Law In Focus Podcast

Beyond jury reform - what else does Leveson recommend?: Jonathan Rogers

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Mon, 28 Jul 2025 09:53:00 +0100

Former President of the Queen's Bench Division, Sir Brian Leveson, was appointed by the government to carry out an independent review into the criminal courts. Specifically, the review considered 2 key themes, which are outlined in the Terms of Reference: 1) Reform: how the criminal courts could be reformed to ensure cases are dealt with proportionately, in light of the current pressures on the Crown Court, and 1) Efficiency: how they could operate as efficiently as possible.

On 9 July Part 1 of the report was published, dealing with reform measures. Here, Sir Leveson proposed a number of changes to reduce the pressure on the criminal justice system. What attracted the most media attention was the proposal to reduce access to trial by jury. However, there were other very interesting proposals which received less coverage and scrutiny.

In this short video Dr Jonathan Rogers explores some of the other changes proposed, and considers their likely effects.

Jonathan Rogers is Associate Professor in Criminal Justice at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. He co-founded the Criminal Law Reform Now Network in 2017.

For more information about Dr Rogers, you can also refer to his staff profile.

Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

Does the European Court of Human Rights dictate climate policy?: Stefan Theil

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:23:00 +0100

On 9th April 2024 the European Court of Human Rights delivered Grand Chamber rulings in three cases relating to climate change:

Carême v. France - https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233261

Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others - https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233174

Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland - https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-233206

In this video, Dr Stefan Theil discusses the extent to which the ECHR is prepared to dictate how countries might implement their own climate change policies.

Stefan Theil is Assistant Professor in Public Law and a Fellow and Director of Studies at Sidney Sussex College. In Stefan's recent book 'Towards the Environmental Minimum' (Cambridge University Press, 2021) he argues for the recognition of a comprehensive framework that addresses the relationship between human rights and environmental harm.

For more information about Dr Theil, please refer to his profile at:

https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/s-theil/6578

Can the 'Post Office convictions' be quashed by legislation?: Jonathan Rogers

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Tue, 23 Jan 2024 11:40:00 +0100

The government has recently announced that it intends to quash by legislation convictions of hundreds of subpostmasters who had been prosecuted by the Post Office for, variously, theft, fraud and false accounting. This follows a number of appeals which have already succeeded where it has been accepted that convictions that are based on generated by the Horizon software are necessarily unsafe. Usually, one would expect other subpostmasters to have to follow that same route, but the government is concerned about the delay in processing so many cases. Nonetheless it is unprecedented to quash convictions by legislative fiat in a situation when the courts would yet be competent to do the same; and notwithstanding the concerns of criminal and constitutional lawyers, a Bill to this effect appears likely to be produced this year and to receive support from all sides of the House of Commons.

In this short video Dr Jonathan Rogers explains the background, explores the challenges that will face those who draft the legislation, and comments further on the likely reservations that many will still entertain about this innovation.

Jonathan Rogers is Associate Professor in Criminal Justice at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. He co-founded the Criminal Law Reform Now Network (http://www.clrnn.co.uk/) in 2017 and leads an ongoing project by that network into the reform of private prosecutions, and in that capacity he gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee in 2020 on safeguards in the wake of the Post Office scandal.

For more information about Dr Rogers, you can also refer to his profile at:

https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/jw-rogers/78191

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

What are the legal and constitutional implications of the Rwanda Bill?: Mark Elliott

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Thu, 07 Dec 2023 16:55:00 +0100

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill seeks to circumvent the UK Supreme Court's recent judgment holding the Government's Rwanda policy, concerning the removal of certain asylum-seekers, to Rwanda. The Bill contemplates placing the UK in breach of its international obligations, including under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Refugee Convention, while forming part of a policy that relies upon Rwanda's adherence to its own international obligations. The Bill is thus at once hypocritical and parochial, given that domestic legislation cannot free the UK of its legal obligations on the international plane.

In this short video Professor Mark Elliott explores the legal and constitutional implications of the Bill.

Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject.

For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at: https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Why was the Rwanda Agreement unlawful, and will withdrawal from the ECHR resolve this?: Kirsty Hughes

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:45:00 +0100

On the 15 November the UK Supreme Court decided that the United Kingdom's policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful.

In this short video Dr Kirsty Hughes explains the Court's reasoning, and considers the Government's response and possible next steps.

Kirsty Hughes is an Associate Professor specialising in Human Rights Law. She is joint General Editor of the European Human Rights Law Review, Director of the Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge, a member of Blackstone Chambers Academic Panel and Deputy Editor of Public Law. She is a co-convenor of the European Human Rights Law Conference.

For more information about Dr Hughes, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/ke-hughes/2113

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Has the UK Supreme Court stopped Scottish Independence?: Alison Young

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Tue, 29 Nov 2022 10:10:00 +0100

On the 23rd November the UK Supreme court decided that the Scottish Parliament did not have the power to enact legislation to hold a second independence referendum in Scotland.

In this short video Professor Alison Young explains the backdrop to the case, sets out how the Supreme court decided the case, and explores possible future paths to Scottish independence.

Alison Young is the Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Robinson College. She teaches constitutional law on undergraduate and postgraduate courses at the University of Cambridge and is the author of Turpin and Tomkins’ British Government and the Constitution (8th Edition).

For more information about Professor Young, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/al-young/77940

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Does the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill breach international law?: Mark Elliott

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:44:00 +0100

On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law.

For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25

Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Did Brexit cause P&O job losses?: Catherine Barnard

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:37:00 +0100

On Thurday 17th March leading UK ferry operator P&O Ferries sacked 800 British crew across its entire fleet and stopped all sailings. The move sparked fury amongst employees and unions, and consternation in parliament. Many asked was the move - and the proposal to use cheap agency staff instead - legal, and also was it a result of Brexit?

In this recording, Professor Catherine Barnard considers the legal implications, and the Brexit question.

Catherine Barnard is Professor of European Union Law and Employment Law at the University of Cambridge, and Deputy Director at UK in a Changing Europe.

This item was originally published as a blog via UK in a Changing Europe at: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/po-ferries-and-employment-law/

For more information about Professor Barnard, please refer to her profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cs-barnard/9

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Are private prosecutions a public benefit, or a public bane?: John Spencer

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 17 Dec 2021 11:34:00 +0100

There have been several recent egregious examples of private prosecutions, including the case of the Post Office prosecuting numerous Postmasters for losses caused by a faulty IT system. Professor John Spencer discusses these cases, the evolution of the system of private prosecutions, and the considerations involved in regulating such actions.

Professor Spencer is Professor Emeritus of Law and Honorary President of the European Criminal Law Association. He has written extensively on criminal justice matters and has been involved in a number of law reform projects.

For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/jr-spencer/79

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

John Worboys: Judicial Review of the Parole Board: Christopher Forsyth

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Tue, 20 Feb 2018 17:11:00 +0100

In January 2018 it was reported that the Parole Board had approved the release of John Worboys, the so-called ‘Black Cab Rapist’. Worboys had been incarcerated since his conviction for a number of sexual offences in March 2009, and it was believed that he was responsible for many attacks over which he was not charged.

The announcement of the decision caused much public unrest, and led to scrutiny of the Parole Board’s decision and suggestions that it should be subject to judicial review. In this video, Professor Christopher Forsyth considers the situation, and the likelihood of any review being successful.

Christopher Forsyth was Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge.

For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/c-f-forsyth/31

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Is France now ungovernable?: John Bell

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:08:00 +0100

In the first round of the French Presidential election, Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron and far-right leader Marine Le Pen progressed to the runoff on 7 May, notwithstanding neither candidate having the backing of the traditionally powerful parliamentary parties.

Will the new French President be hamstrung in power if she or he does not obtain a majority in the parliamentary elections of June 2017? Does the French Constitution enable a government to govern without its policies being approved by Parliament? This short video by Professor John Bell provides some answers.

John Bell is Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge.

For more information about Professor Bell, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-bell/6

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Dogs, Daughters and "Disinheritance" in the Supreme Court: Brian Sloan

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:19:00 +0100

In Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 (http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-ilott-v-the-blue-cross-ors-2017-uksc-17/) the Supreme Court considered the competing claims of the animal charities included in a woman's will and her estranged adult daughter, who was excluded from the will but living in necessitous circumstances.

In this video, Brian Sloan considers the outcome of the case, which raised fundamental principles of succession law, and its broader implications.

Brian Sloan is College Lecturer in Law at Robinson College, University of Cambridge, and lectures in Family Law.

For more information about Dr Sloan, please refer to his profile at https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bd-sloan/409

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Rising Executive Pay: the Final Countdown?: Bobby Reddy

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Wed, 07 Dec 2016 16:39:00 +0100

At the end of November 2016, the British Government published an open consultation green paper on corporate governance reform, seeking views on proposals relating to executive pay, employee and customer voice, and corporate governance in large private businesses. The consultation is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/corporate-governance-reform

In this latest edition of the Faculty's series of videos entitled "Law in Focus", Bobby Reddy discusses the government's ambitious green paper. In particular, Bobby casts a critical eye over the proposals revolving around executive pay and employee representatives on boards of listed companies. Rising executive remuneration has long been an emotive issue, and following some high profile instances of extreme executive pay and the rising disparity between executive and regular employee pay, the theme is once again in the headlights of the regulators. Furthermore, Bobby analyses the government's latest proposals with respect to the related topic of representing employee interests in listed companies, which fall somewhat short of previous governmental statements advocating requirements to directly appoint employees as members of boards.

Bobby Reddy is a University Lecturer in Company Law, specialising in corporate governance, corporate finance and corporate law in general. He is a former corporate partner at the global law firm Latham & Watkins LLP having practised in London and Washington D.C. in the areas of public and private mergers and acquisitions, private equity, investment funds, regulatory, cross-border transactions, and company representation. He is also a trustee of the charitable corporate governance think tank, Tomorrow's Company.

For more information about Mr Reddy, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bv-reddy/77252

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Brexit: Legally and constitutionally, what now?: Mark Elliott

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:15:00 +0100

In the early hours of 24 June 2016, the result of the UK referendum on EU membership was announced. By a narrow but clear majority the vote was to leave the European Union.

This result has begun a chain of seismic political consequences in the UK and the EU, and will have widespread implications for the law and constitution in the UK.

In this video, Mark Elliott assess the immediate impact of the result.

Professor Elliott has also written a blog post available at: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/06/24/brexit-legally-and-constitutionally-what-now/

For more information about Professor Elliott, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

What's in David Cameron's baskets? The UK's deal with the EU: Catherine Barnard

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 14:37:00 +0100

After long negotiations, on 19 February Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the European Council had agreed a new settlement for the United Kingdom in the European Union.

In line with the Conservative Party manifesto, this agreement has triggered a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union to be held on Thursday 23 June. In this next video in the Law in Focus series, Catherine Barnard examines the effects of the settlement.

A three-minute quick summary of the settlement is also available:

Professor Barnard is Professor of European Union Law and Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law. She has written extensively on EU Law and Labour Law, and has been involved in advising the UK Government as part of its balance of competence review. For more information about Professor Barnard, please refer to her profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cs-barnard/9

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

What's in David Cameron's baskets? A three minute guide: Catherine Barnard

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 14:35:00 +0100

After long negotiations, on 19 February Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the European Council had agreed a new settlement for the United Kingdom in the European Union.

A longer analysis of the settlement is also available: http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2196035

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

R v Jogee: The Supreme Court and the law of complicity: Matthew Dyson

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 19 Feb 2016 19:15:00 +0100

The successful appeal in R v Jogee and Ruddock v The Queen before the a combined Supreme Court and Privy Council raises important issues in the criminal law of complicity (sometimes unhelpfully labelled 'joint enterprise').

In this video Dr Matthew Dyson, who advised the appellant's counsel in the case considers the law of complicity, what the case changed, and its implications.

Dr Matthew Dyson is Fellow in Law and Director of Studies at Trinity College. His research includes complicity specifically, giving evidence before the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, and wider issues such as volumes like "Comparing Tort and Crime" and "Unravelling Tort and Crime" by Cambridge University Press. For more information about Dr Dyson, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/m-dyson/716

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Pistorius case: Christopher Forsyth

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:51:00 +0100

The conviction of Oscar Pistorius for committing culpable homicide in relation to the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp made worldwide news.

In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth reflects on his previous comments about the original conviction, and describes how the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the South African law on intent to kill. Although the Court complimented Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa on her handling of the case under intense media scrutiny, they reversed her decision (as Professor Forsyth originally suggested they might), and and replaced the verdict with one of murder.

Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cf-forsyth/31

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Parliament’s Role in Voting on the Syrian Conflict: Veronika Fikfak and Hayley J Hooper

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 27 Nov 2015 23:12:00 +0100

This video discusses six issues arising out of the recent statement of Prime Minister David Cameron to the House of Commons entitled "Prime Minister’s Response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the Extension of Offensive British Military Operations to Syria".

Dr Veronika Fikfak and Dr Hayley J Hooper discuss the questionable international legality of military action, the strategic use of parliament and its potential impact upon the emerging Consultation Convention, and the responsibility of MPs to hold government to account across a broad range of relevant domestic issues. Thereafter they analyse the impact of the way government shares intelligence information with the House of Commons, especially in light of the 2003 Iraq conflict, highlighting several relevant but under-discussed rules. Finally, they discuss the role of party political discipline on armed conflict votes.

Dr Fikfak researches in the fields of public law, human rights and international law. She is particularly interested in the interface between domestic and international law and is currently writing a monograph on the role of national judges in relation to international law. Dr Hooper is currently a Fellow at Homerton College, and her doctoral research at Balliol College, University of Oxford concerned the use of "closed" or "secret" evidence in the context of judicial review of counterterrorism powers, and its extension to civil procedure more broadly.

Drs Fikfak and Hooper are currently co-authoring a monograph on parliament's involvement in war powers entitled Parliament's Secret War (forthcoming with Hart Bloomsbury, 2016).

For more information about Dr Fikfak, please refer to her profile, and about Dr Hooper to her profile.

Law in Focus is a series of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

'Brexit' and EU Social Policy: What has the EU done for me?: Catherine Barnard

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Wed, 18 Nov 2015 10:30:00 +0100

In his speech at Chatham House on 10 November 2015 (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-ministers-speech-on-europe), the Prime Minister David Cameron outlined those aspects of the EU he would like to see reformed prior to any referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU. EU employment law - one of the most controversial areas of EU policy - was not expressly identified in his list. In this video, Catherine Barnard considers the impact of EU social poicy on the lives of UK employees and what effect 'Brexit' might have on employees' rights.

For more information about Professor Barnard, please refer to her profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cs-barnard/9

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

What would 'Brexit' mean for free movement?: Catherine Barnard

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:58:00 +0100

In an interview with the BBC yesterday (23 July 2015), US President Barack Obama argued that having "the United Kingdom in the European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union and is part of the cornerstone of institutions built after World War II that has made the world safer and more prosperous." He continued: "And we want to make sure that United Kingdom continues to have that influence. Because we believe that the values that we share are the right ones, not just for ourselves, but for Europe as a whole and the world as a whole." In this video, Catherine Barnard looks at the debate surrounding Brexit and in particular what Brexit would mean for free movement.

Further references from the video:

- Obama urges UK to stay in European Union (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33647154): BBC, 23 July 2015;

- Positive economic impact of UK immigration from the European Union: new evidence (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration): UCL, 5 November 2014.

For more information about Professor Barnard, please refer to her profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cs-barnard/9

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Human Rights in the United Kingdom: Where Now?: Mark Elliott

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 22 May 2015 14:38:00 +0100

Prior to the 2015 general election, the Conservative Party undertook in its manifesto to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and to enact a British Bill of Rights. In this video, Mark Elliott addresses three key questions raised by these proposals:

First, what lies behind the desire of some politicians to secure the Human Rights Act’s repeal? Second, how might a British Bill of Rights differ from the present legislation? And, third, what constitutional obstacles might lie in the way of the implementation of these reforms?

In relation to the last of those three issues, the argument is developed that although the UK Parliament has the legal power to legislate for the proposed changes, the increasingly multi-layered nature of the British constitution limits Parliament’s capacity to exploit its sovereign legislative authority. In particular, the constraining effects of international law - in the form of the European Convention on Human Rights - and the devolved nature of the modern British constitution are likely to limit the UK Government’s room for manoeuvre. As a result, it is likely to be difficult to deliver upon the manifesto commitments that were made in a legally coherent and constitutionally legitimate manner.

Dr Mark Elliott is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of St Catharine's College. His main research interests are in the fields of constitutional and administrative law. Dr Elliott's recent publications include Elliott and Thomas, Public Law (2nd ed OUP 2014); Elliott, Beatson, Matthews and Elliott's Administrative Law: Text and Materials (OUP 2011, 4th edition); and Forsyth, Elliott, Jhaveri, Scully-Hill and Ramsden (eds), Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Governance (OUP 2010). Dr Elliott was the 2011 Legal Research Foundation Visiting Scholar at The University of Auckland, New Zealand. In 2010, he was awarded a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in University teaching. He writes a blog - http://publiclawforeveryone.com/ - which includes information for people applying, or thinking of applying, to study Law at university.

For more information about Dr Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/mc-elliott/25

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Vince v Wyatt: Striking it Rich and Striking Out an Ex-wife's Claim: Brian Sloan

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Wed, 08 Apr 2015 10:42:00 +0100

The recent Supreme Court decision in Vince v Wyatt aroused much media interest because it allowed an ex-wife to proceed with a financial claim against her ex-husband, who became a millionaire years after they divorced.

The judgement is available at http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/14.html

In this video Dr Brian Sloan describes the reasoning behind the decision focusing on the limits of what has actually been decided by the Supreme Court. He also analyses the possible implications of the case for other couples.

Dr Sloan is College Lecturer in Law at Robinson College, University of Cambridge, and lectures in Family Law. For more information about Dr Sloan, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bd-sloan/409

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Mental Element in Murder: Reflections on the Pistorius Case: Christopher Forsyth

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:10:00 +0100

The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp aroused worldwide media interest. From the beginning Pistorius claimed that he had no intent to kill Reeva because when he fired the fatal shots her he thought he was firing at an intruder. And so whether he had the necessary intent to kill became a crucial issue in his trial.

In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth describes the South African law on intent to kill and explains how it differs from the relevant English law. In particular he explains how South African law rejects all forms of “transferred malice” and the significance of this for the Pistorius trial.

Although Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa in her judgment gives an exemplary account of the South African law, there is a curious departure from orthodoxy in her application of the law which may render her judgment vulnerable to appeal by the prosecution.

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Can Free Movement of Workers be Stopped?: Catherine Barnard

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 22:09:00 +0100

'How can the government stem the tide of migrant workers coming to the UK?'. This question has been asked with increasing vigour by those who perceive immigration as a threat rather than a benefit to the UK economy. In this video, Catherine Barnard considers whether it is possible to restrict free movement of workers under EU law, both as it now stands and going forward.

For more information about Professor Barnard, please refer to her profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cs-barnard/9

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Nicklinson - The Right to Die?: Nicola Padfield

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 15:43:00 +0100

In this next edition of the Faculty's series of videos entitled 'Law in Focus', Mrs Nicola Padfield explores some aspects of the important decision of the Supreme Court in Nicklinson (R (Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice; R (AM) v The DPP [2014] UKSC 38) focusing on the minority judgement of Baroness Hale.

Nicola Padfield is Reader in Criminal and Penal Justice at the University of Cambridge. She is a barrister by training, and also a Bencher of the Middle Temple. Mrs Padfield is also Master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge. For more information about Mrs Padfield, please refer to her staff profile: http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/nm-padfield/65

Will one be forgotten? Internet Freedom and Data Protection After Google Spain: David Erdos

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:40:00 +0100

This item discusses C-131/12 Google Spain; Google v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González (2014), the Court of Justice of the European Union's long awaited "right to be forgotten" case which examined the rights of individuals mentioned in public domain material indexed on Google search.

This Court decision enunciated both the scope and breadth of data protection obligations in an even more expansive way than argued by the Agencia Espanola de Protection de Datos itself. It implies that Google acquires data protection obligations as soon as it collects information from the web and not just after it receives a request for deindexing. Moreover, Google appears to have absolute obligations to remove material in a variety of circumstances even if this is causing the individual mentioned no prejudice. It is particularly unclear how such obligations will operate vis-à-vis so-called sensitive data such as that concerning criminality, political opinion or health. The norms the Court articulated conflict markedly with those which are now mainstream online. Effective implementation will, therefore, depend less on legal technicalities than on how powerful such data protection norms are when placed alongside the vast cultural, political and economic power of "internet freedom".

A further article on this subject was written on OpenDemocracy by Dr Erdos: http://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/david-erdos/mind-gap-is-data-protection-catching-up-with-google-search

David Erdos is University Lecturer in Law and the Open Society in in the Faculty of Law and a Fellow in Law at Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge. David's current research explores the nature of Data Protection especially as it intersects with the right to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of information and freedom of research. For more information about Dr Erdos, please refer to his staff profile: http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/d-o-erdos/5972

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Is EU Criminal Law a Threat to British Justice?: John Spencer

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:37:00 +0100

In eurosceptic circles it is widely stated that European criminal justice threatens to undermine the basic values of the common law, and this is put forward as a reason why the UK should 'withdraw from the Europe'. This argument was recently put forward by Nigel Farage, of the UK Independence Party, in an article he wrote for The Independent. In this presentation Professor John Spencer - one of the authors of the Corpus Juris project - subjects the argument to analysis.

Professor Spencer is Professor of Law, Co-Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies, and Honorary President of the European Criminal Law Association. He has written extensively on criminal justice matters and has been involved in a number of law reform projects.

For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/jr-spencer/79

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Vinter v UK - The Right to Hope and the Whole Life Tariff: Nicola Padfield

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:43:00 +0100

The case of Vinter v UK was recently decided by the European Court of Human Rights, and has raised a good deal of controversy regarding the right of the United Kingdom to sentence a prisoner to a life sentence (the Whole Life Tariff) without the chance of review.

Mrs Nicola Padfield discusses the judgement of the European Court, and the corresponding reaction from members of the UK Government and others.

Mrs Padfield is Reader in Criminal and Penal Justice at the University of Cambridge. She is a barrister by training, and a Bencher of the Middle Temple. Mrs Padfield has also been elected as the next Master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, and will take office on 1 October 2013. For more information about Mrs Padfield, please refer to her profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/nm-padfield/65

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Criminal Defence of Marital Coercion: Findlay Stark

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:54:00 +0100

Dr Findlay Stark examines the defence of marital coercion, which recently hit the headlines with the trials of Vicky Pryce and former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne for perverting the course of justice over an attempt to transfer penalty points for a speeding offence.

Findlay Stark is the Yates Glazebrook Fellow in Law at Jesus College, Cambridge. His interests lie in the Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Evidence, and Legal Theory. For more information about Dr Stark, please refer to his staff profile: http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/fgf-stark/4759

Re J - Uncertain Perpetrators in Child Protection Cases: Brian Sloan

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:46:00 +0100

Dr Brian Sloan examines the case of Re J (Children) [2013] UKSC 9, in which the Supreme Court considered a child protection case involving a mother who had previously been suspected of causing significant harm to her child, and was now looking after different children in a new relationship. Brian discusses the implications of the case and analyses the Court's attempts to balance non-intervention into family life with child protection.

Brian Sloan is Fellow and Director of Studies in Law at Robinson College, Cambridge. He teaches Equity, Family Law and Land Law. Brian's research covers a wide range of topics in Family and Property Law, including Child Law. For more information about Dr Sloan, please refer to his staff profile.

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The Defects of Jury Trials: John Spencer

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:37:00 +0100

In the light of the discharge of the jury in the trial of Vicky Pryce, questions have been asked about the value of the jury system. Professor John Spencer discusses the pitfalls of the system over the years, and suggests ways in which the delivery of justice might be improved.

For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/jr-spencer/79

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Votes for Prisoners? Democracy and the European Convention on Human Rights: David Feldman

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:48:00 +0100

Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights holding that the UK’s blanket ban on voting by convicted prisoners violates Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights have caused controversy in the UK.

Professor David Feldman discusses the judgements of the European Court, and considers the principles behind allowing prisoners to vote.

Professor Feldman is Rouse Ball Professor of English Law, Honorary Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, and Fellow of the British Academy. He has acted as advisor to a number of Government Joint Select Committees, and was Judge of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2002-10. For more information about Professor Feldman, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/dj-feldman/723

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Householders Who Use Violence on Burglars: John Spencer

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:13:00 +0100

At the 2012 Conservative Party conference, new Justice Secretary Chris Grayling announced plans to amend the criminal law to ensure that even householders who react in a way that may seem disproportionate in the cold light of day will be protected from prosecution. This reopened a long-running discussion about the balance of legal rights between the home owner and those trespassing onto the property for criminal purposes. The law received the most scrutiny in the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who killed one burglar and wounded another who entered his home in 1999, and was subsequently convicted of murder (reduced to manslaughter on appeal).

Professor John Spencer discusses the new proposal, and considers it in the light of the current law and previous suggestions.

For more information about Professor Spencer, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/jr-spencer/79

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

House of Lords Reform: Mark Elliott

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:39:00 +0100

The House of Lords Reform Bill, which is currently before Parliament, is the latest of many attempts to reform the upper chamber of the UK Parliament. It is over a hundred years since the enactment of the Parliament Act 1911, which changed the balance of power between the Lords and the Commons, but which was intended only as a stopgap measure pending the transformation of the Lords into an elected chamber. In this video, Dr Mark Elliott assess the House of Lords Reform Bill, arguing that a commitment to democracy does not necessarily require an elected House of Lords – and that the debate about reforming the upper chamber must take due account of the wider institutional and constitutional framework.

Dr Mark Elliott is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Cambridge and a Fellow of St Catharine's College. His main research interests are in the fields of constitutional and administrative law. Dr Elliott's recent publications include Elliott and Thomas, Public Law (OUP 2011); Elliott, Beatson, Matthews and Elliott's Administrative Law: Text and Materials (OUP 2011, 4th edition); and Forsyth, Elliott, Jhaveri, Scully-Hill and Ramsden (eds), Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Governance (OUP 2010). Dr Elliott was the 2011 Legal Research Foundation Visiting Scholar at The University of Auckland, New Zealand. In 2010, he was awarded a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in University teaching. He writes a blog - http://publiclawforeveryone.wordpress.com/ - which includes information for people applying, or thinking of applying, to study Law at university.

The Effect of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on Legal Aid for Family Cases: Jo Miles

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:51:00 +0100

The legal aid system was created in 1949 as part of the development of the post-war Welfare State, alongside the National Health Service. It provides funding both for legal advice and out-of-court representation by lawyers, for example in negotiating the settlement of disputes, and – should it come to this – legal representation in court. However, this is set to change in April 2013, when the controversial Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is due to come into force. The Act raises profound concerns about access to justice, largely removing legal aid from many of the areas of law where it has previously been available.

Ms Jo Miles discusses the potential effects of the new Act on access to justice, especially in relation to difficult family law cases.

Ms Miles is Fellow and Director of Studies at Trinity College, Cambridge, and a Senior Lecturer in Law, specialising in Family Law. She is also Academic door tenant at 1 Hare Court, Assistant editor of the Child and Family Law Quarterly. and an Elected member of the Executive Council of the International Society of Family Law. In 2005 Ms Miles was seconded for two years to the Law Commission for England and Wales to work on the financial consequences of relationship breakdown. For more information about Ms Miles, please refer to her profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/j-k-miles/57

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Deporting Abu Qatada: the European Court of Human Rights, and Governments: David Feldman

Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge — Mon, 28 May 2012 13:05:00 +0100

There has recently been a great deal of controversy surrounding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the attempted deportation to Jordan of radical cleric Abu Qatada, and the decision to oblige the UK to give convicted prisoners the right to vote.

Professor David Feldman discusses the judgements of the European Court, and the corresponding actions by UK courts and the UK Government.

This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.