Log in
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.
Professor Cryer's research on International Criminal Law has changed how the human rights of refugees are protected under International Law. First, it has significantly influenced Canadian jurisprudence in this field. Prior to the July 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezkola v Canada, refugee claimants had been excluded from Canada on the basis of their association with others, rather than because they were individually responsible for the commission of international crimes. The Supreme Court of Canada relied directly on Cryer's research to develop a new test to determine eligibility for refugee status. Secondly, Cryer's research has helped to shape the revised 2003 UNHCR guidelines on the application of exclusion clauses, which will be published in 2014. Beneficiaries of the research include the UNHCR and all States which implement the UNHCR's guidelines on refugee status, and individuals who would previously have been denied refugee status.
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.
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.
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.
Olowofoyeku's research on judicial accountability challenges long-established norms in the Anglo- American legal traditions. These challenges have been recognised by judicial authorities at the highest levels and have influenced and informed practitioner and judicial debates on the matter. While no changes have yet been made to the law as a result of this research, the limits of the current principles, as highlighted in Olowofoyeku's research, particularly in respect of the flaws of the common law construct of the informed observer, have been confronted and recognised by judges in their decisions, and also by practitioners.
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.
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.
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.