Log in
Professor John Finnis has been engaged in a programme of research in legal and constitutional theory. His work on the legal and political responsibilities of UK ministers when acting to affect the law of a British Overseas Territory played a pivotal role in the decision of the House of Lords to reverse the Court of Appeal`s interpretation of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (CVLA). The Court of Appeal had held that UK ministers could not properly legislate in the interests of the UK as a whole (including its dependent territories), but only in the interests of the particular territory itself. Relying on Finnis`s arguments, the House of Lords changed that precept. Finnis`s work also persuaded members of the House of Lords to express doubts about a central holding of an earlier decision, which concerned the capacity in which ministers acted in legislating in dependent territories. Finnis`s arguments have been relied on in legal argument in later cases, and have been recognised and reaffirmed in subsequent Court of Appeal and Supreme Court judgments. In this way, they have helped to change fundamental constitutional principles affecting not only all citizens in the UK, but also those in its Overseas Territories around the world.
The work of the late Professor Peter Birks and of Professor Andrew Burrows QC has had a profound impact on the development by the courts of a new branch of English private law, namely the law of unjust enrichment (sometimes called the law of restitution). This branch was first officially recognised by the highest court in the United Kingdom in 1991 and it is now widely viewed as being an important and independent part of the law as is, for example, the law of contract or the law of tort. Every citizen and institution is potentially affected by it, most obviously where payments are made by mistake. The particular contribution of Birks' and Burrows' research has been in assisting the courts to identify, clarify, and refine the leading principles of this new branch of the law. Their work has made what was previously obscure and under-developed, intelligible and accessible, thereby enhancing the quality of decisions made by the courts and offering guidance to counsel. Their doctrinal and theoretical writings on this subject are among the works most cited in the English courts. As the Times put it, `a mere footnote in a Birks article proved to be the subject of several paragraphs of reasoning in the speeches of the law lords.'
A core claim in Emily Jackson's 2001 book and 2002 article was that the process for assessing infertile people's fitness to parent before being allowed to have fertility treatment was unduly invasive and discriminatory.
As a result of this research, the process was changed. In the UK, infertile patients are now presumed to be fit parents, and withholding of fertility treatment on child welfare grounds is only possible if the child would be at risk of serious harm. The link between the research and the policy change is affirmed by Professor Lisa Jardine, chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) between 2008 and 2012.
Professor Adrian Keane's research relates to the law of criminal evidence, that body of law which regulates the means by which facts can be proved in criminal trials. His publications on the subject have effected change and benefited the awareness, capacity, performance and understanding of the subject on the part of:
(i) the judiciary in the UK and internationally, in reaching decisions at both first instance and at appellate level; and in giving directions to juries on evidential issues that are as clear and consistent as possible
(ii) legal practitioners
(iii) law academics and students (an impact that extends significantly beyond the submitting higher education institution)
(iv) legislators in the People's Republic of China.
The most significant impact stems from participation in a project in Beijing that led directly to a revised Criminal Procedure Law that has improved the quality of the administration of Chinese criminal justice. Specifically, it has rendered criminal trials fairer to the accused and reduced the potential for miscarriages of justice, especially in relation to offences carrying the death penalty.
Professor Enonchong's research has had a direct and significant effect on the development of the law relating to economic duress in Singapore and the Commonwealth. Prior to the relevant impact, the law relating to lawful act duress was in a state of flux. The High Court of Singapore relied directly and exclusively on Enonchong's research to extend the scope of duress in a completely novel way, so as to encompass a threat to do an act that is lawful. The beneficiaries of the impact are all those (such as courts, arbitral tribunals, lawyers and their clients) who rely on the law of Singapore, which is influential throughout the Commonwealth, particularly as currently there is no decision on the point in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.
In 2009, the Law Commission adopted a new approach to the defence of `provocation' that allowed a manslaughter conviction to be substituted for a murder conviction. This new approach was based on a model proposed by Professor John Gardner, and is now reflected in English law ensuring more stable convictions in certain difficult cases of angry killing.
Gardner demonstrated that there is space for a third model between the two traditional views of `provocation'. Traditionally the `provoked defence' was based on a person reasonably retaliating; or a person being temporarily deranged. Gardner's research persuasively argues acceptance for his new model: of a person whose reasonable anger drives him or her to unreasonable retaliation.
Thanks to Gardner's research, the law now focuses not just on whether the accused was murderously angry, but on the causes of this anger. It allows a defence (now called `loss of self-control') only if the anger came of her `justifiable sense of being seriously wronged'.
Research conducted by Durham University on the reconciliation of free speech with rights of privacy and reputation has significantly affected contemporary law and policy around the law of privacy, media injunctions and libel reform. Specifically, it has:
(1) resulted in a substantial contribution to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) Libel Working Group and hence to the Defamation Bill 2012 which followed (now the Defamation Act 2013);
(2) strongly influenced the report of Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights on the human rights aspects of that Bill;
(3) influenced a major parliamentary inquiry on privacy;
(4) helped change Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidelines on prosecuting the media for privacy-related offences including phone-hacking;
(5) been used in argument by an NGO intervening in two important cases before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
This research has made a sustained and continuing impact on the development and application of the substantive criminal law, including mens rea and general defences, and especially in the areas of complicity and homicide, in terms of
i) development of the law by the appellate courts;
ii) application of the law by practitioners; and
iii) government policy as to the reform of the law of murder and complicity.
Two particular examples of impact on legislative change and legal practice are described: impact on the parliamentary process and impact on mental health practice and procedure. The first example describes contribution to debate during the parliamentary process for the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill and contribution to the decision to reject rushed emergency legislation. The research team's response to the consultation by the Justice 2 Committee was widely referred to by organisational representatives and individuals in the debates. The second example focuses on the impact from a key text, which has been used by both sides and judges in Sheriff Court appeals. The impact here is in its verifiable effect on the practice of law in courts and in the making of legal determinations.
The case study is concerned with the issue of international family law disputes, especially how the law affects those involved in such cases. Over the last few years, the research has had extensive impact among lawyers, mediators, judges and families. The stimulus for the research was realisation that there was a pressing need for closer professional collaborations in order to deliver improved outcomes for affected families. To this end, the Centre for Family Law and Practice (CFLP) was established at London Metropolitan University (LMU) in January 2009. Under the auspices of CFLP, interdisciplinary experts worked on these issues. CFLP assists courts, including the United Kingdom and United States Supreme Courts, with amicus curiae briefs based in particular on the research of Professor Marilyn Freeman, abetted by that of Dr Frances Burton.