Second edition of Jeremy McBride’s book “Human rights and criminal procedure – The case law of the European Court of Human Rights” published

Written by

The second edition of Jeremy McBride’s “Human rights and criminal procedure – The case law of the European Court of Human Rights” was published by the Council of Europe in June in English, with a Russian translation being also published by Development of Legal Systems in Moscow.

The book is intended to assist judges, lawyers and prosecutors to take account of the many requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights – both explicit and implicit – for the criminal process when interpreting and applying Codes of Criminal Procedure and comparable or related legislation. It does so through extracts from key rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the former European Commission of Human Rights dealing with complaints about violations of Convention rights and freedoms in the course of the investigation, prosecution and trial of alleged offences, as well as in the course of appellate and various other proceedings linked to the criminal process. The extracts are significant not only because the mere text of the Convention is insufficient to indicate the scope of what is entailed by it but also because the circumstances of the cases selected give a sense of how to apply the requirements in concrete situations.

For more information, and to purchase a copy of the book, please click here.

Review of the general conditions of entitlement—Ofcom

Written by

This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Tax on 20 April 2018.

“TMT analysis: As a continuation of its review of the general conditions of entitlement (GCs), Ofcom has now issued a new statement on emergency planning direction, number withdrawal and guidance on contract termination. Philip Woolfe of Monckton Chambers analyses the changes.

This statement follows on from Ofcom’s statement and consultation of September 2017, which revoked and replaced the previous version of the GCs with effect from 1 October 2018.

Original news

Ofcom publishes statement on emergency planning direction, number withdrawal and guidance on contract termination LNB News 26/03/2018 85.

As part of the review and update of its General Conditions (GCs), Ofcom has published a statement which sets out its conclusions on a number of proposals which it consulted upon at the same time as it published the new GCs. The statement updates a direction which specifies which public bodies may request industry to make arrangements for the restoration of communications services in the event of disasters; sets out new rules for a further extension of Ofcom’s power to withdraw telephone numbers where they are used inconsistently with the national telephone numbering plan or otherwise misused; and provides guidance about procedures for terminating contracts.”

To read full article please click here.

Michael Bowsher QC and SSRN: Tale of Three Regulatory Regimes — Dynamic, Distracted and Dysfunctional: Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States

Written by

Abstract

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times — a year marked by genuine progress in public procurement law in some nations, and partial paralysis in others. This article presents the experience of Sweden (as part of the European Union), the United Kingdom (which is slated soon to depart from the EU, via “Brexit”), and the United States (in the first year of the Trump administration). While Sweden and other members of the European Union continue to develop a vital and evolving body of public procurement law, the United Kingdom has been distracted by Brexit, and the United States made, in 2017, almost no regulatory progress at all — though stasis itself yielded some interesting insights. This piece proceeds in three parts, prepared primarily by Andrea Sundstrand (Part II, on Sweden and the European Union), Michael Bowsher (Part III, on the United Kingdom) and Christopher Yukins (Introduction, Part IV on the United States, and Conclusion).

Authors: Michael Bowsher QC, King’s College London, Andrea Sundstrand, Stockholm University and Christopher R. Yukins, George Washington University – Law School

To read the paper, please click here.

Imogen Proud: The Prevent Duty

Written by

“Since 2015, certain ‘specified authorities’ have been under a statutory duty, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism (known as the ‘Prevent duty’). This Practice Note considers the origins of this duty in the government’s overall counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) and in the particular context of the Prevent strategy. It covers the statutory basis of the duty and its scope and content, before considering its application to specific sectors, namely local authorities, schools and childcare, the health sector, prisons and probation and police.”

The full article is available on LexisPSL.

The Quick Guide to Legitimate Expectation in Tax Cases

Written by

The case law on legitimate expectation is wide-ranging and often complex, making it time-consuming to get to grips with the key guiding principles. This guide summarizes the key points to look out for when considering the circumstances in which a taxpayer may rely upon a representation made by HMRC, either in a publication or in a direct communication with the taxpayer. All cases necessarily turn on their own facts but it is hoped that this guide will be a helpful starting point.

To read full article please click here.

The comments made in this article are wholly personal and do not reflect the views of any other members of Monckton Chambers, its tenants or clients.

 

Professor Panos Koutrakos – International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Written by

Professor Panos Koutrakos‘ article – “Judicial Review in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy”, opens the latest issue of International and Comparative Law Quarterly (67(1), 1-35).

Abstract

The EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was conceived of as an area ill-suited for full judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty confers on the Court limited jurisdiction which the recent case law has interpreted in broad terms. This article will place this case law in the broader constitutional setting of the EU legal order and will provide a critical analysis of its implications for both the EU’s and domestic courts. The analysis is structured on the basis of three main themes. The first is about the position of CFSP in the EU’s constitutional architecture: the article will analyse the constitutional ambivalence that characterizes this position and how it is conveyed by the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union governing the Court’s jurisdiction. The second theme is about the recent case law, and the integrationist approach that the Court of Justice has adopted to the scope of its jurisdiction. The third theme is about national courts: the article will argue that recent case law has been too quick to dismiss them, and that primary law renders them an essential part of the judicial review system governing CFSP.

To access the article please click here.