Simplification of the Immigration Rules: Consultation Paper. Law Commission

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thom Brooks
Keyword(s):  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

Mental capacity and deprivation of liberty: the Law Commission’s consultation paper

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 331-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Spencer-Lane
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Opportunity To Respond ◽  
Future Paper ◽  
The Law ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce the readership to the consultation being held by the Law Commission concerning proposed revisions to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Design/methodology/approach – Discussion of the consultation being held by the Law Commission concerning proposed revisions to the DoLS. Findings – These are as yet unknown as the consultation period is ongoing – it is planned that a future paper will examine the findings and recommendations from the consultation process. Practical implications – There has been criticism of the DoLS since their introduction in 2009. A new scheme provides the opportunity to respond to some of the criticisms and to develop more appropriate processes. The paper invites readers to take part in the consultation process and to respond to the proposals that have been developed. Social implications – A new and more appropriate scheme would be beneficial for service users and families/caregivers. Originality/value – This is the first opportunity for a revision to the DoLS scheme and introduction of the proposed scheme and the consultation process to the readership is highly appropriate and valuable to the Journal.

scholarly journals Legal Limits on the Structured Settlement of Damages

1993 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 470-486
Author(s):  
Richard lewis
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Favourable Response ◽  
Radical Reform ◽  
Lump Sum ◽  
Legal Limits ◽  
Annuity Market ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

A structured settlement is a new way of paying common law damages for personal injury or death. It has received strong support from the judiciary and a very favourable response from the Law Commission in its recent consultation paper. The defendant's insurer, usually after having informally agreed a lump sum figure with the plaintiff, will agree to convert part of the damages into a series of periodic payments. To fund the arrangement the insurer purchases an annuity from a life office. The payments are “structured” to meet the individual's needs and are free of tax in the plaintiffs hands. This is because the Revenue have accepted that they may be considered instalments of capital rather than income. In return for making this arrangement the insurer will bargain for a discount on the conventional lump sum figure. Although the first structure was put in place as long ago as 1981, they were not used in other than a few isolated cases until 1991. Now there are almost two hundred of them, and the annuity market, worth £30 million last year, is expected to grow rapidly. Their increasing use constitutes the most radical reform of our damages system effected in recent years.

The Reliability of Expert Evidence: Reflections on the Law Commission's Proposals for Reform

2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 488-507
Author(s):  
Liz Heffernan ◽  
Mark Coen
Keyword(s):  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
Ongoing Controversy ◽  
American Experience ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

The problems associated with the use of expert evidence by the criminal courts have been the subject of ongoing controversy. The Law Commission of England and Wales has recently added its voice to the debate with the publication of a Consultation Paper on the admissibility of expert evidence. This article examines the current law governing the reliability of expert evidence. It analyses the Law Commission's recommendation for the creation of a new statutory rule which would require the trial judge to assess evidentiary reliability as a matter of admissibility. The authors chart the emergence of the US Daubert test, on which the recommendation is based, and consider the lessons to be learned from American experience. While welcoming the recommendation in principle, the authors argue that the crafting and implementation of the proposed admissibility requirement would present formidable challenges.

scholarly journals Response of the Mental Health Act Commission

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 483-483
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Law ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

The Commission welcomes the opportunity to comment on Dr Oyebode's paper. As a former medical member of the Commission, Dr Oyebode can write with authority on the frustrations felt by many Commissioners when carrying out their statutory obligations to ensure that the requirements of Section 58 of the Act are being met. His paper is particularly opportune considering the recent publication by the Law Commission of its consultation paper No. 129 (Law Commission, 1993).

scholarly journals Unfitness to Plead and the Vulnerable Defendant: An Examination of the Law Commission's Proposals for a New Capacity Test

2011 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 194-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Howard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Many ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission ◽  
Self Defence ◽  
Made In

The Law Commission published Consultation Paper No. 197 in October 2010 on unfitness to plead. Among the many issues to be covered were: an examination of the test for capacity which is narrower than the test for capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005; the scope of the trial of facts; and whether accident, mistake or self-defence could be raised as part of the defence in the context of unfitness to plead. This article will examine some of the proposals made in the Law Commission's Consultation Paper with particular focus on the meaning of capacity, along with the scope and limitations of the current law on unfitness to plead.

2. Intestacy

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Sloan
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Detailed Account ◽  
The Law ◽  
Relevant Work ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter deals with the law of intestacy. The first section consists of an introduction to intestacy, dealing with the basic terms and rules, the incidence of intestacy, and the evolution and theoretical basis of the law. The second section gives a more detailed account of the current law. Considerable reference is made to relevant work of the Law Commission, most recently Intestacy and Family Provision Claims on Death (Law Com. No. 331, 2011), which was preceded by Consultation Paper 191 (2009) and sought to modernise the law of intestacy in light of contemporary social conditions. The Commission's suggestions were largely enacted in the Inheritance and Trustees' Powers Act 2014.

A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom?

Legal Studies ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 36-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brenda Hale
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Question Mark ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Law ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

The Government's Consultation Paper does not have a question mark in its title. It does not purport to be a serious discussion of the role of a Supreme Court in a democracy. This is scarcely to be expected of such a document or its respondents, so I propose to respond in its own terms rather than on the loftier plane usually adopted by contributors to this journal. More unexpectedly, the Consultation Paper does not even put forward a serious set of options to consider. At the Law Commission, we always had (at least a metaphorical) question mark in our title because we almost always put forward two options which do not appear in this consultation: the ‘do nothing’ and the ‘let’s abolish it' options. Both have a lot to be said for them here.

Reforming Offences Against the Person

2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (6) ◽  
pp. 437-447
Author(s):  
Adam Jackson ◽  
Tony Storey
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Correspondence Principle ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Constructivist Approach ◽  
Theoretical Rationale ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

Whilst the criminal law typically favours the principle of correspondence between actus reus and mens rea, the current law governing offences against the person takes an approach which may be more accurately defined as ‘moderate’ constructivism. This approach is based on consideration of both the defendant’s mens rea and the degree of harm caused by the defendant’s actions. The recent Law Commission Scoping Consultation Paper Reform of Offences against the Person appears to prefer reform based on a move towards the principle of correspondence. This article discusses the theoretical rationale for both the adoption of the correspondence principle and the retention of a moderate constructivist approach in the context of offences against the person. Consideration is given to the fairness of attributing liability to a defendant for the unforeseen consequences of her actions and whether such an approach can be justified by the change in D’s normative position based on her decision to use violence. Consideration is also given to the concept of fair labelling and to potential lacunae that may be created as a result of a move towards a set of offences based on the correspondence principle.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document