Throughout the twentieth century, administrations have wrestled with allaying public concern over national disasters and social scandals. This book seeks to describe historically the use of public inquiries, and demonstrates why their methods continued to deploy until 1998 the ingrained habits of lawyers, particularly by issuing warning letters in order to safeguard witnesses who might be to blame. Under the influence of Lord Justice Salmon, the vital concern about systems and services allotted to social problems was relegated to the identification of individual blameworthiness. The book explains why the last inquiry under that system, into the events of 'Bloody Sunday' under Lord Saville's chairmanship, cost GBP200 million and took twelve and a half years (instead of two years). 'Never again', was the Government's muted cry as the method of investigating the public concern was eventually replaced by the Inquiries Act 2005, by common consent a good piece of legislation. The overriding principle of fairness to witnesses was confirmed by Parliament to those who are 'core participants' to the event, but with limited rights to participate. The public inquiry, the author asserts, is now publicly administered as a Commission of Inquiry, and is correctly regarded as a branch of public administration that focuses on the systemic question of what went wrong, as opposed to which individuals were to blame.

Over the years of the developing judicial review of ministerial and governmental decisions, Louis Blom-Cooper was a leading advocate who grew up with the advent of a distinctive brand of public law. His range of public activities, both in and outwith the courtroom, saw him dubbed by his colleagues as a polymath practitioner.It included chairmanship of plural public inquiries in child abuse and mental health, media contributions in the broadsheet press and in broadcasting, and innovation in penal reform, as an ardent campaigner for the abolition of capital punishment and a plea for a modern Homicide Act. He styled himself as a modern, reconstructed liberal - a man before his time. This collection of essays is uniquely prefaced by a self-examination of his unorthodox philosophy towards the law in action. It covers a variety of socio-legal topics that expresses his ambition to inform a poorly-educated public on the workings of the legal system. This aim involves a discussion of the constitutional history of Britain, unwritten and insufficiently interpreted; it reflects a commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and portrays its international origins. The collection opines on crime and punishment; in the functioning of the courts and elsewhere the political shift from the penal optimism of the 1970s to the reactionary punitiveness of the post-1990s. The essays conclude with a miscellany of affairs, reflecting on professional practices and their product of judicial heroes in Lord Reid and Lord Bingham.

Civil justice has been undergoing a massive transformation. There have been big changes in the management of judicial business; the Human Rights Act 1988 has had a pervasive impact; the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has effected many changes - notably, the prospective transfer of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords to a new Supreme Court. Against this backcloth of radical change, this book looks at the recent history and the present-day operation of the civil division of the Court of Appeal - a court that, despite its pivotal position, has attracted surprisingly little scholarly attention. It examines the impact of the permission to appeal requirements, and the way in which applications - particularly those by litigants in person - are handled; it looks at the working methods of the Lords Justices and at the leadership of the Court by recent Masters of the Rolls; it considers the relationship between the Court and the House of Lords - looking at high-profile cases in which the Court has been reversed by the Lords. Notwithstanding the impending arrival of the Supreme Court, it concludes that 'the Court of Appeal will remain firmly in place, occupying its crucial position as, to all intents and purposes, the court of last resort-indeed, a supreme court-for most civil appellants.'

For more than three centuries the criminal law has given rise to a divergent set of approaches to the crime of homicide. Whereas the law of murder has not conceptually changed,the crime of manslaughter has resulted in some forms of homicide being visited with relatively minor penalties. These various categories of unlawful killing present considerable problems relating to intention, or lack of it, and the culpability of those whose behaviour, while lacking in evident malice, is characterised by the grossest recklessness. The reaction of the relatives of victims is generally simpler. They frequently find it impossible to understand how those who kill by dangerous or drunken driving may receive comparatively lenient sentences, while those convicted of manslaughter following a drunken brawl may be dealt with more severely, and yet others, convicted of so-called 'mercy killings', are subject to the mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. This book addresses the powerful and controversial arguments for the current distinctions between murder, manslaughter and other specific categories of crime to be abolished and subsumed within a single crime of culpable homicide. In the course of this analysis the authors consider a number of issues of great contemporary importance, including the presentation of expert evidence in cases involving unexplained infant death, corporate killing, and the question of the defences available to the accused, including self-defence and provocation, where popular notions of what is reasonable or justifiable may be at variance with legal precedent. While this book aims to consider criminal homicide in its social, historical and legal setting, it also goes far beyond in setting out the case for radical reform.

Written by two of the UK's leading experts on the law of homicide, contains new information and analysis and suggests a radical new solution to the 'mess' which English homicide law has become. In this powerful account, the authors show that-from Sir Edward Coke's classic common law definition of murder, through political fixes, poorly thought-out compromises and misguided legislative or Executive tinkering-the English law of homicide is in 'a mess'. Even the most adept legal minds are faced with what has been described in Parliament as 'fine lines and distinctions'. What must juries make of messy laws and how can anyone have confidence in criminal justice if laws affecting some of the most serious offences in the criminal calendar are deeply flawed? To make matters worse, the entire subject of homicide in England and Wales is further distorted by the existence of the mandatory life sentence for murder. Building on unrivalled knowledge, extensive research, close practical observation and incisive analysis, Professor Terence Morris and Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC trace the development of the law of homicide from early times to the present day. They counter and dismantle specious arguments for preserving the status quo and point out that only root and branch reform of the basis of liability for homicide and its sentencing regime will serve to restore justice, fairness and political probity. Professor Terence Morris and Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC are two of the UK's leading experts on the law of homicide, having studied developments together for over 50 years. This has led them to recognise the extent of disquiet, especially following 'particularly troubling cases' and to conclude that the law of homicide in England and Wales is 'an unsatisfactory law enveloped in a political fix'. Their suggestion of a replacement single offence of criminal homicide coupled with abolition of the mandatory life sentence for murder in favour of discretion at the sentencing stage demands close study by judges, lawyers, legislators, academics, penal reformers and anyone who senses that something is seriously amiss. Reviews 'This is no dry legal tome. The authors present their case in a bracing, persuasive and highly readable way... This is an important and stimulating work that should engage not just the legal practitioner, politician or law student but anyone concerned with our justice system or puzzled by the conduct and outcome of a murder trial': guardian.co.uk (click for full review). 'Fine Lines and Distinctions prompted me to pay more attention to and reflect further on those who have killed. Though its primary focus is the law - specifically a potentially significant improvement to the law - I also warmly recommend it to anyone interested in lifers ': Independent Monitor 'This timely, provocative and certainly topical book puts forward a closely argued and well supported case for encouraging "a root and branch reform of the law of homicide" ...(and) provides ample evidence and ammunition to those who would agree that such a reform should be put in place as a matter of urgency': Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green Chambers. Launched at Middle Temple, 30 June 2011 by Lord Judge - click for photos from the Fine Lines and Distinctions launch.

The House of Lords served as the highest court in the UK for over 130 years. In 2009 the new UK Supreme Court took over its judicial functions, closing the doors on one of the most influential legal institutions in the world, and a major chapter in the history of the UK legal system. This volume gathers over 40 leading scholars and practitioners from the UK and beyond to provide a comprehensive history of the House of Lords as a judicial institution, charting its role, working practices, reputation and impact on the law and UK legal system. The book examines the origins of the House's judicial work; the different phases in the court's history; the international reputation and influence of the House in the legal profession; the domestic perception of the House outside the law; and the impact of the House on the UK legal tradition and substantive law. The book offers an invaluable overview of the Judicial House of Lords and a major historical record for the UK legal system now that it has passed into the next chapter in its history.

Through his researches in the rich archive of 16th and 17th century manuscripts and documents at the Middle Temple in London, where he is a senior barrister, Anthony Arlidge has revealed that Shakespeare's Twelfth Night was commissioned for performance there in 1602. Middle Temple Hall is the only building surviving from Shakespeare's time where it is known that one of his plays had its first night. He shows that, with its many legal references and 'inn-jokes', Twelfth Night was almost certainly written for an audience of lawyers. The Middle Temple was in fact full of talented young poets and playwrights at the time -- John Webster, John Ford and John Marston, author of What You Will, amongst others -- and it seems probable that Shakespeare knew some of them personally. Also, a 'cousin' of Shakespeare's was a student in the Inn in 1602. Like other Inns of Court, it had its own tradition of holding a feast of 'misrule' over the Christmas period, led by the Bright Prince of Burning Love. Twelfth Night has many oblique references to such festivities. That, for example, is the meaning in Italian of the name of the important character Feste. The still extant text of the Inn's 1597/8 festivities is included complete in an appendix. In the course of the book, Anthony Arlidge describes in detail the background of the contemporary legal world, and brings to life the extravagant literary and social milieu of the Elizabethan Inns of Court in all its complexity. Shakespeare and the Prince of Love is written in such a way that it will have a strong appeal to the general reader as well as to Shakespeare enthusiasts, students of English literature and historians, for whom it will be an essential acquisition.

The House of Lords has served as the highest court in the UK for over 130 years. In 2009 a new UK Supreme Court will take over its judicial functions, closing the doors on one of the most influential legal institutions in the world, and a major chapter in the history of the UK legal system. This volume gathers over 40 leading scholars and practitioners from the UK and beyond to provide a comprehensive history of the House of Lords as a judicial institution, charting its role, working practices, reputation and impact on the law and UK legal system. The book examines the origins of the House's judicial work; the different phases in the court's history; the international reputation and influence of the House in the legal profession; the domestic perception of the House outside the law; and the impact of the House on the UK legal tradition and substantive law. The book offers an invaluable overview of the Judicial House of Lords and a major historical record for the UK legal system as it opens the next chapter in its history.

Expert evidence in the civil justice system remains a controversial area, and one which continues to develop in the context of the changes in civil litigation brought about by the Woolf reforms. In June 2005 the Civil Justice Council's Protocol for the Instruction of Experts was launched to provide guidance to legal professionals and those acting as experts. The recent disciplinary case taken against Sir Roy Meadow by the General Medical Council relating to his expert evidence in a criminal trial - while not directly a civil matter - served to highlight a number of the key problems faced by experts in giving opinion evidence to courts. This new title is a comprehensive guide and reference book for all who are concerned with the quality of expert evidence in the courts. The text focuses on civil practice and looks in detail at the impact of the Civil Procedure Rules on expert evidence. It concentrates on the practical aspects of having experts give evidence, and looks at areas which have caused particular confusion, or on which case law is gradually emerging. Coverage will include the accreditation of experts, the litigant solicitor/expert witness relationship, experts' reports and privilege, court management of expert evidence, the single joint expert, and experts' immunity from liability. The book also includes an illustrative account of one expert's experience in a complex class action relating to a pharmaceutical product. In addition to practical guidance, the book also provides a historical background to expert testimony and discusses the future development of the law, with reference to developments in the courts and other tribunals. Written by a team of leading practitioners, many of whom were members of the Working Party on the Code of Guidance for Expert Evidence, the book is an authoritative first port-of-call for civil litigation practitioners who use experts or come across them regularly in their work, the judiciary, and for experts themselves.

Throughout the twentieth century, administrations have wrestled with allaying public concern over national disasters and social scandals. This book seeks to describe historically the use of public inquiries, and demonstrates why their methods continued to deploy until 1998 the ingrained habits of lawyers, particularly by issuing warning letters in order to safeguard witnesses who might be to blame. Under the influence of Lord Justice Salmon, the vital concern about systems and services allotted to social problems was relegated to the identification of individual blameworthiness. The book explains why the last inquiry under that system, into the events of 'Bloody Sunday' under Lord Saville's chairmanship, cost GBP200 million and took twelve and a half years (instead of two years). 'Never again', was the Government's muted cry as the method of investigating the public concern was eventually replaced by the Inquiries Act 2005, by common consent a good piece of legislation. The overriding principle of fairness to witnesses was confirmed by Parliament to those who are 'core participants' to the event, but with limited rights to participate. The public inquiry, the author asserts, is now publicly administered as a Commission of Inquiry, and is correctly regarded as a branch of public administration that focuses on the systemic question of what went wrong, as opposed to which individuals were to blame.

Over the years of the developing judicial review of ministerial and governmental decisions, Louis Blom-Cooper was a leading advocate who grew up with the advent of a distinctive brand of public law. His range of public activities, both in and outwith the courtroom, saw him dubbed by his colleagues as a polymath practitioner.It included chairmanship of plural public inquiries in child abuse and mental health, media contributions in the broadsheet press and in broadcasting, and innovation in penal reform, as an ardent campaigner for the abolition of capital punishment and a plea for a modern Homicide Act. He styled himself as a modern, reconstructed liberal - a man before his time. This collection of essays is uniquely prefaced by a self-examination of his unorthodox philosophy towards the law in action. It covers a variety of socio-legal topics that expresses his ambition to inform a poorly-educated public on the workings of the legal system. This aim involves a discussion of the constitutional history of Britain, unwritten and insufficiently interpreted; it reflects a commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and portrays its international origins. The collection opines on crime and punishment; in the functioning of the courts and elsewhere the political shift from the penal optimism of the 1970s to the reactionary punitiveness of the post-1990s. The essays conclude with a miscellany of affairs, reflecting on professional practices and their product of judicial heroes in Lord Reid and Lord Bingham.

An initiative supported by leading political, academic, religious and professional figures and in association with Queen Mary University of London. Virtually half-a-century has passed since the last Royal Commission on the Penal System was dissolved, its work uncompleted. Looking forwards, six members of the Commission asserted that 'after some years' a new Royal Commission would be of great public service. As commentators, writers and practitioners, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC and Professor Sean McConville have many decades of experience of penal policy and practice. Some 20-years ago they urged the appointment of a new Royal Commission on the subject. They have since pressed their case in letters to major newspapers and in earlier writings. In this publication the momentum for which is supported by leading figures, they make the case for a new Royal Commission that will be reflective, effective and swift, capable of building consensus and providing directions for generations. They argue that penal policy is fragmented and frequently irrational, contradictory, counterproductive, insubstantial and put together in a haphazard way.The dynamics and pressures of party politics inevitably mean that penal policy often emerges in response to hard cases and headlines. As this pamphlet claims, broader and more considered views, drawing on evidence and seeking to maximise social good, cannot be delivered by politicians afraid of missing an opportunity to score party political points.

The system of jury trial has survived, intact, for 750 years. In the light of contemporary opposition to jury trial for serious offences, this book explains the nature and scope today of jury trial, with its minor exceptions. It chronicles the origins and development of jury trial in the Anglo-Saxon world, seeking to explain and explore the principles that lie at the heart of the mode of criminal trial. It observes the distinction between the professional judge and the amateur juror or lay participant, and the value of such a mixed tribunal. Part of the book is devoted to the leading European jurisdictions, underlining their abandonment of trial by jury and its replacement with the mixed tribunal in pursuance of a political will to inject a lay element into the trial process. Democracy is not an essential element in the criminal trial. The book takes a look at the appellate system in crime, from the Criminal Appeals Act 1907 to the present day, and urges the reform of the appellate court, finding the trial decision unsatisfactory as well as unsafe. Other important issues are touched upon - judicial ethics and court-craft; perverse jury verdicts (the nullification of jury verdicts); the speciality of fraud offences, and the selection of models for various crimes, as well as suggested reforms of the waiver of a jury trial or the ability of the defendant to choose the mode of trial. The section ends with a discussion of the restricted exceptions to jury trial, where the experience of 30 years of judge-alone trials in Northern Ireland - the Diplock Courts - is discussed. Finally, the book proffers its proposal for a major change in direction - involvement of the defendant in the choice of mode of trial, and the intervention (where necessary) of the expert, not merely as a witness but as an assessor to the judiciary or as a supplemental decision-maker.