How the most English of poems inspired a Scot to champion European Human Rights

How the most English of poems inspired a Scot to champion European Human Rights | UK Human Rights Blog: "The Convention was a legally enforceable treaty that created an international court to police the maintenance of basic human rights. For, as Nuremberg proved and recorded these rights were fragile and vulnerable.
Of course the rights listed in the Convention were crudely hewn. It would take, and will take years of cases at the court to define and refine the interaction between human rights and the state.
As Maxwell Fyfe recognised: "The difficulty of course is that human lawyers are not the creators but only the interpreters or codifiers of these fundamental human rights. Opinions differ widely as to their precise definitions"
The Convention has fed 60 years of public debate about conflicting and emergent rights, many of which would have astonished the authors. And that is what they had intended.
It can be argued that the Convention was made in Gray’s Inn as Shawcross, Lauterpacht and Maxwell Fyfe were all barristers there. The Human Rights Lawyers association is holding a celebration of the signing of the Convention later this month." 'via Blog this'

The role of lawyers in public life - ECHR

The role of lawyers in public life - Speeches - Inside Government - GOV.UK: "In the period between the Congress at The Hague, and the first meeting of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, David Maxwell Fyfe was involved in drafting the Convention, with the assistance of academic lawyers from Oxford and Cambridge University. That first draft covered what Maxwell Fyfe described as the “basic decencies of life” - security for life and limb, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from slavery and compulsory labour, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of marriage, the sanctity of the family, equality before the law, and freedom from arbitrary deprivation of property.
By August 1950, the Assembly agreed the draft Convention. The Times reported an important aspect of the new Convention: that it was not to be a collection of mere aspirations and platitudes. It was to be matter of real, enforceable, law. The Times report says: “The committee’s insistence on the convention was based on the fact that it stated human rights not as vague generalities, but in terms that could be enforced by a court of law.”" 'via Blog this'

The Constitution of the Public Sphere: the post-Leveson Landscape (W G Hart Legal Workshop 2013)

IALS Events / Institute of Advanced Legal Studies: "24 June 2013 - 25 June 2013
Directors:  Dr Eoin Carolan, University College Dublin and Dr Andrew Scott, London School of Economics. 
Plenary speakers: Geoffrey Robinson QC; Philip Coppel QC, Landmark Chambers; Professor Tom Gibbons, Univerisyt of Manchester;  Professor John Horgan, Irish Press Ombudsman; Michael McManus, Director of Transition, Press Complaints Commission; 
Professor Chris Marsden, University of Sussex;  Professor Leslie Moran, Birkbeck, University of London; Professor Alastair Mullis, University of East Anglia; Gill Phillips, Director of Editorial Legal Services, Guardian News and Media Ltd;  Professor Gavin Phillipson, University of Durham;  Professor Colin Scott, University College Dublin;  Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Chambers; Professor Lorna Woods, City University London;  and a further 25 papers given in parallel sessions.
Organised by: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies" 'via Blog this'

Council of Europe publications: Internet-related cases

Other Publications: "Internet: case-law of the Court" 'via Blog this'

Commission asks The Netherlands to ensure independence of Dutch regulator

EUROPA - PRESS RELEASES - Press Release - April infringements package: main decisions: "The 2009 EU Regulatory Framework for telecoms requires that national regulators have full independence in how they apply market regulation. The Commission believes that current Dutch regulation limits this regulatory discretion by attempting to directly regulate the market in two ways. In the first case, broadcasters subject to "must-carry obligations" are forced to offer for resale their television programmes, as well as the transmission service that carries them, at wholesale level at "cost-oriented" prices (to prevent undue profits). The second provision obliges the ACM to force companies found to have significant market power to resell their programmes to competitors at cost-oriented prices.
The Commission is mainly concerned about how these regulatory provisions were imposed. It should be up to independent regulators to decide on whether such measures should be imposed, rather than the Dutch Government. The Commission is therefore sending a reasoned opinion (the second stage in EU infringement proceedings). The Netherlands has two months to reply. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may refer it to the EU Court of Justice." 'via Blog this'

Defamation Act 2013 - the text

Defamation Act 2013: "Defamation Act 2013 CHAPTER 26: An Act to amend the law of defamation.
[25th April 2013]" 'via Blog this'

Defamation Act 2013 – the Explanatory Notes

Defamation Act 2013 – the Explanatory Notes | Inforrm's Blog: "The Explanatory Notes to the Defamation Act 2013 have now been published. It is important to understand the status and value of these notes in relation to the construction of the Act.  As the notes themselves make clear “They have been prepared by the Ministry of Justice in order to assist the reader in understanding the Act. They do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament” (para 1). Explanatory Notes are admissible aids to the construction of the statute insofar as they “cast light on the objective setting or contextual scene of the statute, and the mischief at which it is aimed” (Westminster City Council v National Asylym Support Service [2002] UKHL 38 [5])."
In relation to the new defences of “Truth” (Section 2) and “Honest Opinion” (Section 3) the paragraphs 13 and 19 of the Explanatory Notes suggest that these “broadly reflect the current law while simplifying and clarifying certain elements”. The Notes are clear that the new defence of “publication on a matter of public interest” (section 4) is not intended to be a new departure but is, rather: “based on the existing common law defence established in Reynolds v Times Newspapers and is intended to reflect the principles established in that case and in subsequent case law“.As indicated by the Minister in the House of Commons on 16 April 2013, the Notes say that “The intention in this provision is to reflect the existing common law as most recently set out in Flood v Times Newspapers“ So section 4 does not establish a “new public interest” defence but simply codifies the common law as developed by the Courts.
The notes to section 9 (Action against a person not domiciled in the UK or a Member State etc) indicate that the section “aims to address the issue of “libel tourism” (a term which is used to apply where cases with a tenuous link to England and Wales are brought in this jurisdiction)” but go on to point out that does not apply to a person domiciled in a EU Member state or a state which is party to the Lugano Convention. Section 9(2) says that a court does not have jurisdiction to determine an action against a person domiciled outside the countries mentioned unless the court is satisfied that, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement." 'via Blog this'