In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as 'revolutionary' by Lord Sumption (at [261]), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed. The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance. This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the 'go to' work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.

Drawing on a body of empirical, qualitative work spanning three decades, this unique text traces the significance of critical social research and critical analyses in understanding some of the most significant and controversial issues in contemporary society. Focusing on central debates in the UK and Ireland - prison protests; inner-city uprisings; deaths in custody; women's imprisonment; transition in the north of Ireland; the 'crisis' in childhood; the Hillsborough and Dunblane tragedies; and the 'war on terror' - Phil Scraton argues that 'marginalisation' and 'criminalisation' are social forces central to the application of state power and authority. Each case study demonstrates how structural relations of power, authority and legitimacy, establish the determining contexts of everyday life, social interaction and individual opportunity.

This book explores the politics and ethics of critical social research, making a persuasive case for the application of critical theory to analysing the rule of law, its enforcement and the administration of criminal justice. It is indispensable for students in the fields of criminology, criminal justice and socio-legal studies, social policy and social work.

This book examines the process and purpose of sentencing in the criminal justice system, beyond the confines of its legalistic aspects. Sentencing is the process that concludes any criminal trial that ends with the defendant being convicted, and any hearing in which a defendant pleads guilty. Those convicted of crime have been subject to sentencing as the method of imposing a punishment for their offences since the earliest existence of anything we would recognise as a criminal justice system. Yet the rationale behind sentencing, and the process by which it happens, has long been viewed through a traditional lens. In contrast, this book considers not just the process by which a Judge arrives at a numerical sentence of months in custody or the amount of a fine, but the wider meanings and effects of sentencing, as seen through the lens of various ideas of social justice. The book will appeal to students, academics, and legal practitioners who wish to consider a different perspective on the well-known and well-researched, but often shifting, area of sentencing.

* Brings comprehensive syntheses on emerging topics in pretrial justice (not just pretrial procedure) from international experts to a global audience of criminology and public policy scholars and advanced students * Showcases the work of leading criminologists on the earliest phases of the criminal legal system * Ideal for use in graduate-level courses in courts, corrections, and law enforcement

In No Place for Ethics, Hill argues that contemporary judicial review by the Supreme Court rests on its mistaken positivist understanding of law-law simply because so ordered-as something separate from ethics. To assert any relation between the two is to contaminate both, either by turning law into an arm of ethics, or making ethics an expression of law. To address this mistake, Hill contends that an understanding of natural law theory provides the basis for a constitutive relation between ethics and law without confusing their distinct role in answering the basic question, how should I behave in society? To secure that relation, the Court has an overriding responsibility when carrying out its review to do so with reference to normative ethics from which the US Constitution is derived and to which it is accountable. While the Constitution confirms, for example, the liberty interests of individuals, it does not originate those interests which have their origin in human rights that long preceded it. Essential to this argument is an appreciation of ethics as objective and normatively based on principles, like that of justice and truth that ought to inform human behavior at its very springs. Applied in an analysis of five major Supreme Court cases, this appreciation of ethics reveals how wrongly decided these cases are.

* Solid research basis, drawing on findings from a 4-year research project with in-depth interviews with judges, attorneys, and seasoned forensic neuropsychologists and psychologists as well as further interviews with professionals in other fields such as engineering, physics and economics. * Provides focused attention on how experts interact with judges, attorneys, and juries * Challenges experts to avoid the traps of professional jargon and traditional manners of presenting information/knowledge/opinions. * Provides a step-by-step approach to orienting the new academic to expert witnessing

A great resource both for new law students and for more established law students looking to develop their skills; The new author team have thoroughly revised the book, with a streamlined structure, new 'how to use this book' section and glossary of terms, and a host of additional tables, flowcharts, figures, charts, screenshots, outline boxes and online source links.

This book examines how judicial reform can be effectively assessed through a procedural justice approach. It provides a practical framework for assessment of judicial reform, examining a successful reform in Chile through large scale surveys and longitudinal research. Judicial reform is a key element to democratization and modernization processes in the developing world. Practitioners have struggled with ways to analyze the effects of judicial reform, and to define success. Procedural justice theorists propose that people will obey the law if they consider it fair; this affects willingness to collaborate with the police and the courts, and the general approach that the public has towards social regulations. Judicial reforms such as criminal procedure reforms, which explicitly guarantee the development of a fairer judicial process, represent a scenario that puts these theoretical assumptions to the test. With policy recommendations and applications for international judicial reform, this book tests the real conditions of a procedural justice approach with empirical assessment and analysis. With implications for Latin America and countries undergoing judicial or political reforms worldwide, this book will be an important resource for researchers, policy makers and all those interested in the analysis of judicial reforms, democratization processes and the psychology of justice.

Around one in five prisoners report the previous or current incarceration of a parent. Many such prisoners attest to the long-term negative effects of parental incarceration on one's own sense of self and on the range and quality of opportunities for building a conventional life. And yet, the problem of intergenerational incarceration has received only passing attention from academics, and virtually little if any consideration from policy makers and correctional officials. This book - the first of its kind - offers an in-depth examination of the causes, experiences and consequences of intergenerational incarceration. It draws extensively from surveys and interviews with second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-generation prisoners to explicate the personal, familial and socio-economic contexts typically associated with incarceration across generations. The book examines 1) the emergence of the prison as a dominant if not life-defining institution for some families, 2) the link between intergenerational trauma, crime and intergenerational incarceration, 3) the role of police, courts, and corrections in amplifying or ameliorating such problems, and 4) the possible means for preventing intergenerational incarceration. This is undeniably a book that bears witness to many tragic and traumatic stories. But it is also a work premised on the idea that knowing these stories - knowing that they often resist alignment with pre-conceived ideas about who prisoners are or who they might become - is part and parcel of advancing critical debate and, more importantly, of creating real change. Written in a clear and direct style, this book will appeal to students and scholars in criminology, sociology, cultural studies, social theory and those interested in learning about more about families in prison.

The most sophisticated theories of judicial behavior depict judges as rational actors who strategically pursue multiple goals when making decisions. However, these accounts tend to disregard the possibility that judges have heterogeneous goal preferences - that is, that different judges want different things. Integrating insights from personality psychology and economics, this book proposes a new theory of judicial behavior in which judges strategically pursue multiple goals, but their personality traits determine the relative importance of those goals. This theory is tested by analyzing the behavior of justices who served on the US Supreme Court between 1946 and 2015. Using recent advances in text-based personality measurement, Hall evaluates the influence of the 'big five' personality traits on the justices' behavior during each stage of the Court's decision-making process. What Justices Want shows that personality traits directly affect the justices' choices and moderate the influence of goal-related situational factors on justices' behavior.

Winner, 2019 Outstanding Book Award, given by the American Society of Criminology's Division of Policing Section The first in-depth history and analysis of a much-abused policing policy No policing tactic has been more controversial than "stop and frisk," whereby police officers stop, question and frisk ordinary citizens, who they may view as potential suspects, on the streets. As Michael White and Hank Fradella show in Stop and Frisk, the first authoritative history and analysis of this tactic, there is a disconnect between our everyday understanding and the historical and legal foundations for this policing strategy. First ruled constitutional in 1968, stop and frisk would go on to become a central tactic of modern day policing, particularly by the New York City Police Department. By 2011 the NYPD recorded 685,000 'stop-question-and-frisk' interactions with citizens; yet, in 2013, a landmark decision ruled that the police had over- and mis-used this tactic. Stop and Frisk tells the story of how and why this happened, and offers ways that police departments can better serve their citizens. They also offer a convincing argument that stop and frisk did not contribute as greatly to the drop in New York's crime rates as many proponents, like former NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have argued. While much of the book focuses on the NYPD's use of stop and frisk, examples are also shown from police departments around the country, including Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Newark and Detroit. White and Fradella argue that not only does stop and frisk have a legal place in 21st-century policing but also that it can be judiciously used to help deter crime in a way that respects the rights and needs of citizens. They also offer insight into the history of racial injustice that has all too often been a feature of American policing's history and propose concrete strategies that every police department can follow to improve the way they police. A hard-hitting yet nuanced analysis, Stop and Frisk shows how the tactic can be a just act of policing and, in turn, shows how to police in the best interest of citizens.

This book discusses the use of the compromissory clause in international investment agreements (IIAs) for interstate dispute resolution. It puts forward the possibility of using state-to-state arbitration based on the compromissory clause in IIAs as an alternative means of resolving investment disputes in light of the global debate on the shortcomings of investor-state arbitration. The book's main conclusion is that state-to-state arbitration may be used as an alternative to currently popular investor-state arbitration by resolving procedural hurdles which impede its acceptance. It becomes more important with the removal of investor-state arbitration as an option in certain recent IIAs, which then elevates state-to-state arbitration as the sole option for binding third party dispute resolution in the treaty. Even then, it is unlikely to replace investor-state arbitration completely due to its inherent shortcomings, such as the risk of re-politicising disputes and a lack of direct control over the process for the affected investors. Nevertheless, the availability of an alternative forum will benefit all parties involved, as they will no longer be wholly dependent on investor-state arbitration, which can be affected by events such as denunciation from the ICSID Convention or the refusal of a host state to enforce an arbitration award.

This book explores fundamental topics concerning the functioning of the judiciary. The authors - class scholars, international judges and jurists from a diverse range of countries - address general theoretical issues in connection with judicial power, the role and functioning of international courts, international standards concerning the organization of national judiciaries, and the role of domestic courts in international relations, as well as alternative means of settling disputes. The book contributes a novel and valuable global perspective on burning issues, especially on judicial power and independence in a time in which illiberal and authoritarian regimes are constantly seeking to diminish the role of the judiciary.

Routledge Q&As give you the tools to practice and refine your exam technique, showing you how to apply your knowledge to maximum effect in assessment. Each book contains essay and problem-based questions on the most commonly examined topics, complete with expert guidance and model answers that help you to: Plan your revision and know what examiners are looking for: Introducing how best to approach revision in each subject Identifying and explaining the main elements of each question, and providing marker annotation to show how examiners will read your answer Understand and remember the law: Using memorable diagram overviews for each answer to demonstrate how the law fits together and how best to structure your answer Gain marks and understand areas of debate: Providing revision tips and advice to help you aim higher in essays and exams Highlighting areas that are contentious and on which you will need to form an opinion Avoid common errors: Identifying common pitfalls students encounter in class and in assessment The series is supported by an online resource that allows you to test your progress during the run-up to exams. Features include: multiple choice questions, bonus Q&As and podcasts.

Prisons are everywhere. Yet they are not everywhere alike. How can we explain the differences in cross-national uses of incarceration? The Politics of Punishment explores this question by undertaking a comparative sociological analysis of penal politics and imprisonment in Ireland and Scotland. Using archives and oral history, this book shows that divergences in the uses of imprisonment result from the distinctive features of a nation's political culture: the different political ideas, cultural values and social anxieties that shape prison policymaking. Political culture thus connects large-scale social phenomena to actual carceral outcomes, illuminating the forces that support and perpetuate cross-national penal differences. The work therefore offers a new framework for the comparative study of penality. This is also an important work of sociology and history. By closely tracking how and why the politics of punishment evolved and adapted over time, we also yield rich and compelling new accounts of both Irish and Scottish penal cultures from 1970 to the 1990s. The Politics of Punishment will be essential reading for students and academics interested in the sociology of punishment, comparative penology, criminology, penal policymaking, law and social history.

This book discusses civil litigation at the supreme courts of nine jurisdictions - Argentina, Austria, Croatia, England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United States - and focuses on the available instruments used to keep the caseload of these courts within acceptable limits. Such instruments are necessary in order to allow supreme courts to fulfil their main duties, that is, the administration of justice in individual cases (private function) and providing for the uniformity and development of the law within their respective jurisdictions (public function). If the number of cases at the supreme court level is too high, the result is undue delays, which are mainly problematic with regard to the private function. It may also put the quality of the court's judgments under pressure, which can affect its public and private function alike. Thus, measures aimed at avoiding excessive caseloads need to take both functions into account. Increasing the capacity of the court to handle larger numbers of cases may result in the court being unable to adequately fulfil its public function, since large numbers of court decisions make it difficult to guarantee the uniformity of the law and its development. Therefore, a balanced approach is needed to safeguard capacity and quality. As shown by the contributions gathered here, the nature of reform in this area is not the same everywhere. There are a variety of reasons for this heterogeneity, ranging from different understandings of the caseload problem itself, local conceptions regarding the purpose of the Supreme Court, and strong entitlements concerning the right to appeal to budgetary restrictions and extremely rigid legislation. The book also shows that the implementation of similar solutions to case overload, such as access filters, may have different effects in different jurisdictions. The conclusion might well be that the problem of overburdened courts is multifactorial and context-dependent, and that easy, one-size-fits-all solutions are hard to find and perhaps even harder to implement.

Forensic Narratives in Athenian Courts breaks new ground by exploring different aspects of forensic storytelling in Athenian legal speeches and the ways in which forensic narratives reflect normative concerns and legal issues. The chapters, written by distinguished experts in Athenian oratory and society, explore the importance of narratives for the arguments of relatively underdiscussed orators such as Isaeus and Apollodorus. They employ new methods to investigate issues such as speeches' deceptiveness or the appraisals which constitute the emotion scripts that speakers put together. This volume not only addresses a gap in the field of Athenian oratory, but also encourages comparative approaches to forensic narratives and fiction, and fresh investigations of the implications of forensic storytelling for other literary genres. Forensic Narratives in Athenian Courts will be an invaluable resource to students and researchers of Athenian oratory and their legal system, as well as those working on Greek society and literature more broadly.

A basic feature of the modern US administrative state taken for granted by legal scholars but neglected by political scientists and historians is its strong judiciality. Formal, or court-like, adjudication was the primary method of first-order agency policy making during the first half of the twentieth century. Even today, most US administrative agencies hire administrative law judges and other adjudicators conducting hearings using formal procedures autonomously from the agency head. No other industrialized democracy has even come close to experiencing the systematic state judicialization that took place in the United States. Why did the American administrative state become highly judicialized, rather than developing a more efficiency-oriented Weberian bureaucracy? Legal scholars argue that lawyers as a profession imposed the judicial procedures they were the most familiar with on agencies. But this explanation fails to show why the judicialization took place only in the United States at the time it did. Okayama demonstrates that the American institutional combination of common law and the presidential system favored policy implementation through formal procedures by autonomous agencies and that it induced the creation and development of independent regulatory commissions explicitly modeled after courts from the late nineteenth century. These commissions judicialized the state not only through their proliferation but also through the diffusion of their formal procedures to executive agencies over the next half century, which led to a highly fairness-oriented administrative state.

The U.S. Supreme Court and Racial Minorities offers an in-depth, chronologically arranged look at the record of the U.S. Supreme Court on racial minorities over the course of its first two centuries. It does not pose the anachronistic standard, ''Did the Supreme Court get it right?'' but rather, ''How did the Supreme Court compare to other branches of the federal government at the time?'' Have these Justices, prevented against removal from office by discontented voters (in contrast to the President and the members of Congress), done any better than the elected branches of government at protecting racial minorities in America? Goldstein examines treatment of four racial minorities (Indians, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics) in this investigation of the life-tenured Supreme Court's comparative willingness to protect racial minorities. She finds that judicial review, while no panacea, did help America's racial minorities: when the Court was willing to help, it was particularly willing to act to check state-level oppressive policies and federal-level administrative abuses. She also documents the Supreme Court's leadership role on the civil rights of Black Americans from 1911-1989. This book will be a critical resource not only for scholars of political science and law, but for anyone interested in the history of the treatment of racial minorities by the U.S. government and the value of judicial review as a protector of minority rights.

This book argues for a mixed theory of legal punishment that treats both crime reduction and retribution as important aims of the state. A central question in the philosophy of law is why the state's punishment of its own citizens is justified. Traditionally, two theories of punishment have dominated the field: consequentialism and retributivism. According to consequentialism, punishment is justified when it maximizes positive outcomes. According to retributivism, criminals should be punished because they deserve it. This book recognizes the strength of both positions. According to the two-tiered model, the institution of punishment and statutory penalties, as set by the legislature, are justified based on their costs and benefits, in terms of deterrence and rehabilitation. The law exists to preserve the public order. Criminal courts, by contrast, determine who is punished and how much based on what offenders deserve. The courts express the community's collective sense of resentment at being wronged. This book supports the two-tiered model by showing that it accords with our moral intuitions, commonly held (compatibilist) theories of freedom, and assumptions about how the extent of our knowledge affects our obligations. It engages classic and contemporary work in the philosophy of law and explains the theory's advantages over competing approaches from retributivists and other mixed theorists. The book also defends consequentialism against a longstanding objection that the social sciences give us little guidance regarding which policies to adopt. Drawing on recent criminological research, the two-tiered model can help us to address some of our most pressing social issues, including the death penalty, drug policy, and mass incarceration. This book will be of interest to philosophers, legal scholars, policymakers, and social scientists, especially criminologists, economists, and political scientists.

This book considers how access to justice is affected by restrictions to legal aid budgets and increasingly prescriptive service guidelines. As common law jurisdictions, England and Wales and Australia, share similar ideals, policies and practices, but they differ in aspects of their legal and political culture, in the nature of the communities they serve and in their approaches to providing access to justice. These jurisdictions thus provide us with different perspectives on what constitutes justice and how we might seek to overcome the burgeoning crisis in unmet legal need. The book fills an important gap in existing scholarship as the first to bring together new empirical and theoretical knowledge examining different responses to legal aid crises both in the domestic and comparative contexts, across criminal, civil and family law. It achieves this by examining the broader social, political, legal, health and welfare impacts of legal aid cuts and prescriptive service guidelines. Across both jurisdictions, this work suggests that it is the most vulnerable groups who lose out in the way the law now operates in the twenty-first century. This book is essential reading for academics, students, practitioners and policymakers interested in criminal and civil justice, access to justice, the provision of legal assistance and legal aid.

The recent development of lay participation is one of the most significant reforms in Japanese legal history. This volume makes a strong case for its extension to civil juries and beyond. Powerfully argued, and making skillful use of comparative evidence, these three leading scholars have produced a volume that will shape the debate for years to come.' - Tom Ginsburg, The University of Chicago, Law School, US'The jury system continues to grow in popularity across the globe, and this book takes us inside the emergence of civil juries in Japan. The author provides rich detail but also recognizes the limitations of the current system. Anyone interested in understanding the challenges and promise of adopting new jury systems can learn much from this careful study, which weaves together historical, legal, and social scientific analyses.' - John Gastil, lead author of The Jury and Democracy and Director, McCourtney Institute for Democracy, Penn State University, US 'This book is a lucid and engaging account of the development and functioning of Japan's system of lay participation in criminal trials, but equally, and perhaps more important, the authors provide solid arguments for the expansion of lay participation in Japanese civil disputes, and they outline how such a system might be developed. The book will also be useful for scholars and practitioners in other Asian countries interested in developing lay participation in their legal systems.' - Neil Vidmar, Duke University, School of Law, US With effective solutions in both criminal and civil disputes at a premium, reformers have advanced varied forms of jury systems as a means of fostering positive political, economic, and social change. Many countries have recently integrated lay participation into their justice systems, and this book argues that the convergence of current forces makes this an ideal time for Japan to expand lay participation into its civil realm. This book offers a detailed examination of the historical underpinnings of citizen participation in Japan's justice system, and analysis of new reforms related to Japan's adoption of its saibanin seido or quasi-jury 'lay judge system' for serious criminal trials in 2009. Its vivid and groundbreaking research includes an exploration of civil jury trials held in Okinawa after World War II, discussion of citizen participation and its potential impact on environmental civil lawsuits after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and lessons about jury trials based on the experience of the United States and the recent proliferation of citizen involvement in the justice system around the world. This cutting-edge book project will fascinate legal scholars and students as well as practitioners, political activists, organizations, and policymakers who are interested in citizen participation in Japan and other countries around the world, as it addresses societal harms perpetrated by the government or other entities, judicial reforms, democratic movements, and global justice.