 Correspondents' Reports | UK Perspective | Government and Legislation | Courts and Judgments | Legal Press | Law Schools | Study Law in the UK | Other || World Law Home ————————————————————————————— 
JURIST's own correspondent in the United Kingdom provides extended reports on aspects of UK law: ——————————————————————— UK Perspective October 6, 2000: JURIST's UK Correspondent looks back on recent UK legal news... Welcome to the latest UK Perspective. This past week has seen the coming into force of what many are calling the greatest constitutional change in the UK since the 1688 Bill of Rights: the Human Rights Act 1998. Regular readers of this column will recognise this Act as having already figured in this series more than once. Briefly, the Act allows individuals to take action against public bodies if they fail to act in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not intend to go into the details of the Act and Convention in this column, as a special Correspondent's Report will shortly appear on the subject, but it's fair to say that although the Act has been welcomed it is still controversial (click here for a summary of the reaction). The vast majority of Conservative Party members have not welcomed the Act as they argue that it goes against the constitution of the United Kingdom (click here for story). Their argument is that the Act will allow unelected judges to make political decisions. The Conservatives argue that this should be left to democratically elected ministers accountable to Parliament, and ultimately the public. The counter-argument to this is that Parliament is not particularly good at scrutinising the executive, not least because the House of Commons is always split down party lines. This is, of course, not unique to the UK - many democracies have difficulty with politics interfering with what should be a legal or constitutional duty. Perhaps the most famous example of this was in the USA with the impeachment fiasco which proceeded almost entirely on political lines. The other Act which came into effect here, at least in part, over the past week or so is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Again regular readers of this column will have heard about this Act because of its controversial passage through Parliament (click here for a background story). Part II of this Act has now come into force and this deals with covert policing methods like surveillance and the use of informants. More on this as well in a future Correspondent's Report. One Bill which will not come into force, however, is the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial)(No. 2) Bill. Again this is something that readers of JURIST will be familiar with from a previous World Law report. Last week the House of Lords yet again threw out the Act, which has angered the government (click here for story). There is unlikely to be sufficient Parliamentary time in the next year to re-introduce it because a general election will be called next year. The Home Secretary has pledged to re-introduce the Act when time allows, but given the controversy this Bill has provoked it may not be surprising if at this stage the Bill finally slips away to a quiet death. There was a victory for inventors in the High Court this week. In the UK there is an inventor named James Dyson who invented a special type of vacuum cleaner. This vacuum cleaner does not require a bag and is supposed to be very efficient thanks to a special cyclonic system. Hoover, who pioneered, the use of vacuum cleaning, brought out their own version of the cleaner and Dyson sued them, alleging breach of patent laws. Hoover denied breaching the law but the High Court found against them (click here for story). The court will now go on to decide compensation which could reach several millions. It is unlikely that this is the end of the story as it will almost certainly go to appeal. All this, however, is preliminary to the our main UK legal story of the past week, which the Siamese twins Mary and Jodie. It has been that the parents of the twins will not appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to allow their separation (click here for story). Whilst this marks the beginning of the end for the legal process, it is not necessarily the result that many had hoped for (the judges claimed that it would upset 50% of the population (click here for story) and this is effectively what has happened. Cases like this one are ethical nightmares for lawyers and academics, not just because of the ethics of the result but because of how we feel. Even though it is the most tragic of circumstances, many lawyers and academics wish the case to go the House of Lords to see what they would have decided. If it were a criminal case then the Attorney-General could refer the decision as a reference. This is where the facts remain the same but it proceeds as a theoretical case, i.e. the decision is irrelevant to the parties as it is non-binding but is authority only for subsequent cases. It is possible that the same could happen in civil law because the judicial committee of the Privy Council (which has just set up a very interesting web site: click here to see it) has jurisdiction to hear such matters. It is not known whether the Attorney-General will ask for such a reference but it may be advisable to do so. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was carefully considered (although I have still not yet managed to read the whole judgment in detail yet), but it raises several important issues that go far beyond the facts of the case. The Court considered Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to life) which is important by itself, but it also considered necessity. UK law, like the law of the US, partially recognises necessity but not in relation to murder. The comments of the Court of Appeal will be interesting to see whether this has now changed. The implications if this is the case are very serious and for that reason alone it may be worth getting the opinion of the highest court in the land. There is no doubt that the implications of this sad case, be they medical, legal or ethical, will continue for some time. That's it for this week’s column. Stay tuned for the special Correspondent's Report on human rights and the dedicated Correspondent's Report on Part II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Any comments on anything raised in this series of UK Perspectives can be addressed to me by email at A.A.Gillespie@tees.ac.uk.
Alisdair A. Gillespie, Barrister Have you read these previous Perspectives? ——————————————————————— The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights." Changes may come about formally through new acts of parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, in actual practice the weight of 700 years of tradition restrains arbitrary actions. Executive government rests nominally with the monarch but actually is exercised by a committee of ministers (cabinet) traditionally selected from among the members of the House of Commons and, to a lesser extent, the House of Lords. The prime minister is the leader of the majority party in the Commons, and the government is dependent on its support. Parliament represents the entire country and can legislate for the whole or for any constituent part or combination of parts. The maximum parliamentary term is 5 years, but the prime minister may ask the monarch to dissolve parliament and call a general election at any time. The focus of legislative power is the 650-member House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. The House of Lords, although shorn of most of its powers, can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills except those relating to the budget. Only a few of the 1,200 members of the House of Lords attend its sessions regularly. The House of Lords has more time than the House of Commons to pursue one of its more important functions--debating public issues. The judiciary is independent of the legislative and executive branches but cannot review the constitutionality of legislation. Source: U.S. Department of State
Courts and Judgments
Legal Press ——————————————————————— Law Schools
Most UK universities offer law courses. In the United Kingdom, law is a three-year undergraduate degree - entry is decided by reference to "A-Level" points. "A-Levels" are examinations students take in the two years prior to entering university and each grade is worth a different level of points. The hierarchy of the UK law schools is roughly equal to those who wish or demand students who score the highest. The older universities (Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, London etc.) are still considered to be some of the most prestigious universities in which to "read law", but many newcomers have entered the field and, infused with energetic faculty members and diverse student bodies, are beginning to give the traditional institutions a run for their money. There is no set format for UK law teaching; each university is allowed to decide how the subject will be taught. Some universities offer a large number of lectures and a small number of tutorials (e.g. "Oxbridge" and Durham), whereas other universities prefer more tutorials where near one-to-one tuition can be offered (e.g. Northumbria University) The only common thread uniting law degrees is that for them to qualify as law degrees for professional purposes, students must study Constitutional law, E.U. law, Contract Law, Law of Torts, Criminal Law, Land Law and Equity and Trusts. At the end of three years students are awarded a bachelor's degree in law and they must then decide what to do next. A large proportion - possibly around one-third - will decide not to enter a career as a lawyer. The others must choose between becoming a barrister (essentially, a courtroom litigator) or a solicitor. Students who do not have a qualifying law degree (either because they have not studied one of the subjects listed above, or because they have read for another degree) but who nonetheless wish to enter the professions must do a one-year course called the Common Professional Examination and then they too have to choose which profession to enter. A would-be barrister has to take the Bar Vocational Course, which lasts one year. Prior to 1998 this course was taken in London at the Inns of Court School of Law, but nowadays there are several universities which also offer the training. Would-be solicitors study the Legal Practice Course, which is also one-year long and is offered by numerous universities, as well as by the College of Law (the formal "solicitor's university"). After completing their respective professional courses, law students then undergo professional training. A barrister undertakes a year of "pupillage" in barristers' "chambers", which is actually two six-month placements. A solicitor takes a training contract ("articles") which lasts for two years. Legal education in England and Wales is changing quite rapidly, and in the opinion of some academic and professional observers a number of the older UK universities are not changing fast enough. Many UK law schools now offer skills-based learning like moots and advocacy, and many universities are also offering part-time or distance-learning degrees. The Open University (which was set up by the government in the 1960s primarily to teach adults by distance learning, which then meant correspondence and television) is leading the way in this field in general; in law, the University of London now offers an external LL.B. degree that can be taken by distance learning, and Strathclyde University in Scotland is offering an LL.M. through the internet. Bringing modern teaching methods to bear on legal education will help to ensure that law remains one of the more popular and respected degrees in the United Kingdom.
Alisdair A. Gillespie
Study Law in the UK Summer Study Abroad
Other |
WORLD
LAW/United Kingdom
|