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.

In 2009 and 2010, the major drug regulatory bodies, the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration in the USA, issued requests for the generation of information relating to the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, efficacy and safety of investigational drugs in pregnant women prior to approval. In the wake of thalidomide, research involving pregnant women other than for obstetric or gynaecologic purposes became rare, and studies of investigational drugs practically unknown. Consequently, none of the legislation applicable in the UK and few of the guidelines introduced in the last 40 years properly addresses the conduct of clinical trials of investigational drugs in this population. This thesis questions whether the legal protection for the foetus is adequate in clinical trials. The answer appears to be a qualified “no”. Arguments persist regarding the moral standing of the foetus, particularly regarding abortion. That will not be the intent of such trials, and a moral case is made for the conduct of clinical trials in this population by analogy with the neonate, and the pregnant woman’s autonomy. Legally, we already recognise the foetus has ‘interests’ which crystallise upon live birth, and that compensation is recoverable for harm inflicted in utero manifesting as congenital injury. The essence of research is quite different from medical practice, and the extent to which this is understood by trial participants is unclear. The approvals processes contain a number of inadequacies which have the potential to expose the foetus to harm and affect the consent of the pregnant woman. The recovery of compensation in the event of children born injured following clinical trials during pregnancy in many ways may be more complex than other personal injury cases. The conclusions of this thesis are that the existence of a foetus does merit recognition by the law in this setting and that morally such studies are justifiable. However, the present legislation and approval processes potentially expose the foetus to avoidable risk and may not be appropriate to enable the recovery of compensation, thereby creating potential to deter future trial participants. A proposal is made regarding an approach to simplify the process for recovery of compensation, and thereby strengthen the approval and consent processes.

This thesis examines access to justice in summary criminal proceedings by considering the ability of defendants to play an active and effective role in the proceedings. Summary proceedings are those which take place in magistrates’ courts, and are decided by lay magistrates or a district judge (magistrates’ courts) without a jury. The study uses ethnographic fieldwork to explore the structural/cultural intersection of public services by considering both the effects of structural changes in criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts and the agency of the courtroom workgroup. While the cultural practices of magistrates’ courts have always tended to exclude defendants from active participation in the process, I argue that the structural influences of neoliberalism, in terms of demands for ever more efficient practices and emphasis on individual responsibility as a function of citizenship, have exacerbated the inability of defendants to participate in the process of prosecution. I also observe that, for a number of reasons, the professional workgroup has tended to absorb and adapt to, rather than resist, the neoliberalisation of summary criminal justice. Thus, the combination of structural and cultural influences on magistrates’ court proceedings perpetuates the marginalisation of defendants. Further, in light of neoliberalism's preference for market based approaches to government, there is little political motivation to address the identified problems of access to justice.

This is the first in-depth empirical research into the UK “innocence movement,” which refers to the establishment of innocence projects (IPs) across the UK. IPs are university clinics in which students investigate cases of alleged miscarriages of justice. The Innocence Network UK (INUK) was founded in 2004 and assisted in the development of thirty-six IPs across the UK. This thesis utilised empirical methods undertaking semi-structured interviews with past and present leaders of IPs and other criminal appeal units. It provides three original insights into the UK innocence movement. First, it explored the distinctive model of IPs offered in the core literature and identified several underlying tensions within it. However, the research found the majority of sampled IPs did not conform to this model. Thus for heuristic purposes, and to examine the contrasting aims and objectives of criminal appeal clinics, the thesis sets out two ideal types and uses the evidence from interviews to place the sampled projects along a continuum between these. This section illustrated that the tensions within the literature model of IPs resulted in the sampled projects either evolving away from this approach, or not adopting it in the first place. Secondly, the thesis asks whether the innocence movement can be seen to follow a “rise and fall” trajectory, as the initial expansion of INUK was followed by its closure and the demise of several IPs. Instead, it is argued that the movement is better understood as having undergone a reconfiguration, and that the future landscape for miscarriage of justice work looks likely to be very different from that portrayed in the literature. Finally, the thesis adapts Luhmann’s Social Systems theory as a theoretical framework for examining the evolution of the UK innocence movement. The analysis concludes that this can provide theoretical insights into why the original aims and objectives of IPs were not realised. Insight is also drawn from Nobles and Schiff and their account of systems theory, which is used to further explore the tensions within the IP concept. The thesis conclusion reflects on the findings and offers suggestions for future research opportunities in these areas of legal education and analysis.

This thesis is the only study there is of the workings of the Financial Ombudsman Service ('FOS') and a comparison between court and FOS attitudes and approaches to insurance cases. A court and the FOS may decide matters differently because the FOS does not have to apply the law strictly, whilst a court does. The author of this thesis has examined the FOS and Financial Services Authority ('FSA') websites, handbooks and other material, and all of the near monthly journals of Ombudsman News ('O.N.') since the FOS began in 2001, analysing it against the law to determine the question of this thesis: whether the FOS should in fact apply the law strictly, and not allow principles of fairness and reasonableness to override the law in the particular circumstances of a case. Should certainty of outcome and of applying law established and modified over hundreds of years be sacrificed to allow the FOS to apply its overriding discretion in the interests of justice in a relatively few cases? Should both insurers and insureds be able to obtain legal advice on their relative positions, without that advice having to mention unpredictable outcomes if the ombudsman chooses not to follow the strict legal position? If the law does not offer the consumer insured enough protection, should the FOS be the forum that does, and if so, does it give enough protection? This study does not look at the decisions of the Insurance Ombudsman Bureau ('IOB') which preceded the FOS. Where a point is not dealt with below, it has not been highlighted in FOS publications to date and it is unclear how relevant IOB decisions on that point will be.

This thesis explores the London Market Excess of Loss Spiral (“LMX Spiral”), a phenomenon based upon excess of loss reinsurance contracts that developed within the London reinsurance market of the 1980s. The unwinding of the LMX Spiral was a key factor in the crisis the Lloyd’s insurance market had to face in the early 1990s. However, whilst the crisis resulted in a wave of litigation in the English courts, there is no legal appraisal of the additional element of risk brought by the LMX Spiral itself. The case law instead focuses on the duties of the underwriters and various agents that fuelled its development. This situation is unsatisfactory for two reasons. Firstly, reinsurance spirals are a potential side-effect of XL reinsurance markets and therefore other spirals may develop in the future. Secondly, this thesis shows that once a reinsurance spiral reaches a certain point, it becomes unsustainable, generating instability within the relevant reinsurance market. This thesis provides a detailed legal appraisal of reinsurance spirals and a new analysis of excess of loss reinsurance contracts. The first part sets out the relevant legal principles and describes the LMX Spiral and its impact; listing, for the first time, the “Spiral Effects” identified through reports and actuarial models. The second part reviews the case law and assesses the legal nature of the excess of loss “Spiral Contracts” at the core of any reinsurance spiral, concluding that the Spiral Effects can distort the Spiral Contracts to the point where they become simple contracts of indemnity. The third part explores the nature of excess of loss reinsurance in light of the review of the Spiral Contracts, submitting that excess of loss reinsurance contracts cover both the liability of the reinsured and the relevant insured peril.

Fraud is always a concern when an insurer issues a policy to an assured. An assured can take out numerous policies and claim indemnity under all the policies, which would result in the assured receiving more than he is entitled to. Is the fear of fraud justifiable and are such exclusions or limitations in insurance contracts preventing recovery where there is other insurance effective? Further, is there sufficient protection for insurers by way of contribution from other insurers. It is beneficial to look at the history and development of the law of insurance, to understand how the law relating to double insurance has developed and the factors the courts may take into account when deciding such issues. The courts in many jurisdictions have tried to deal with the problems which have arisen as a result of such clauses. The courts have also dealt with the question of whether the assured is or should be given any protection when double insurance arises, and if so, whether the insurer has to pay out under the insurance policy. However, where there are rateable proportion clauses with other types of clauses, the solution is not that clear. It is quite common for judges, when dealing with such cases, to conclude that the case before it is not a case of double insurance. In some cases, even though the trial judge may hold that the case before him, on the facts, were sufficient to give rise to double insurance, on appeal, the appeal courts have come to the conclusion that the facts of the case do not give rise to one of double insurance. This clearly shows what a difficult concept double insurance is. This has resulted in the courts not actually being able, even till now, to provide any real solid rules or guidelines on double insurance . Further, even though an assured has taken out insurance with numerous insurers he will not be able to recover more than the loss he has actually suffered. This is the general principle of indemnity. The next problem for an assured is then, from which insurer the assured can seek recovery from. Is there a particular order when seeking recovery or can he recover from whichever insurer he chooses? At the moment, the law on this is also unclear.

The end of World War II was the beginning of an era of promises being made for the protection of human rights. Since then, the international community has established a variety of legal instruments that aim to achieve this protection. These legal instruments at the international level provide certain standards for states to fulfil, such as the right to a fair trial and prohibition of arbitrary detention. Despite the growing international human rights network including several official and non-official actors, non-compliance with international protection standards by states is still a serious challenge within the system. The ever-enlarging literature on international law compliance theories persistently seeks to find ways to overcome this problem. Immigration detention of children, one of the human rights issues on which the international network has provided guidance to states, has been practiced by Turkish and British immigration authorities for a considerable period of time. This practice has been justified on the grounds of efficient immigration control. Nevertheless, these two countries recently took legislative steps towards compliance with international human rights standards regarding immigration detention of minors. This research investigated these processes in Turkey and the UK to find out whether there were any actors that influenced the decision to change legislation by applying a selected compliance theory that focuses on socialisation between various actors such as courts and international monitoring bodies and the state. It was clear that these two very different countries reached the same conclusions via distinct routes, in reference to different reasons and motivations. While the theory’s predictive value showed only limited success in the UK’s case due to its reliance on socialisation and international law, it had high explanatory power for Turkey’s case. Nonetheless, it still demonstrated the importance of identifying actors capable of influencing decisionmaking of states to further strengthen the system of protection of human rights.