This thesis is concerned with the legal shortcomings flowing from Manchester City Council v Pinnock.1 Following Pinnock tenants of local authorities may have the proportionality of a possession order considered by the court in light of art.8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. However, there are questions outstanding from Pinnock. Firstly, there has been a failure within the courts to appreciate the importance of the home to the individual, their family, and society in general. Secondly, domestic courts have not provided adequate reasons for limiting art.8 to proceedings involving a local authority. Thirdly, the nature of proportionality within possession proceedings has been poorly conceived thereby marginalising art.8’s effects. This thesis draws support from philosophical and sociological literature to illustrate the deep connection a person feels towards their home. These connections exist irrespective of ownership yet it is these non-legal interests which are often overlooked by the courts. It is argued here that art.8 may protect these non-legal interests. Further, this thesis questions why art.8’s protection ought to be limited to proceedings involving a public sector landlord. The thesis provides an overview of the competing theories concerning horizontal effect and their related shortcomings. The work of Alexy is used to argue that horizontal effect is a singular phenomenon thereby making art.8 applicable in private proceedings. The public/private divide is then critiqued to demonstrate the theoretical viability of horizontal effect where a person’s home is at risk. The final strand of this thesis is concerned with how the competing interests of landlords and tenants may be adjudged. To this end a structured proportionality model is developed to replace the general proportionality exercise utilised by the courts following Pinnock. This proportionality model is then applied to existing case law to demonstrate its viability and context sensitivity.

This thesis is concerned with the conflict of laws surrounding marriage validity, with a particular focus on essential validity. At present in England, there is a multitude of choice of law rules available to the courts when determining the applicable law, and no way of knowing which will be applied. Consequently, it is difficult for a couple to know whether their marriage is valid, and complications eschew from this. In addition to any emotional impact a finding of invalidity might have, there is the potential for significant legal consequences. With these embryonic legal ramifications in mind, this thesis seeks to create optimal choice of law rules that are both appropriate, and provide certainty. In doing so, support is drawn from various literary sources to promulgate a dépeçage based interest analysis approach. This means that rules are selected for each of the incapacities, taking into account the relevant policy objectives they raise, making the optimal choice of law rules policy sensitive in nature. Furthermore, a new and original choice of law rule; the continued recognised relationship theory is proposed. With much of the literature pre-dating the legal developments surrounding same-sex relationships in England, this thesis goes on to seminally include the determination of the applicable law in same-sex relationships. This is particularly important given the inconsistencies surrounding same-sex relationships; it is an area ripe for conflict disputes, making a set choice of law rule vital if certainty is to be achieved across the marriage validity spectrum. Finally, as a result of increased migration, this thesis extends beyond the borders of England, and encompasses the EU and the US, with the aim of evaluating how certainty might be continued as couples cross state borders. To this end, harmonisation of the choice of law rules proposed herein are propounded across these jurisdictions.

Despite the general prohibition of using inter-state force imposed by Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, force has been used under the auspices of self-defence, collective security and humanitarian crises. Such use of force has brought challenges to international law regarding its existence and efficacy. Although no state has denied the validity of such prohibition, many attempts have been made to legitimise use of such force on different grounds, namely exception, expansion and explanation. Unlike Public international law, Islamic law of Nations (Siyar) does not provide for a general prohibition of use of force but recognises circumstances in which such force can be legitimately used. The compatibility of these conflicting provisions of legitimate inter-state use of force offered by these two systems are significant for the prevention of aggressive use of force. The assessment of legitimacy of these conflicting provisions shall reveal where the legitimacy lies - is it in Islamic international law or Public international law or both or none of them? The results of the legitimacy assessment demonstrate that these two systems could sit in plural fashion by complementing each other’s legitimacy-deficits. However, the legitimacy and compatibility of Public international law and Islamic international law significantly depend on the development of an underlying pluralistic legal framework of international law with a healthy dose of legitimacy. Therefore, a comparative analysis of these two systems reveals the extent to which a complementary legal framework could be compatible and legitimate. The comparative analysis of the legitimacy of use of force in Public international law and Islamic international law includes examination of classical and contemporary sources to identify the existing legitimacy deficits of the two systems. The analysis follows on an inquiry into the the compatibility of these potentially two conflicting legal systems to complement each other. In this regard, the research expands on another inquiry into how the existing legitimacy deficits of the two systems could be overcome. Generally, this thesis seeks to address three fundamental and interrelated research questions, namely - (1) To what extent use of force in Public international law and Islamic international law is legitimate? (2) How the legitimacy deficits of Public international law and Islamic international law could be overcome? (3) Whether use of force in Public international law and Islamic international law can be compatible in modern world to secure higher degree of legitimacy?

The obligation of the State to ensure children have access to healthcare is surprisingly contentious with Western capitalism demanding open markets free from interference. Such a view holds healthcare services as a commodity to be traded. A ‘right’ to health is only a goal to many, not a tangible guarantee States can rationally be expected to ensure because of the enormous costs and the difficulties presented to a court in adjudicating this right. On this view it is impossible for a child to have a legal right to access healthcare. This thesis combats such arguments. The obligation of the State is discussed from a moral standpoint, finding that the child’s right to health must be a State and a global obligation in any just society. Pragmatic discussion addresses the problem of legalising the obligation and showing the right can be a tangible guarantee. This is done through two paradigms: firstly, by looking at current international law and its implementation; and secondly, by looking at countries with a right to healthcare in their written constitution and adjudication of such a right. This combats the legal right arguments as well as provides lessons that international law can learn from. This thesis contributes to discussion around the effective enforcement and implementation of human rights, especially economic, social and cultural rights. It does this by examining the scope of a child’s right to health, and arguing for a moral obligation for its provision, as well as more pragmatic discussion on how to enforce such rights and adjudicate them to make them worth more than words on paper. The final chapter brings together various proposals for tackling the global challenge to ensure every child in the world has access to basic minimum healthcare.

This thesis analyses the development, methodology, and results of a quantitative study of the decision-making of the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The Court of Appeal plays an important constitutional role, and the impartiality of the judges is central to its legitimacy. Drawing upon research from the Empirical Legal Studies (ELS) research community, this thesis explores the question of the Court of Appeal’s impartiality. As an incomplete measurement of impartiality, a sample of the Court of Appeal’s decisions has been analysed. A dataset of all murder and rape appeals against conviction decided between 2006 and 2010 has been created. A range of factual, demographic, and legal variables have been collected from each of these 472 appeals against conviction, utilising quantitative content analysis. It has been determined, utilising binary logistic regression analysis, whether the variables under analysis are predictors of the outcome of appeals against conviction. Almost all of the variables analysed showed only a limited ability to predict the outcomes of appeals. Moreover, this study finds support for the legal model of judicial decision-making. A variable designed to capture impartial decision-making had the strongest association with the outcome of appeals. However, a small number of factual and demographic variables are shown to be predictors of outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to doubt the impartiality of the Court of Appeal, but the emergence of these patterns in the data warrants further investigation. This conclusion is important to users and observers of the Court, to whom the impartiality, and so legitimacy, of the Court’s decision-making is essential.

This work, published over a five-year-period, focuses upon the availability of mental condition defences to vulnerable offenders. The question addressed is ‘to what extent do mental condition defences adequately accommodate the circumstances of vulnerable offenders within the criminal justice system?’ The publications are timely in charting a pathway for the interpretation and application of the (then) recently introduced partial defences to murder, and recent reviews/reforms to mental condition defences across England and Wales (‘E&W’), Scotland, New South Wales (‘NSW’), Victoria, New Zealand (‘NZ’), and the United States (‘US’), before advancing optimal reform solutions. The publications fall under four themes, each addressing essential aims and objectives of the study. The overarching aim is to provide optimal reform solutions to problems faced by vulnerable offenders in claiming mental condition defences. The objective is to provide a critical exposition of these problems before advancing reform proposals based upon the experiences of the jurisdictions identified. The research method is largely doctrinal 'black-letter', comparative, and reform- focused. The nature of the research means that socio-legal factors also play a significant role. This collection provides a leading point of reference in the field of mental condition defences, which represents one of the most important and sensitive criminal law areas; this work reveals significant problems in the operation and application of the law. The central conclusion reached is that in the context of mental condition defences, a rebalancing exercise must take place, which ensures vulnerable offenders are at the centre of discourse, policy, and reform initiatives. In this regard, these publications provide insights into the interpretation of proposed, new and existing law as it applies to vulnerable offenders. This focus upon making mental condition defences more accessible to the vulnerable offender, and the optimal reform framework advanced demonstrates the extent to which this can be achieved, without risking the integrity of mental condition defences; the NZ Law Commission is considering several of the proposals.

Since the time when legal education became the preserve of universities and other higher education providers there has been an uneasy relationship between the ‘aims’ of a liberal course of study and the demands of a practising profession. In addition, educators have dominated formal legal learning with a rules-driven curriculum delivered principally in the format of lectures – where students are seen and treated primarily as passive recipients of knowledge. On joining academia from legal practice in the early 1990s my work has been principally focused on addressing the tensions implicit in the above – looking at what we as educators, practitioners, students and the wider public need and want from legal education and the most effective ways of achieving that. Taking the importance of knowledge, skills and values as a framework I have published widely on both the content and means of delivery of legal education. Whilst the former (content) must be seen in context – undergraduates for example may have very different outcomes set for them as compared with those an overtly vocational course – the latter (delivery) has a common denominator. This is to do with how students learn and how they can be encouraged to take responsibility for, and make the most of, that. Learning through experience supported by the means to conduct critical reflection is at the centre of my work. I have looked, in particular, at developing models of 'clinic' where students, under requisite supervision, engage in real or realistic casework in order to comprehend relevant content, be that legal doctrine, lawyering skills or professional and ethical considerations. This work has been recognised as ‘pioneering’ in the development of clinical legal education both in the UK and further afield, as evidenced by the volume of publications, numerous citations in other works and requests made by others for assistance, particularly in developing clinics. Most recently I have been looking at whether these pedagogic and professional practice models have transferable value in civil and common law jurisdictions and to what extent they aide access to justice. The publications – a mix of books, book chapters, articles in refereed journals and other material in the public domain – that I rely on are listed in Appendix 1 to this commentary and show, I submit, how I have made a significant contribution to knowledge through the development of clinic as pedagogy and the utility of this, for student, client, profession and the wider public in a domestic and international context. This submission looks initially at the context of my published work and recounts a journey encompassing different models of clinical legal education. This is followed by a section setting out a framework for understanding the nature, scope and extent of ‘clinic’. In order the encapsulate what clinic is and what potential is offered a taxonomy is suggested based on the variants that determine the educational, public service and professional reach of experiential learning in general and clinical legal education in particular. I then focus on three aspects of my work represented by the publications on which I rely for this award – simulation, model modification and international transferability and provide examples of these manifestations of clinic alongside analysis from other scholars. The final substantive section of the submission attempts to locate what I have published within the wider context of current changes and proposed reforms in legal education. The conclusions reached include the recognition of the importance of clinic (actual and potential) in serving the various agendas held by relevant stakeholders.

This research examines the treatment of terror detainees during pre-charge detention in Pakistan and the UK. Pakistan is the principal focus and the UK acts as a comparator thereto. Suspected terrorists are more vulnerable to maltreatment during pre-charge detention. Their vulnerability increases more in a country like Pakistan where more than 60,000 people have died in various terrorist attacks. Arguably, there is no case-study on the topic in Pakistan and the UK has not been used as a comparator. This scholarship, therefore, attempts to fill the gap by evaluating the treatment of terror detainees during pre-charge detention in Pakistan by using relevant human rights law and principles as a yardstick and the UK as a comparator to the main case. This scholarship uses liberal critique research methodology assessing pre-charge terror detention in the following six themes: the period of pre-charge terror detention; police interrogation and questioning; internal police review mechanisms; police records; the rights of a terror suspect to contact the outside world; and the detention conditions. The relevant anti-terror legislation of the two countries will be used to find the law on the topic. The related provisions in the UDHR, ICCPR and UNCAT will also be used to find out how we ought to treat terror detainees in a criminal justice system. The results show that the UK fulfils most of its human rights obligations, while Pakistan does not. The UK provides a maximum period of 14 days for pre-charge detention, while Pakistan has 90 days. A terror suspect can be interrogated for up to two hours at a time in the UK, while police interrogation sessions in Pakistan are unlimited. The UK includes internal police review mechanism as a check on the special powers of the police, while there is no such arrangement in Pakistan. The countries also differ in their police records, the rights of a terror suspect to contact the outside world and the detention conditions. Consequently, Pakistan can arguably learn from the UK's experience on the topic.

The subject of this research is institutional racism and how it can be addressed as an organisational change process post the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The research was carried out using a range of methods within an over-arching constructivist approach to grounded theory in a single site case study. The case study was the Royal College of Psychiatrists which provided the researcher with full access to its organisational change programme for race equality. During the five year period of this programme the researcher was a participant observer and was able to use this role to make an in depth study of the organisational change processes. The constructivist grounded theory approach has been used with both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis to construct new theory about organisational change and institutional racism. This is an under-developed area of research and there are no examples in the literature of a similar study of this depth and duration. Soft Systems Methodology was used as a sense making tool by which the College's change programme was evaluated. The methodology reveals significant gaps between desirable and culturally feasible change. These gaps arise because standard approaches to organisational change based on systems thinking fail to address the discursive effects of institutional racism. The new contribution to knowledge provided by this research includes the identification of four dimensions of change by which institutional racism can be operationalised: organisational structure, professional boundary, group difference and personal agency. These dimensions of change are used to construct new theory about the discursive effects of institutional racism. The research concludes with the development of a new approach to organisational change based on these insights. This approach takes the professional field as the prime unit of change and uses communicative action as a means of overcoming the discursive effects of institutional racism.

The main aim of this thesis is to examine, through an analysis of relevant case law, the way in which the courts interpret and apply primary legislation pursuant to the interpretative obligation contained in section 2(1) and (4) of the European Communities Act 1972 and section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, and to assess current judicial attitudes to the traditional concept of parliamentary sovereignty in the light of the judicial perception of the interpretative obligation in the above-mentioned provisions. As an essential prelude to the examination of the case law on the judicial treatment of the interpretative obligation in the 1972 and 1998 Acts, chapter 2 of the thesis discusses the traditional, Diceyan concept of parliamentary sovereignty. This is considered without the effects of the 1972 and 1998 Acts. This chapter demonstrates that the courts perceived it as their constitutional duty to obey and apply the latest will of Parliament without question. It is observed that no legal grounds could exist for challenging the validity or enforceability of primary legislation. Chapter 3 discusses conventional methods of statutory interpretation. It is observed that conventionally, the principal aim of statutory interpretation is the ascertainment of parliamentary intention in the statute under consideration. Where the intention of Parliament is clear and unambiguous and is not absurd in any way, the courts feel duty-bound to carry out the identified parliamentary intention in line with the rule, demanded by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, that courts obey without question the latest will of Parliament. The rest of the thesis is devoted to an examination of the way in which the courts use their interpretative powers under section 2(1) and (4) of the 1972 Act and section 3(1) of the 1998 Act when interpreting and applying primary legislation coming within the purview of these enactments. It is argued that while the courts appear to continue to acknowledge the sovereignty or supremacy of Parliament, the case law reveals that in appropriate cases, section 2(1) and (4) of the 1972 Act and section 3(1) of the 1998 Act has enabled judges to interpret and apply primary legislation in a way that substantially challenges the traditional, Diceyan concept of parliamentary sovereignty. They feel able to ignore or otherwise modify the legal effects of unambiguous primary legislation in appropriate cases.