Log in
Professor Geoff Gilbert's research on exclusion in international refugee law has influenced policies of international organisations and courts around the world. His research on extradition prompted the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to invite Gilbert to write the Global Consultation on exclusion, adopted in 2001 at the 50th Anniversary meeting for the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. This Consultation directly influenced UNHCR's 2003 Guidelines on Exclusion that have been cited worldwide in hundreds of cases during the impact period. Canadian and German appellate courts have also favourably cited Gilbert's work directly.
In 2010 the Ministry of Justice formally accepted recommendations by the Law Commission to introduce a new non-statutory rule of disclosure for trustee exemption clauses in England and Wales. Newcastle research had a direct impact upon the development of the law on trustee exemption clauses. In 2002 Dunn successfully tendered to undertake research on trustee exemption clauses in England and Wales on behalf of the Law Commission. Dunn's research was published by the Law Commission as a separate and distinct chapter of its consultation paper on trustee exemption clauses. The research (alongside consultation responses) influenced the Law Commission's recommendation that a non-statutory rule of disclosure be introduced into the law of England and Wales. This recommendation was accepted by the Government in 2010 and has been implemented by the trust industry.
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.
The predominant perception of the relationship between Islamic law and international human rights law is that of one grounded in conflict, with Islamic law often presented as fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of international human rights. Mashood Baderin's research challenges this notion, arguing that, while the two legal systems operate differently in terms of scope and application, they also share important commonalities that facilitate the fulfilment of human rights obligations in Muslim states. The research has resulted in Baderin's appointment to a number of high-profile advisory roles that have enabled a significant contribution both to the guaranteeing of human rights in Islamic countries, and to the shaping of UK foreign policy.
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.
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).
Influential work on insurance law by Professor Rob Merkin led directly to the repeal of the outmoded and increasingly unpopular Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. With its predecessor criticised for its demands on time and costs, a new Act made it simpler, faster and cheaper for a third-party claimant to recover compensation from an insurer without instituting proceedings against the insured. Merkin not only drew policymakers' attention to the old Act's defects but provided a detailed basis on which to formulate its successor, which earned Royal Assent in 2010.
Professor Howarth's extensive research has had considerable and cumulative impact on the design, enforcement and practical operation of UK environmental law, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to water and fisheries. His specific contribution has been in influencing national policy on enforcement and sentencing. In particular, two key ideas developed and advanced in his research - `modernisation' and `purposiveness' - have provided an important alternative to the previously dominant, traditional, reactive approach of criminalising environmentally unacceptable behaviour. Howarth's research has impacted in three direct ways. First, it has `significantly influenced' the work of the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), making a material contribution to improvements in the legislative framework and operation of UK environmental law. Second, it has had a `direct and significant' impact on the work of Fish Legal, a key environmental NGO, with which Howarth has developed a close, ongoing relationship and which has found his advice `invaluable'. Finally, it forms part of the canon widely relied on by professional legal and environmental practitioners in their day to day work. The impact of Howarth's research has been furthered through an extensive range of high level consultancy and policy-oriented advisory activities, which have allowed him to feed in the insights of his research at a high level. These include acting as a specialist legal consultant to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and as a legal advisor to the Northern Ireland Environment Department.
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.