How should the criminal justice system respond to women who conceal their pregnancies, resulting in the death of the foetus or baby? It is widely expected that a pregnant woman will act in the best interests of her unborn child, including submitting herself to medical examination. However, these expectations are not always met and this causes particular problems for vulnerable women who experience crisis pregnancies. In such situations women have hidden their pregnancies, given birth in secret, and are suspected of causing the death of the baby. Alternatively, their actions while pregnant, and during labour and delivery are deemed to have culminated in the stillbirth of the child. While there are no accurate statistics, every year approximately 7 babies/foetuses are known to die in such circumstances during the perinatal period. Through a detailed examination of transcripts from sentencing hearings of criminal cases heard 2010-2014, I explore how and why women involved in such cases have come to be dealt with through English criminal law. There appears to be a strong desire to criminalise women who are perceived to fail to put the foetus first. Criminal justice professionals use out-dated offences to capture these perceived criminal wrongs. I conclude that if the state wishes to punish women for harm caused to the foetus, then the enactment of foetal protection laws would be appropriate. However, as critical assessment of such law in the United States of America illustrates, such laws could have dramatic consequences on the rights of women. The cases analysed in this thesis provide a fascinating lens through which to examine a range of broader issues including, the expectation that women should put the needs of the foetus before their own, and the assumption that motherhood starts at conception and is natural and inherent.

Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, discussions have developed concerning a judicial ‘dialogue’ taking place between the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) over the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its application to UK law. This thesis contributes to these debates by offering a judicially-informed account of the dialogue between these courts based on in-depth interviews conducted with eight Justices of the UK Supreme Court and four judges of the European Court of Human Rights. It combines these insights with analysis of case law, extra-judicial commentary and contributions from political and legal theory to explore the role of judicial dialogue in legitimising the judgments of these courts. In this way, the thesis offers a unique methodological approach to a highly topical area of constitutional discourse in the UK. The thesis argues that dialogue has arisen in response to legitimacy challenges facing these courts based on concerns over the extent of the ECtHR’s influence in the UK. Both at the level of judgments and through informal meetings, dialogue responds to these challenges through the participation of the national courts in the jurisprudential development of ECHR rights, the accountability of the ECtHR to domestic judicial concerns, and the ongoing revision and refinement of the Convention rights at the supranational level to accommodate for legal and constitutional diversity. To this extent, dialogue is part of a wider effort to legitimise the Convention system and the courts charged with upholding it by strengthening the role and identity of the domestic courts in human rights adjudication, as reflected in the reemphasis on subsidiarity and the common law ‘resurgence’. However, the thesis also observes that a significant part of the dialogue resides in an increased willingness by the UK courts to refuse to apply parts of the ECtHR’s case law, and a tendency by the ECtHR to accommodate that refusal. On this basis, it argues that the process also carries the risk of delegitimising the ECHR system by promoting a disposition to disobey on the part of national authorities across the Council of Europe.

This thesis seeks to explore and map the public domain, conceived as an area free from the constraints of law and contract, in relation to information on open, publicly accessible websites. The existing rich literature concerning the ‘public domain’ focuses largely on the impact of the intellectual property regime. By adopting a novel conceptualisation of the public domain as freedom from law and contract, the thesis offers a broader perspective on freedoms and limitations on the use of information. While the existing ‘public domain’ literature does address the possibility for freedoms in relation to the use of information to be narrowed by contract, it focuses on the second order question of enforceability of terms. The first order question concerning the implications of the rules of contract formation is not thoroughly explored, a lack that this thesis seeks to address. The thesis relies on the contract law requirement of exchange to tease out both aspects of the public domain, that is, freedom from law and contract. In the process it addresses a significant gap in case law and literature, namely, the character of the benefit conferred by the website on the user. Relying on insights derived from the ruling of the European Court of Justice in Svensson the thesis offers a novel conceptualisation of the benefit and the mechanism of its conferral in order to explore the contractual significance of the exchange. The thesis suggests that the scope of the public domain is periled on the characterisation of the website’s response to the user’s request for content. It presents a contrasting account of the public domain according to two different characterisations of the website’s response, offering reasons to prefer the account of the public domain that best preserves freedom to look.

This thesis critically examines structures of police accountability, in particular the introduction and operation of Police and Crime Commissioners [PCCs]. The first chapter begins by identifying accountability as the very bedrock of policing. Accountability is then defined before examining its key facets, why a suitable structure is imperative and how accountability carries the burden of securing police legitimacy. The second and third chapters highlight how the system of police developed while identifying critical ‘turning points’ in police accountability. The fourth chapter explores the present structure and model of police accountability. This chapter also examines reports which highlight potential teething problems and imperfections. The fifth chapter outlines the methodology for the qualitative study involving elite research interviews with senior stakeholders in policing at a regional and national level, including relevant persons in Government. The sixth chapter analyses this data and argues that whilst PCCs may lead to efficiency gains, there are important questions about the quality of accountability. Additionally, the accountability of Chief Constables is contended to vary considerably and in practice likely frustrated by the ‘one to one’ accountability relationship between Chief Constable and PCC. Police accountability is also identified as possibly over dependent on this relationship. Moreover, PCCs are argued to lack accountability between elections. The seventh chapter contends that using elections to achieve democratic police accountability is fraught with difficulties and potentially carries significant risks for policing. Additionally, the PCCs power to remove Chief Constables is argued to cause two possibly corrosive impacts on policing and police accountability. This power is also identified as a mechanism of disempowerment which may in practice lead to Chief Constables being displaced by PCCs. Concluding, the present structure and model of police accountability is argued to be risky, maybe defective and possibly unsuitable for police accountability and policing in the longer term.

Vulnerable and/or intimidated court users are able to give evidence with the assistance of special measures. This thesis examines the role of equality in the provision of such measures to those giving evidence in Crown Court trials. I adopt Keith Hawkins’ conceptual framework of surround, field and frames to analyse the multitude of factors relevant to understanding its role. The standard of equality I invoke is that which underpinned the initial development of special measures for non-defendant witnesses. This is used to assess whether the law remains committed to equal treatment despite the unequal provision of special measures between vulnerable and/or intimidated defendant and non-defendant witnesses. Furthermore, using findings from interviews undertaken with 18 criminal practitioners, I consider the role that the principle of equality appears to play in the use of special measures. I conclude that the principle of equality is not consistently upheld in the provision of special measures in law and practice. Barriers to its more prominent role include the way, and the socio-political context in which, special measures law developed; the legal field in which they are invoked; and the way that criminal practitioners appear to frame decisions about their use.

This cross disciplinary socio-legal research study provides a unique contribution to the study of British Muslims, faith based ADR mechanisms and the state. The existence of informal religio-centric dispute resolution forums exemplifies a form of legal pluralism in action. The study investigated the approach to Islamic family law and dispute resolution of a sample of 250 British Muslims aged 18-45, primarily Britishborn, university educated and practicing their faith or understanding their religious obligations. Empirical research was undertaken using both quantitative and qualitative research methods, and conclusions were drawn by assessing the findings using Grounded Theory methodology. Empirical research focussing on younger generations of British Muslims and the transformative processes of the Islamic legal traditions impacting on the application of religious laws are absent. The present study is unique in a number of regards, with a focus on the subject group’s interaction with, and perception of, dispute resolution forums available for resolving Islamic family law disputes. This thesis argues that British Muslims from within the socio-demographic profile of the subject group: 1) believe faith based ADR mechanisms such as Shariah Councils are necessary for providing expertise on Islamic family law issues, however in their present form they are imperfect; 2) believe Shariah Councils are more competent than national courts in dealing with Islamic law issues; 3) have plural approaches to negotiating law, culture and religion; and 4) believe there should not be a separate legal system for Muslims in Britain, as this is separatist and divergent from their identities as ‘British Muslims’ which is an evolving self-identification. Participants displayed numerous perceptions about the manner and form of interaction between British Muslims, faith based ADR mechanisms and the British legal system. Six categories are coined in the research findings exploring these opinions, the most popular being a ‘rights-based evaluation promoting Interlegality’ and ‘necessity for validation of religious beliefs’.

This thesis concerns the relationship between English and European Community administrative law. The main aim is to draw out the nature of this relationship by comparing the development of two principles, the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality, within English and European Community administrative law. A secondary aim is to assess the challenge presented by European Community law for English law. The emphasis is on the distinct visions of law or legal traditions which have influenced both systems of administrative law rather than specific substantive laws. Chapter 2 identifies the nature of the English and Continental traditions of administrative law and the development of English and European Community administrative law. More specifically, English law is based on the common law approach while Continental and European Community administrative law has a more purposive orientation. Chapter 3 examines the pressures for the adoption of the two principles in English law. These pressures have been both internal, through the role of Lord Diplock, and external, through the influence of European Community law. In Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 the principles are examined in depth in both European Community and English administrative law. Comparative observations of the articulation of the principles in European Community law and their development in English law are made in chapters 5 and 7. In this respect the identification of the different traditions of administrative law becomes crucial in assessing the success of the principles as legal transplants in English law. The conclusion draws together these themes in order to identify the relationship between English and European Community law. An assessment is also made of the challenge presented by European Community law and suggestions are made as to what English law ought to do in order to respond effectively.

This thesis is a comparative study of the role of the accused in the systems of English and Islamic criminal justice. It seeks to explore the underlying relationship between the individual and the state through an historical, structural and contextual analysis of their rules relating to questioning and of confessions. The analysis of the English system covers the period 1800 to 1984, with particular reference to developments during the nineteenth century when the foundations for the modern English state were established. The analysis of the Islamic system combines traditionally Islamic and modern methods, assessing the "Islamisation" movement in Malaysia through a religico-structural understanding of juristic opinion from the four main schools of Sunnite jurisprudence. The thesis contributes to existing knowledge on a number of levels: first, it questions and revises the "myth" of "progress" that has dominated observations of the history of the English criminal justice system; second, it elucidates the relationship between Islamic law in theory and the law that is applied and proposed in its name in Muslim states; third, it provides an analytical framework for drawing comparisons between the underlying values of the systems of English and Islamic criminal justice. While acknowledging fundamental differences in terms of outlook and articulation, the author concludes there are important similarities expressed through such notions as "suspect" in the English system and "kafir"I"fasiq" in the Islamic. These act as intermediate constitutional categories to whom the state owe less protection. But the author notes also that these similarities are not observed necessarily in the "law" which is implemented or proposed in Muslim states; exact correspondence depends upon the over-arching political structure and the institution of Caliphate. The thesis is divided into six chapters: chapter one sets out the conventional view of the historical development of English criminal procedure and evidence; chapter two subjects that to a critique and chapter three offers a revised thesis. Chapter four, explores methods for interpreting and explaining Islam; chapter five sets out rules relating to confessions and questioning according to the four Sunni schools; chapter six puts them into "context" through an examination of the "Islamisation" process in Malaysia.

Univ., Diss.--London, 1992.

Bucerius Law School, Diss., 2007--Hamburg.