W. Green Professional Catalogue 2011
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Wednesday, 1 September 2021 PE1857: Regulate the Role of Curator Ad Litem Note by the Clerk
CPPPC/S6/21/2/8 Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee 2nd Meeting, 2021 (Session 6) Wednesday, 1 September 2021 PE1857: Regulate the role of curator ad litem Note by the Clerk Petitioners Stephen Leighton Petition Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government summary to regulate the curator ad litem and ensure historical claims of malpractice of curators ad litem in Scotland are investigated. Webpage https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1857 Introduction 1. This is a new petition that was lodged on 18 February 2021. 2. A SPICe briefing has been prepared to inform the Committee’s consideration of the petition and can be found at Annexe A. 3. While not a formal requirement, petitioners have the option to collect signatures and comments on their petition. On this occasion, the petitioner elected not to collect this information. 4. The Session 5 Public Petitions Committee agreed to seek advanced views from the Scottish Government on all new petitions before they are formally considered. A response has been received from the Scottish Government and is included at Annexe B of this paper. 5. A submission has also been received from the petitioner and this is included at Annexe C. 1 CPPPC/S6/21/2/8 Scottish Government submission 6. The Scottish Government submission highlights that under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) 2000 Act (AWI), the Sheriff has wide and flexible powers to deal with matters that come before the court in relation to the affairs of an adult with incapacity. This includes the power to appoint a curator ad litem in court proceedings where the adults with incapacity may not wish, or be able to appear in court themselves. -
Child Contact Proceedings for Children Affected by Domestic Abuse
Child Contact Proceedings for Children Affected by Domestic Abuse A report to Scotland’s Commissioner for Children and Young People Fiona Morrison and E. Kay M. Tisdall, Centre for Research on Families and Relationships, University of Edinburgh Fiona Jones and Alison Reid, cl@n childlaw March 2013 Contents Commissioner’s Foreword v Acknowledgments vi 1 Introduction 1 Methodology 2 Definition of ‘domestic abuse’ 3 About this report Further information 4 2 International obligations: UNCRC and ECHR 5 2.1 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 5 2.2 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) 6 3 Legislative framework for disputed contact 8 3.1 Family actions: court orders in relation to parental responsibilities and rights 9 3.1.1 Best interests of the child in family actions 9 3.1.2 Views of the child in family actions 10 3.2 Children’s hearings proceedings: the current framework under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 14 3.2.1 Best interests of the child in children’s hearings proceedings 14 3.2.2 Views of the child in children’s hearings proceedings 16 3.3 Children’s hearings proceedings: the future framework under the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 19 3.3.1 Best interests of the child in children’s hearings proceedings – the future 19 3.3.2 Views of the child in children’s hearings proceedings – the future 19 3.4 Adoption and permanence orders 22 3.4.1 Best interests of the child in adoption and permanence orders 22 3.4.2 Views of the child in adoption and permanence orders -
A Critical Evaluation of the Rights, Status and Capacity of Distinct Categories of Individuals in Underdeveloped and Emerging Areas of Law
A Critical Evaluation of the Rights, Status and Capacity of Distinct Categories of Individuals in Underdeveloped and Emerging Areas of Law Lesley-Anne Barnes Macfarlane LLB (Hons), Dip LP, PGCE, LLM A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Edinburgh Napier University, for the award of Doctor of Philosophy May 2014 1 Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Dr Richard Whitecross and Dr Sandra Watson, for giving me their time, guidance and assistance in the writing up of my PhD Critical Appraisal of published works. I am indebted to my parents, Irene and Dennis, for a lifetime of love and support. Many thanks are also due to my family and friends for their ongoing care and companionship. In particular, I am very grateful to Professors Elaine E Sutherland and John P Grant for reading through and commenting on my section on Traditional Legal Research Methods. My deepest thanks are owed to my husband, Ross, who never fails in his love, encouragement and practical kindness. I confirm that the published work submitted has not been submitted for another award. ………………………………………… Lesley-Anne Barnes Macfarlane Citations and references have been drafted with reference to the University’s Research Degree Reference Guide 2 CONTENTS VOLUME I Abstract: PhD by Published Works Page 8 List of Evidence in Support of Thesis Page 9 Thesis Introduction Page 10 (I) An Era of Change in the Individual’s Rights, Status and Capacity in Scots Law (II) Conceptual Framework of Critical Analysis: Rights, -
Table of Statutes
Table of Statutes Commonwealth Constitution: 297 s 9: 296 Ch III: 5, 14, 15, 234, 363, 370, 372, 391, s 10: 296 397, 398, 404-406, 410 s 11: 296 s 1: 391, 422, 436 s 12: 17 s 7: 417, 422, 423, 425, 428, 429, 432, s 13: 296 436, 441 s 14: 296 s 8: 436 s 15: 17, 18, 296 s 15: 180, 193 s 15(1): 6 s 16: 436 Australia (Request and Consent) Act s 24: 416, 417, 422-425, 428, 429, 432, 1985: 296 436, 441 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Gov- s 29: 422 ernment) 1988 s 30: 422, 436 s 22: 66 s 49: 317 Broadcasting Act 1942 s 51: 65 Pt IIID: 426 s 51(xxix): 233 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxi): 380 lation of Registration) Act 1986: 367, s 51(xxxv): 426 370 s 51(xxxvii): 3 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxviii): 3, 281, 285, 287, 288 lation of Registration – Conse- s 53: 191 quential Provisions) Act 1986: 367 s 57: 185, 192 s 7: 368 s 61: 391 Builders Labourers Federation Legis- s 71: 14, 384, 391, 396, 397, 399 lation Amendment Act 1990: 389 s 73: 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902: 422 s 74: 273 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904: s 77(iii): 14, 384, 396, 399, 405 367 s 80: 380 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Act s 90: 66, 67 1929: 142 s 92: 380 Customs Act 1901: 66 s 105A: 142, 144, 148 Financial Agreements (Commonwealth s 105A(3): 144 Liability) Act 1932: 143 s 105A(5): 144 Financial Agreements Enforcement Act s 106: 78, 79, 234, 352, 371, 432, 440 1932: 143, 146, 152, 157 s 107: 356, 357 Pt II: 144 s 116: 380 Financial Agreements (State Legislation) s 117: 380 Act 1932: 148 s 128: 18, 115-117, 429, 434 -
Defamation Act 2013 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 05 September 2021
Changes to legislation: Defamation Act 2013 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 September 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Defamation Act 2013 2013 CHAPTER 26 An Act to amend the law of defamation. [25th April 2013] 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:— Requirement of serious harm 1 Serious harm (1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss. Commencement Information I1 S. 1 in force at 1.1.2014 by S.I. 2013/3027, art. 2 Defences 2 Truth (1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. (2) Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations. 2 Defamation Act 2013 (c. 26) Document Generated: 2021-09-05 Changes to legislation: Defamation Act 2013 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 September 2021. -
Practice Notes for Safeguarders on Court
PRACTICE NOTES FOR SAFEGUARDERS ON COURT Part I PRACTICE POSITIONS including statements of practice expected from Safeguarders. Part II INFORMATION including relevant law, structures and roles relevant to court. Part III PRACTICE including step-by-step process and potential contributions. January 2019 PRACTICE NOTE FOR SAFEGUARDERS ON COURT FOREWORD Court proceedings are involved in the Children’s Hearings System to allow challenge to grounds or decisions that justify compulsory intervention in a child and a family’s life. The court is a different context to that of a Children’s Hearing. There is often a lot at stake for children and their families and it can be difficult to understand and participate in what are more formal processes. The Safeguarder has an important role to play in keeping the child at the centre and safeguarding the interests of the child during the child’s involvement in this part of the hearings system. The Safeguarder is the only role tasked exclusively with this focus. It is important that Safeguarders are able to perform their role to the highest of standards and in doing so, never lose sight of the individual child and their needs whilst these proceedings are ongoing. Practice Notes supplement the Practice Standards for Safeguarders by providing further clarity on the expectations of Safeguarder practice and conduct. 2 PRACTICE NOTE FOR SAFEGUARDERS ON COURT Contents PRACTICE NOTE ON COURT – PART I - PRACTICE POSITIONS ............................................................. 6 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... -
DRAFTING MATTERS! SECOND EDITION PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents
SHAPING THE LAW OF SCOTLAND DRAFTING MATTERS! SECOND EDITION PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents Contents Introductory matters Foreword by the Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC viii Preface to the second edition by Andy Beattie, Chief Parliamentary Counsel x Why drafting matters by Andy Beattie, Chief Parliamentary Counsel xi Background xiii Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) xiii About this manual: status and use xiii Part 1: Drafting technique 1 Language 1 Plain language 1 Punctuation 1 Gender neutrality 2 Choice of language 2 Particular words and expressions 3 Style 7 Conjunctions 7 Paragraphing 8 Periods of time 9 Dates 11 Numbers and symbols 12 Letter labels (Tag letters (‘A’)) 13 Form and key components of Bills 15 Form and content of Scottish Parliament Bills 15 Presiding Officer’s recommendations as to style and content 15 Order of final provisions 17 Long title 18 Short title 19 Commencement provisions 19 Powers to make subordinate legislation 21 Form of subordinate legislation 23 Ancillary provision 24 Technicalities 26 Citation of enactments 26 Cross-references 26 Definitions 27 i PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents Numbering 31 Schedules 33 Amendments and repeals 35 Textual amendments 35 Non-textual amendments 38 Formal headings and framework 38 Repeals 39 Specific legal expressions and terms 42 Referring to a Bill in another Bill 42 Referring to bodies corporate 42 Referring to the Scottish Ministers (individually and collectively) 42 Mode of trial 44 Referring to ‘charge’ and ‘proceedings’ 45 Types of court 45 Sheriffs and sheriff courts 45 Justice of the peace courts and relevant judicial officers 47 Part 2: Guidance on specific topics I. -
Scotland) Bill
FACULTY OF ADVOCATES Response from the Faculty of Advocates The Children (Scotland) Bill The Faculty of Advocates, as the independent referral bar in Scotland, is pleased to offer its comments on the Children (Scotland) Bill. Part I of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was designed to provide a framework for parental responsibilities and parental rights, and for court orders about those responsibilities and rights. The proposed amendments change the nature of the law to introduce prescriptive provisions in respect of some aspects of a case, affording the decision maker less flexibility and narrowing the area in which discretion may be exercised. This is liable to promote disputes regarding what the legislation means, which may have the result of prolonging litigation, delaying resolution and thereby detracting from the best interests of the child. It is acknowledged that provisions with wide discretion can also have this effect. Voice of the child 1 The Faculty is supportive of the views of the child being heard and all appropriate methods being explored to enable that to happen. We note that the presumption that a child of 12 years or more is of sufficient age and maturity to form a view remains in the proposed section 11ZB(4), which appears to be inconsistent with the removal of the presumption elsewhere. The wording elsewhere in relation to the views of the child makes it mandatory for the judge to give a child the opportunity to express a view unless the judge is satisfied that the child is not capable of forming a view. The introduction of an express test of “capacity” is liable to result in additional litigation and promote the use of expert evidence. -
Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England
The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2002 Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England Susanna Frederick Fischer The Catholic University, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Susanna Frederick Fischer, Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England, 34 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 101 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RETHINKING SULLIVAN: NEW APPROACHES IN AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND ENGLAND SUSANNA FREDERICK FISCHER* "This is a difficult problem. No answer is perfect." - Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers1 SUMMARY This Article employs a comparative analysis of some important recent Commonwealth libel cases to analyze what has gone wrong with U.S. defa- mation law since New York Times v. Sullivan and to suggest a new direc- tion for its reform. In Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lange v. Atkinson, and Reynolds v. Times Newspapers, the highest courts of the Australian, New Zealand, and English legal systems were con- fronted with the same challengefaced by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan. They had to decide the proper constitutionalbal- ance between protection of reputation and protection of free expression in defamation actions brought by public officials over statements of fact. -
Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019
Status: Point in time view as at 11/10/2019. This version of this Act contains provisions that are not valid for this point in time. Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019. (See end of Document for details) Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019 2019 asp 14 The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 25th June 2019 and received Royal Assent on 30th July 2019 An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision for electronic monitoring of offenders and as to certain other restrictive measures imposable on offenders; to make provision about periods and processes as regards disclosure of convictions by offenders; and to make provision concerning particular aspects of the system governing parole of offenders. PART 1 ELECTRONIC MONITORING ETC. VALID FROM 01/10/2020 Monitoring in criminal proceedings PROSPECTIVE 1 Requirement when disposing of case (1) When making a person subject to a disposal listed in section 3(2), a court may additionally require the person to submit to monitoring by means of an approved device. (2) Section 8(1) describes what an approved device is in relation to a requirement under subsection (1). (3) A requirement under subsection (1) means that the person— (a) is to be monitored by a person designated under section 11(1)(a), and (b) is bound by the obligations set out in section 12(2) and (3). 2 Management of Offenders (Scotland) Act 2019 asp 14 PART 1 – Electronic monitoring etc. -
An Opportunity Lost: the United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law
Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 49 Issue 3 Article 4 4-1997 An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law Douglas W. Vick University of Stirling Linda Macpherson Heriot-Watt University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the European Law Commons Recommended Citation Vick, Douglas W. and Macpherson, Linda (1997) "An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 49 : Iss. 3 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol49/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law Douglas W. Vick* Linda Macpherson** INTRODUCTION ..................................... 621 I. BACKGROUND OF THE ACT ....................... 624 I. THE DEFAMATION ACT 1996 ...................... 629 A. The New Defenses ......................... 630 B. The ProceduralReforms ..................... 636 C. Waiving ParliamentaryPrivilege ............... 643 III. AN OPPORTUNITY LOST ......................... 646 CONCLUSION ....................................... 652 INTRODUCTION The law of defamation in the United Kingdom remains -
Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals for Statutory Reform
INTERNET INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY IN DEFAMATION: PROPOSALS FOR STATUTORY REFORM Defamation Law in the Internet Age July 2017 Commissioned by the Law Commission of Ontario Prepared by Emily Laidlaw, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law Hilary Young, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of New Brunswick, Faculty of Law The LCO commissioned this paper to provide background research for its Defamation Law in the Internet Age project. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the LCO. Internet Intermediary Liability in Defamation: Proposals for Statutory Reform Emily Laidlaw, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Law Hilary Young, Ph.D., Associate Professor, University of New Brunswick Faculty of Law Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ..………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………. 1 II. THE COMMON LAW OF PUBLICATION IN DEFAMATION ……….…………………………………….……….. 3 A. Introduction to Publication ……………………………………………………………………………….……… 3 B. Innocent Dissemination ………………………………………………………………………………………..…. 4 C. Publication by Omission……………………………………………………………………………………………..7 D. Conclusion on the common law of publication ………………..…………………………………..….. 9 III. THE LAW OF PUBLICATION AS APPLIED TO INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES ………..…..…………….. 10 A. Introduction ..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10 B. The Common Law ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 11 1. United States ………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 11 2. United Kingdom …………………………………………………………………………………………..14 3. Australia