Log in
Research conducted at the University of Sheffield on the `unbundling' of the state through the use of various forms of arm's-length bodies (or quangos), undertaken in association with a range of professional and regulatory bodies, has contributed to and informed subsequent governmental and parliamentary reforms. More specifically, research has shaped: core elements of the coalition government's `Public Bodies Reform Agenda'; the Public Bodies Act 2011; reforms within the Cabinet Office; the introduction of triennial reviews; and, a review of the public appointments system. Furthermore, research into the control and management of public bodies has led to the identification of a number of institutional and skills-based gaps being addressed by the coalition government.
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'.
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.'
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.
Judith Freedman's research on tax law and policy helped shape anti-avoidance provisions of the Finance Act 2013. Freedman had proposed a statutory general anti-avoidance principle combined with a statutorily created administrative framework to limit the exercise of discretion by revenue authorities, thus reducing manipulation whilst achieving reasonable certainty in UK tax law. This research directly informed debates among tax professionals, officials and the public. The 2011 Aaronson study group (of which Freedman was a member), commissioned by the Exchequer Secretary, produced proposals embodying her approach. The government acted on these proposals in the Finance Act 2013, introducing into UK law an overriding statutory principle, to which other tax legislation is subject, together with an administrative framework (the General Anti- Abuse Rule (GAAR) Advisory Panel) in which consensus around the concept of tax avoidance can be pursued between the taxpaying community and revenue authorities. The new anti-avoidance approach informed via Freedman's research is now law throughout the UK, affecting every taxpayer.
The law has been influenced by the research described below on access to justice and effective dispute resolution in the EU. That research has been cited frequently by Advocates General (AG) in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and helped bring about a Treaty change that took effect in 2009. It underpinned evidence submitted to the House of Lords EU Committee which was substantially endorsed in reports published in 2011 and 2013. Through its impact on the EU's quest for an appropriate standing test in annulment actions and a court structure that delivers effective judicial protection, the research has benefited individuals and businesses affected by EU policies and the EU itself by promoting the rule of law.
In many aspects of family law, courts are required to take account of `children's welfare'. The courts have struggled with what this includes and, in an important case, turned to research on children's welfare by Professor Jonathan Herring for a better understanding of that concept. In Re G (Children) [2012], the Court of Appeal ruled on a dispute between the mother and father of five children over their residence, religion and education. Munby LJ discussed the concept of welfare of children in detail, citing work by Herring with his Oxford colleague, Charles Foster, on the issue. [R2]. Drawing on this research, the court held that it is only by considering the child's network of relationships that their well-being can be properly determined. This ruling changed the law governing important family interests throughout England and Wales.
Much has been written about mental condition defences such as insanity and diminished responsibility together with the cognate doctrine of unfitness to plead. However, most of this work has been doctrinal rather than empirical. This case study has developed a sustained and continuing understanding of how certain mental condition defences operate in practice, primarily through empirical analysis. R.D. Mackay's empirical studies of both the insanity defence and unfitness to plead and his studies of diminished responsibility, provocation and infanticide have been used by and have influenced law reform bodies, legislators, policy development and legal analysis.