Log in
Professor David Nash defines blasphemy as the `attacking, wounding and damaging of religious beliefs'. His research into the history of blasphemy has been widely consulted and has highlighted the significant importance of the subject in the contemporary world. This has led to the re- examining of the law and arguments for repeal. He has been pro-actively involved in the debate about blasphemy repeal in England for some time prior to 2008 and also as an active consultant in the Irish Republic, advising NGO's and speaking on their behalf to members of Parliament, international bodies after this date. He also liaised with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and was nominated to sit on the Irish Government's constitutional convention to consider the matter.
Research carried out by the University of Reading's Dr Samia Bano (Lecturer 2005-2013) explored the experiences of Muslim women who engage with the law, and particularly their engagement with Shariah law. This research had an impact on the decisions and understandings of government policymakers via a subsequent investigation and written report commissioned by and produced for the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ). This project looked particularly at the realities of the use of Shariah Councils in England and Wales to handle family-related disputes, and provided hitherto unavailable insights into a relatively unknown area of practice, enabling policymakers and other stakeholders to engage with this issue in a more informed manner.
Paul McHugh's academic research on the legal status and rights of tribal peoples in Australasia and North America has had a direct impact on legal decisions on tribal land rights; on the political management as well as settlement of land claims in those jurisdictions; and has influenced the evolving legal systems and political developments in these matters in New Zealand, Australia and Canada. His work has contributed significantly to a fundamental shift in the legal and constitutional foundations of government relations with the indigenous peoples and to the political and economic consequences of that shift.
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.
Professor Faundez's research has set out how legal reform projects should be designed and implemented in order to be successful in the context of existing local conditions and to ensure access to justice for indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups. His work as policy advisor both to development agencies (the World Bank, the UK's Department for International Development (DFID), and the Inter-American Development Bank) and to Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) (Amnesty International, the World Justice Project) has helped these organisations broaden their approach to the design, implementation and evaluation of legal reform projects. The range of his publications - from academic articles to specially commissioned reports - has ensured a fruitful dialogue with practitioners in the field of law and governance.
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.
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.
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.
Professor Stuart Harrop's advice has informed and underpinned the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (UNFAO) policy approach to `Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems' (GIAHS).
GIAHS are defined as `remarkable land use systems and landscapes which are rich in globally significant biological diversity evolving from the co-adaption of community with its environment and its needs and aspirations for sustainable development' see http://www.fao.org/giahs/giahs/en/. The UNFAO GIAHS project promotes and protects traditional agricultural systems to support food security/resilience strategies and preserve cultural and agro- and bio-diversity. Currently, there are GIAHS sites in Algeria, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Italy, Kenya, Japan, Madagascar, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Tanzania, Tunisia, USA, Vanuatu (further details at http://www.fao.org/giahs/giahs-sites/en/).
UNFAO requested Harrop to provide advice on the international law and policy that might support GIAHS. That advice continues to underpin the approach to the UNFAO's most recent work and meetings concerning GIAHS. In particular, Harrop's work has informed the UNFAO's decision not to engage in drafting an additional international legal framework. Instead, the organisation is using the existing legal arrangements to protect these land-use systems and landscapes.