Log in
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.
This case study concerns a book by Paul Beaumont and Peter McEleavy that was submitted in RAE 2001: The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (Oxford University Press, 1999). The book has been cited by leading courts in Australia, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and the USA as a leading authority on the interpretation of the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980. The Convention was concluded in 1980 and as at 26 July 2013 is in force in 90 States. At the time the book was written there were 51 State parties to the Convention. As the only comprehensive monograph in English on the Convention, it seems reasonable to claim that it has assisted in widening its ratification. The Convention is one of the most successful private international law treaties in history and seeks to reduce the suffering caused by the wrongful removal/retention (the legal terms for abduction) of children away from the country of their habitual residence. In particular the book has helped to lead to judicial decisions favouring a wide interpretation of "custody rights" and a late date for "wrongful retention" thereby increasing the number of children covered by the Convention. These children will usually be returned by the authorities in the country to which they have been abducted to the country in which they were habitually resident before the abduction. The book has also helped judges in several countries to arrive at their decisions on the meaning of "settled" under Article 12 of the Convention preventing too many returns of children in cases where a summary return is not possible because the Convention return proceedings were not launched within one year of the abduction.
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.
Beale was a major contributor to research published in 2000 as The Principles of European Contract Law (The Principles). The Principles had and continue to have a major impact on the development of contract law at both the EU and national levels. They formed the basis of subsequent work that led to the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR, 2009), which incorporated The Principles. The Principles and the DCFR have influenced interpretation in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) / Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and are cited in national courts. They have had a significant impact on reform of national laws and led directly to the European Commission's proposal for a Regulation on a Common European Sales Law (CESL, 2011). With support from the University of Warwick, Beale played a key role not only in producing The Principles but in all the subsequent stages, including being a member of the Expert Group that produced a first draft of the CESL.
A research programme led by Boyle in Edinburgh (with Birnie (LSE) and Redgwell (UCL)) pioneered the discipline of international environmental law. That work, in turn, informed the infrastructure for international environmental law in practice. Through Boyle's work as legal counsel in several high-profile international cases (2010-11), his proposed subject-paradigm has been translated from theory to legal framework. Crucially, it has been endorsed and applied by both the International Law Commission and relevant international courts, including the International Court of Justice.
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.
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.
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.
Work carried out by Stalford and Drywood at the Liverpool Law School between 2008 and 2012 has been at the forefront of EU action in the field of children's rights. It has provided the blue-print for a coherent approach to the development, monitoring and evaluation of children's rights at European level. In doing so, it has directly influenced the way in which laws and policies are formulated by the European institutions, towards more explicit, meaningful engagement with children.
In addition to the longer term benefits for children of more responsive laws and policies at EU level, the research cited in this case study has reached a wide range of beneficiaries, encompassing the EU institutions and agencies, the international legal community and the NGO sector. In particular, the authors' comprehensive development of a detailed set of EU children's rights indicators and child rights mainstreaming methodology have been endorsed by the European institutions and NGO sector as mechanisms central to monitoring the compatibility of European measures with international children's rights obligations. The extent to which these processes enhance the EU's legal and policy responses to specific children's rights issues is already evident in the development of EU child protection measures and in negotiations with States wishing to join the EU.