migrants must follow (Travis, 2017). The original 2014 Act has been hardened further by amendments made in the Immigration Act 2016 which has created specific criminal offences relating to breaches of the right to rent and have substantially increased the powers to evict people who lack the right to rent. However, there are very serious problems with elements of the right to rent in terms of its effects on the rights of individual occupiers and how it will work in the parts of the UK in which substantial law-making powers have been devolved to local governments. APPLICATION OF THE RIGHT TO RENT The right to rent provisions apply to all ‘residential tenancy agreements’ but this is defined in a way that is somewhat contrary to that understood by most lawyers.
    [Show full text]
  • “No Passport Equals No Home”: an Independent Evaluation of the 'Right to Rent' Scheme
    “No Passport Equals No Home”: An independent evaluation of the ‘Right to Rent’ scheme 3 September 2015 Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) is an independent national charity that provides direct legal assistance to immigrants and campaigns for a human rights based approach to the formulation of asylum, immigration and nationality law. JCWI was founded in 1967. The Movement Against Xenophobia (MAX) is a coalition of civil society groups, faith groups, trade unions and individuals who have come together to oppose xenophobia and misinformation in the debate on immigration. MAX was launched in October 2013 and has grown rapidly since then. It now has 165 affiliated organisations. JCWI is the founding member and the secretariat for MAX. We would like to thank the following organisations and individuals who have contributed to the evaluation: Asylum Support and Immigration Resource Team (ASIRT) Barbara Cohen Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) Citizens UK Coventry Law Centre (Birmingham Branch) Discrimination Law Association (DLA) Generation Rent Hansen Palomares Immigration Law Practitioner’s Association (ILPA) Refugee and Migrant Centre (RMC) Wolverhampton Shelter Southwark Law Centre Sue Lukes The National Union of Students (NUS) The University of Sheffield and Sheffield Student’s Union UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA) We would also like to thank all organisations who shared and distributed the surveys and information about the independent evaluation. Authors of this report are: Saira Grant, Legal & Policy Director, JCWI Charlotte Peel, Policy Officer, JCWI Special thanks to Jenny Brown, an intern with JCWI, who has assisted with the research and writing of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Review in England and Wales: a Constructive Interpretation of the Role of the Administrative Court
    TITLE: JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ENGLAND AND WALES: A CONSTRUCTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Sarah Marie Nason University College London PHD 1 DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY ‘ I, Sarah Marie Nason confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Signed… ………………………….. Date…15 October 2014…………………………….. 2 ABSTRACT In this thesis I construct an interpretation of judicial review in England and Wales from the ground up based on an analysis of social practice in the Administrative Court. I argue that whilst judicial review provides a forum for debates about constitutional values and rights, and the inter-institutional balance of power between different branches of state, it is still primarily concerned with doing justice for individuals in relatively non-complex cases. Both in highly contested and technical claims with broader implications, and in cases turning largely on their own facts, justice is done by way of ordinary common law reasoning and specifically by assessing whether the initial decision-maker has taken relevant considerations (including moral considerations) into account, and excluded irrelevant considerations. My first central argument is that some existing interpretations of judicial review display a lack of appreciation of the social facts of litigation and legal practice, whilst others are based on significant misconceptions about these facts. My second central argument is against the scholarly tendency to over- emphasise the production and refinement of conceptual doctrinal tests at the expense of addressing the contested nature of the moral values at stake in the practice of judicial review as a whole and in individual cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Ricardian Bulletin March 2014 Text Layout 1
    the Ricardian Bulletin The magazine of the Richard III Society THE TOWTON CHAPEL HOW TO REBURY A MEDIEVAL KING RICHARD III’S SCOLIOSIS FOCUS ON THE BARTON LIBRARY March 2014 Advertisement the Ricardian Bulletin The magazine of the Richard III Society March 2014 Richard III Society Founded 1924 Contents www.richardiii.net 2 From the Chairman In the belief that many features of the tradi- 3 Reinterment news Annette Carson tional accounts of the character and career of 4 Members’ letters Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society 7 Society news and notices aims to promote in every possible way 12 Future Society events research into the life and times of Richard III, 14 Society reviews and to secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period and of the role in 16 Other news, reviews and events English history of this monarch. 18 Research news Patron 19 Richard III and the men who died in battle Lesley Boatwright, HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG, GCVO Moira Habberjam and Peter Hammond President 22 Looking for Richard – the follow-up Peter Hammond FSA 25 How to rebury a medieval king Alexandra Buckle Vice Presidents 37 The Man Himself: The scoliosis of Richard III Peter Stride, Haseeb John Audsley, Kitty Bristow, Moira Habberjam, Qureshi, Amin Masoumiganjgah and Clare Alexander Carolyn Hammond, Jonathan Hayes, Rob 39 Articles Smith. 39 The Third Plantagenet John Ashdown-Hill Executive Committee 40 William Hobbys Toni Mount Phil Stone (Chairman), Paul Foss, Melanie Hoskin, Gretel Jones, Marian Mitchell, Wendy 42 Not Richard de la Pole Frederick Hepburn Moorhen, Lynda Pidgeon, John Saunders, 44 Pudding Lane Productions Heather Falvey Anne Sutton, Richard Van Allen, 46 Some literary and historical approaches to Richard III with David Wells, Susan Wells, Geoffrey Wheeler, Stephen York references to Hungary Eva Burian 47 A series of remarkable ladies: 7.
    [Show full text]
  • The Court of Session Etc. Fees Order 2018
    SCOTTISH STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2018 No. 83 COURT OF SESSION The Court of Session etc. Fees Order 2018 Made - - - - 23rd February 2018 Laid before the Scottish Parliament 27th February 2018 Coming into force in accordance with article 1 The Scottish Ministers make the following Order in exercise of the powers conferred by section 107(1) and (2) of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014(a) and all other powers enabling them to do so. Citation, commencement and effect 1. —(1) This Order may be cited as the Court of Session etc. Fees Order 2018 and, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), comes into force on 25th April 2018. (2) Article 3(2)(b) and schedule 2 come into force, and article 3(2)(a) and schedule 1 cease to have effect, on 1st April 2019. (3) Article 3(2)(c) and schedule 3 come into force, and article 3(2)(b) and schedule 2 cease to have effect, on 1st April 2020. Interpretation 2. —(1) In this Order— “Office of Court” has the same meaning as in Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Court; “partner” means a person to whom a person is married, or with whom the person is in a civil partnership; “Rules of Court” mean the Rules of the Court of Session 1994( b); “Table of Fees” means the Table of Fees in schedule 1, 2 or 3 of this Order. (2) For the purposes of any reference in this Order to a party— (a) except in relation to a special case, a set of persons with the same interest, for whom one and the same first paper is or has been lodged, is to be treated as a single party; and (b) in relation to a special case, each person or set of persons who appear as one of the separate parties to the case is to be treated as a party.
    [Show full text]
  • Queen's Or Prince's Consent
    QUEEN’S OR PRINCE’S CONSENT This pamphlet is intended for members of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Unless otherwise stated: • references to Erskine May are to the 24th edition (2011), • references to the Companion to the Standing Orders are to the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to Proceedings of the House of Lords (25th edition, 2017), • references to the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation are to the version of July 2017. Office of the Parliamentary Counsel September 2018 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2 QUEEN’S CONSENT Introduction. 2 The prerogative. 2 Hereditary revenues, the Duchies and personal property and interests . 4 Exceptions and examples . 6 CHAPTER 3 PRINCE’S CONSENT Introduction. 7 The Duchy of Cornwall . 7 The Prince and Steward of Scotland . 8 Prince’s consent in other circumstances . 8 Exceptions and examples . 8 CHAPTER 4 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS The remoteness/de minimis tests . 10 Original consent sufficient for later provisions . 10 No adverse effect on the Crown. 11 CHAPTER 5 THE SIGNIFICATION OF CONSENT Signification following amendments to a bill. 13 Re-signification for identical bill . 14 The manner of signification . 14 The form of signification . 15 CHAPTER 6 PRACTICAL STEPS Obtaining consent. 17 Informing the Whips . 17 Writing to the House authorities . 17 Private Members’ Bills. 17 Informing the Palace of further developments . 18 Other. 18 CHAPTER 7 MISCELLANEOUS Draft bills . 19 Consent not obtained . 19 Inadvertent failure to signify consent . 19 Consent in the absence of the Queen. 20 Consent before introduction of a bill . 20 Queen’s speech . 20 Royal Assent .
    [Show full text]
  • Information Pack 5: Richard III and the Judicial Review, 13Th and 14Th March 2014
    Information Pack 5: Richard III and the Judicial Review, 13th and 14th March 2014 During 2013 and 2014 the decision to rebury the remains of Richard III in Leicester Cathedral also faced a legal challenge when the Plantagenet Alliance, a group of Richard’s collateral descendants, pursued a judicial review of the conditions of the exhumation licence awarded to the University of Leicester Archaeological Services, who had excavated the Greyfriars site and who had agreed that Leicester Cathedral would be the appropriate location to reinter the former monarch. The Plantagenet Alliance’s Case On 4th February 2013, six months after the remains had been extracted from the Greyfriars dig site, they were finally confirmed as belonging to Richard III through a DNA match with two female-line descendants of his sister, Anne of York (d. 1476). The discovery sparked national and international interest, and added fuel to the debates about where the former monarch should be buried. The Ministry of Justice, however, was keen to point out that as the University of Leicester Archaeological Services was the legal holder of the exhumation licence, and that therefore as the legal custodian of the remains, the final decision as to where Richard would be reburied lay with them and it seemed that this would take place in Leicester Cathedral, as provisionally agreed. On 26th March 2013, the Plantagenet Alliance therefore announced that it was seeking to challenge the decision to rebury Richard’s remains in Leicester through a judicial review of the exhumation licence issued by the Ministry of Justice to the University of Leicester Archaeological Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Guide to Legal Citation, Third Edition
    AUSTRALIAN GUIDE TO LEGAL AUSTRALIAN CITATION AUST GUIDE TO LEGAL CITA AUSTRALIAN GUIDE TO TO LEGAL CITATION AUSTRALIAN GUIDE TO LEGALA CITUSTRATION ALIAN Third Edition GUIDE TO LEGAL CITATION AGLC3 - Front Cover 4 (MJ) - CS4.indd 1 21/04/2010 12:32:24 PM AUSTRALIAN GUIDE TO LEGAL CITATION Third Edition Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc in collaboration with Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc Melbourne 2010 Published and distributed by the Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc in collaboration with the Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Australian guide to legal citation / Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc., Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc. 3rd ed. ISBN 9780646527390 (pbk.). Bibliography. Includes index. Citation of legal authorities - Australia - Handbooks, manuals, etc. Melbourne University Law Review Association Melbourne Journal of International Law 808.06634 First edition 1998 Second edition 2002 Third edition 2010 Reprinted 2010, 2011 (with minor corrections), 2012 (with minor corrections) Published by: Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc Reg No A0017345F · ABN 21 447 204 764 Melbourne University Law Review Telephone: (+61 3) 8344 6593 Melbourne Law School Facsimile: (+61 3) 9347 8087 The University of Melbourne Email: <[email protected]> Victoria 3010 Australia Internet: <http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/mulr> Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc Reg No A0046334D · ABN 86 930 725 641 Melbourne Journal of International Law Telephone: (+61 3) 8344 7913 Melbourne Law School Facsimile: (+61 3) 8344 9774 The University of Melbourne Email: <[email protected]> Victoria 3010 Australia Internet: <http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/mjil> © 2010 Melbourne University Law Review Association Inc and Melbourne Journal of International Law Inc.
    [Show full text]