English Law (Application) 1962-17
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Criminal Law Reform with the Hon Jarrod Bleijie
The Great Leap Backward: Criminal Law Reform with the Hon Jarrod Bleijie Andrew Trotter∗ and Harry Hobbs† Abstract On 3 April 2012, the Honourable Member for Kawana, Jarrod Bleijie MP, was sworn in as Attorney-General for Queensland and Minister for Justice. In the period that followed, Queensland’s youngest Attorney-General since Sir Samuel Griffith in 1874 has implemented substantial reforms to the criminal law as part of a campaign to ‘get tough on crime’. Those reforms have been heavily and almost uniformly criticised by the profession, the judiciary and the academy. This article places the reforms in their historical context to illustrate that together they constitute a great leap backward that unravels centuries of gradual reform calculated to improve the state of human rights in criminal justice. I Introduction Human rights in the criminal law were in a fairly dire state in the Middle Ages.1 Offenders were branded with the letters of their crime to announce it to the public, until that practice was replaced in part by the large scarlet letters worn by some criminals by 1364.2 The presumption of innocence, although developed in its earliest forms in Ancient Rome, does not appear to have crystallised into a recognisable form until 1470.3 During the 16th and 17th centuries, it was common to charge the families of a prisoner sentenced to death a fee for their execution, but ∗ BA LLB (Hons) QUT; Solicitor, Doogue O’Brien George. † BA LLB (Hons) ANU; Human Rights Legal and Policy Adviser, ACT Human Rights Commission. The authors thank Professor the Hon William Gummow AC for his helpful comments on earlier drafts and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their assistance in the final stages. -
Piracy, Illicit Trade, and the Construction of Commercial
Navigating the Atlantic World: Piracy, Illicit Trade, and the Construction of Commercial Networks, 1650-1791 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Jamie LeAnne Goodall, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2016 Dissertation Committee: Margaret Newell, Advisor John Brooke David Staley Copyright by Jamie LeAnne Goodall 2016 Abstract This dissertation seeks to move pirates and their economic relationships from the social and legal margins of the Atlantic world to the center of it and integrate them into the broader history of early modern colonization and commerce. In doing so, I examine piracy and illicit activities such as smuggling and shipwrecking through a new lens. They act as a form of economic engagement that could not only be used by empires and colonies as tools of competitive international trade, but also as activities that served to fuel the developing Caribbean-Atlantic economy, in many ways allowing the plantation economy of several Caribbean-Atlantic islands to flourish. Ultimately, in places like Jamaica and Barbados, the success of the plantation economy would eventually displace the opportunistic market of piracy and related activities. Plantations rarely eradicated these economies of opportunity, though, as these islands still served as important commercial hubs: ports loaded, unloaded, and repaired ships, taverns attracted a variety of visitors, and shipwrecking became a regulated form of employment. In places like Tortuga and the Bahamas where agricultural production was not as successful, illicit activities managed to maintain a foothold much longer. -
Southampton Student Law Review 2011 Volume 1, Issue 1
Southampton Student Law Review 2011 volume 1, issue 1 5 Southampton Student Law Review University of Southampton School of Law Published in the United Kingdom By the Southampton Student Law Review School of Law University of Southampton SO17 1BJ In affiliation with the University of Southampton School of Law All rights reserved. Copyright© 2011 University of Southampton. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature, without the prior, express written permission of the Southampton Student Law Review and the author, to whom all requests to reproduce copyright material should be directed, in writing. The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editors of the Southampton Student Law Review. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors do not accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any resulting consequences. The Editors wish to thank Dr. Oren Ben Dor, Dr. Alun Gibbs and Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson. © 2011 Southampton Student Law Review ISSN 2047 - 1017 This volume should be cited (2011) 1 S.S.L.R. Editorial Board 2011 Editor Harry East Associate Editors Ross W Martin Emma Nottingham Thomas Webber Editorial Board Semande Ayihongbe Aysegul Bugra Dingjing Huang Haedong Jeon Assad Khan Konstantinos Kofopoulos Miao Li Ioanna Magklasi Siven Pillay Rungien Meixian Song Valerio Torti Jingbo Zhang Academic Advisors Dr. Oren Ben Dor Dr. Alun Gibbs Ms Johanna Hjalmarsson The editors wish to thank all members of the University of Southampton School of Law who have helped in the creation of this volume Table of Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................ -
Criminal Code - General Remarks
-.=a;.t II it If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Departrrent of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this clilfl'~~G material has been granted by Public Domain/NIJ US Department of Justice to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis sion of the c~t owner. 'r 'T 'r -- T 'Y ., - • - , 'T .. • - • ISS .1. -.. ," 4.•• EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exaclly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Nationat tnstltute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by Law Reform Commission of Canada to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis· sion of the copyright owner. Une edition fran<;aise de ce document de travail est disponible. Son titre est : LA JURIDICTION EXTRA-TERRITORIALE Available by mail free of charge from: Law Reform Commission of Canada 130 Albert St., 7th Floor Ottawa, Canada KIA OL6 or Suite 310 Montreal, Quebec H3B 2N2 ©Ministry of Supply and Services Canada Catalogue No. -
The Discipline of Theseas
INSTITUTIONEN FÖR LITTERATUR, IDÉHISTORIA OCH RELIGION The Discipline of the Seas Piracy and polity in England: 1688–1698 Johan Berglund Björk Term: Spring 2020 Course ID: LIR207, 30 HEC Level: Master Supervisor: Johan Kärnfelt 1 Abstract Master’s thesis in history of ideas Title: The Discipline of the Seas: Piracy and Polity, 1688. Author: Johan Berglund Björk Year: Spring 2020 Department: The Faculty of Arts at the University of Gothenburg Supervisor: Johan Kärnfelt Examiner: Henrik Björk Keywords: Piracy; Henry Every; Matthew Tindall; Philip Meadows; subjecthood; sovereignty; jurisdiction. This thesis is a study of the changing legal and political climate surrounding piracy in England in the years 1688-1698, between the Glorious Revolution and the passing in parliament of the Piracy Act 1698. During this time views of piracy changed in London where pirates were no longer seen as beneficial, but instead as obstacles to orderly trade. The aim of this thesis is to investigate English legal and political-theoretical writing on piracy and sovereignty of the seas to further understanding of what kinds of legal spaces oceans were in early modern English political thought, and the role of pirates as actors in those spaces. This is achieved by a study of legal and theoretical texts, which focuses on the concepts subjecthood, jurisdiction and sovereignty in relation to piracy. I show that piracy became a blanket-term of delegitimization applied to former kings as well as poor sailors and that the English struggle for the suppression of piracy was ideological as well as practical. By contrasting legal and political theory with its realpolitikal context I show that diplomatic and economic concerns often eclipsed theory when judging pirates in legal praxis. -
Statute Law Revision Bill 2007 ————————
———————— AN BILLE UM ATHCHO´ IRIU´ AN DLI´ REACHTU´ IL 2007 STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL 2007 ———————— Mar a tionscnaı´odh As initiated ———————— ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Definitions. 2. General statute law revision repeal and saver. 3. Specific repeals. 4. Assignment of short titles. 5. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1896. 6. Amendment of Short Titles Act 1962. 7. Miscellaneous amendments to post-1800 short titles. 8. Evidence of certain early statutes, etc. 9. Savings. 10. Short title and collective citation. SCHEDULE 1 Statutes retained PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 [No. 5 of 2007] SCHEDULE 2 Statutes Specifically Repealed PART 1 Pre-Union Irish Statutes 1169 to 1800 PART 2 Statutes of England 1066 to 1706 PART 3 Statutes of Great Britain 1707 to 1800 PART 4 Statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 1801 to 1922 ———————— 2 Acts Referred to Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will. & Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2 Documentary Evidence Act 1868 31 & 32 Vict., c. 37 Documentary Evidence Act 1882 45 & 46 Vict., c. 9 Dower Act, 1297 25 Edw. 1, Magna Carta, c. 7 Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental Act (Ireland) (No. 2) 1867 31 & 32 Vict., c. 3 Dublin Hospitals Regulation Act 1856 19 & 20 Vict., c. 110 Evidence Act 1845 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113 Forfeiture Act 1639 15 Chas., 1. c. 3 General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act 1862 25 & 26 Vict., c. -
For Reference Use Only
b559M Ui,,,i,%'ERSjTY OFGRLENYSa ' LýERARY FORREFERENCE USEONLY UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH GREENWICH MARITIME INSTITUTE THE SEAFARER, PIRACY AND THE LAW A HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH P. G. Widd BSc, MA Master Mariner A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Greenwich May 2008 Vol V\j UINIv tiTY OFGREENWICH LIBRARY FORRFFFRFPICF ! 1SF ÖNl Y ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With thanks to the following: ProfessorA. D. Couper for much helpful "pilotage" advice, keeping this thesis on course. P. Mukundan of the International Maritime Bureau for answering my questions with good humour and supplying me with the piracy reports. Brigadier(Retd) B. A. H. Parritt CBE for allowing me to share in small measure his expertise on security. III ABSTRACT been Piracy at seahas existed almost since voyaging began and has effectively Navy in 1stC subduedfrom time to time, principally by the Roman Imperial the and the British Navy in the 19thC. Over the past twenty five years piracy has once again been increasing such that it has now become of serious concern to the maritime bears brunt community, in particular the seafarer,who as always the of these attacks. developed from In parallel with piracy itself the laws of piracy have the Rhodian Laws through Roman Law, post Treaty of Westphalia Law both British and Convention American until today the Law of Piracy is embodied in the United Nations be of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982. Under this Law piracy can only committed on the high seasand with UNCLOS increasing the limit of the territorial seafrom 3m1.to 12ml. -
A Brief Chronology of the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet G3
Factsheet G3 House of Commons Information Office General Series A Brief Chronology of the August 2010 House of Commons Contents Origins of Parliament at Westminster: Before 1400 2 15th and 16th centuries 3 Treason, revolution and the Bill of Rights: This factsheet has been archived so the content The 17th Century 4 The Act of Settlement to the Great Reform and web links may be out of date. Please visit Bill: 1700-1832 7 our About Parliament pages for current Developments to 1945 9 information. The post-war years: 11 The House of Commons in the 21st Century 13 Contact information 16 Feedback form 17 The following is a selective list of some of the important dates in the history of the development of the House of Commons. Entries marked with a “B” refer to the building only. This Factsheet is also available on the Internet from: http://www.parliament.uk/factsheets August 2010 FS No.G3 Ed 3.3 ISSN 0144-4689 © Parliamentary Copyright (House of Commons) 2010 May be reproduced for purposes of private study or research without permission. Reproduction for sale or other commercial purposes not permitted. 2 A Brief Chronology of the House of Commons House of Commons Information Office Factsheet G3 Origins of Parliament at Westminster: Before 1400 1097-99 B Westminster Hall built (William Rufus). 1215 Magna Carta sealed by King John at Runnymede. 1254 Sheriffs of counties instructed to send Knights of the Shire to advise the King on finance. 1265 Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, summoned a Parliament in the King’s name to meet at Westminster (20 January to 20 March); it is composed of Bishops, Abbots, Peers, Knights of the Shire and Town Burgesses. -
Fourteenth Report: Draft Statute Law Repeals Bill
The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 211) (SCOT. LAW COM. No. 140) STATUTE LAW REVISION: FOURTEENTH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Advocate by Command of Her Majesty April 1993 LONDON: HMSO E17.85 net Cm 2176 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 Brooke, Chairman Mr Trevor M. Aldridge, Q.C. Mr Jack Beatson Mr Richard Buxton, Q.C. Professor Brenda Hoggett, Q.C. The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Collon. Its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. The Scottish Law Commissioners are- The Honourable Lord Davidson, Chairman .. Dr E.M. Clive Professor P.N. Love, C.B.E. Sheriff I.D.Macphail, Q.C. Mr W.A. Nimmo Smith, Q.C. The Secretary of the Scottish Law Commission is Mr K.F. Barclay. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. .. 11 THE LAW COMMISSION AND THE SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION STATUTE LAW REVISION: FOURTEENTH REPORT Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill To the Right Honourable the Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, and the Right Honourable the Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Q.C., Her Majesty's Advocate. In pursuance of section 3(l)(d) of the Law Commissions Act 1965, we have prepared the draft Bill which is Appendix 1 and recommend that effect be given to the proposals contained in it. -
Sea Piracy Law a Comparative Study Between India and United Kingdom
International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 1 ISSN 2289-1552 2012 SEA PIRACY LAW A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDIA AND UNITED KINGDOM Abishek Murthy School of Law Christ University, Bangalore, India. 1. INTERNATIONAL SEA PIRACY 1.1 Piracy “An act of boarding or attempting to board any ship with the intent to commit theft or any other crime and with the intent or capability to use force in the furtherance of that act”1. Piracy is an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea. The term can include acts committed on land, in the air, or in other major bodies of water or on a shore. It does not normally include crimes committed against persons travelling on the same vessel as the perpetrator (e.g. one passenger stealing from others on the same vessel). The term has been used throughout history to refer to raids across land borders by non-state agents. Piracy is the name of a specific crime under customary international law and also the name of a number of crimes under the municipal law of a number of States. It is distinguished from privateering, which is authorized by national authorities and therefore a legitimate form of war-like activity by non-state actors. Privateering is considered commerce raiding, and was outlawed by the Peace of Westphalia (1648) for signatories to those treaties. Those who engage in acts of piracy are called pirates. Historically, offenders have usually been apprehended by military personnel and tried by military tribunals. In the 21st century, the international community is facing many problems in bringing pirates to justice.2 1.2 Location & Extent of Piracy Piracy is considered a serious problem by governments and the shipping industry alike. -
ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference
ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference I, NEIL ANTHONY BROWN, the Minister of State for Communications, acting for and on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, HAVING REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING: (a) that the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia is at present still exercised pursuant to the United Kingdom Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890; (b) that the Constitution enables the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws conferring jurisdiction on the High Court and other federal courts in matters of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to make laws investing any court of a State or Territory with such jurisdiction; and (c) the other countries, including Canada and New Zealand, to which the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 previously applied, have enacted their own Admiralty legislation in a revised and updated form; HEREBY REFER to the Law Reform Commission, for INQUIRY, REVIEW and REPORT thereon to the Attorney-General, all aspects of the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia, and REQUEST the Law Reform Commission, in considering this reference, (a) to have regard to the Report of the Joint Committee of the Law Council of Australia and the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand dated 22 April 1982 on Admiralty Jurisdiction in Australia, and (b) to take note of the draft Admiralty Jurisdiction Bill set out as Appendix “A” to that Report, and, in particular, to (i) make recommendations on the provisions to be included in an Australian Admiralty Act; (ii) consider whether any, and -
NPRC) VIP List, 2009
Description of document: National Archives National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) VIP list, 2009 Requested date: December 2007 Released date: March 2008 Posted date: 04-January-2010 Source of document: National Personnel Records Center Military Personnel Records 9700 Page Avenue St. Louis, MO 63132-5100 Note: NPRC staff has compiled a list of prominent persons whose military records files they hold. They call this their VIP Listing. You can ask for a copy of any of these files simply by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the address above. The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website.