Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, Supreme Court. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, Supreme Court. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, Supreme Court. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
This chapter considers the key features of a discretionary trust. Unlike a fixed trust, which gives defined shares to the beneficiaries, a discretionary trust gives the trustees a discretion as to how to allocate the beneficial interests. They are mechanisms by which an owner of property can grant to others the power to allocate a fund among a defined class or group. As in a power of appointment, the allocator has complete discretion as to how the fund should be allocated, either, or both, in terms of the persons who should receive shares of the fund and the size of the shares they should receive. However, unlike mere powers of appointment, the allocator is under a mandatory duty to make allocations in accordance with the terms of the trust. The court will intervene to ensure that this duty is discharged.
Chapter
This chapter considers the key features of a discretionary trust. Unlike a fixed trust, which gives defined shares to the beneficiaries, a discretionary trust gives the trustees a discretion as to how to allocate the beneficial interests. They are mechanisms by which an owner of property can grant to others the power to allocate a fund among a defined class or group. As in a power of appointment, the allocator has complete discretion how the fund should be allocated, either, or both, in terms of the persons who should receive shares of the fund and the size of the shares they should receive. However, unlike mere powers of appointment, the allocator is under a mandatory duty to make allocations in accordance with the terms of the trust. The court will intervene to ensure that this duty is discharged.
Chapter
Andrew Ashworth and Julian V. Roberts
Sentencing represents the apex of the criminal process and is the most public stage of the criminal justice system. Controversial sentences attract widespread media coverage, intense public interest, and much public and political criticism. This chapter explores sentencing in the United Kingdom, and draws some conclusions with relevance to other common law jurisdictions. Sentencing has changed greatly in recent years, notably through the introduction of sentencing guidelines in England and Wales, and more recently, Scotland. However, there are still doubts about the fairness and consistency of sentencing practice, not least in the use of imprisonment. Among the key issues to be examined in this chapter are the tendency towards net-widening, the effects of race and gender, the impact of pleading guilty, the use of indeterminate sentences, the rise of mandatory sentences, and the role of the victim in the sentencing process. The chapter begins by outlining the methods by which cases come before the courts for sentencing. It then summarizes the specific sentences available to courts and examines current sentencing patterns, before turning to a more detailed exploration of sentencing guidelines, and of the key issues identified above. The chapter addresses two critical questions: What is sentencing (namely who exerts the power to punish)? Does sentencing in the UK measure up to appropriate standards of fairness and consistency?
Chapter
This chapter discusses the different functions in a court and how the court is composed of a tribunal of law and a tribunal of fact. In a jury trial, the judge decides matters of law and is the tribunal of law, while the jury is the ‘fact-finder’, the tribunal of fact. In a non-jury trial, the judge or magistrates perform both functions. This chapter discusses the functions of the judge in legal issues concerning evidence and, in particular, when a case is withdrawn from the jury because there is ‘no case’; judicial discretion; and admissibility of evidence illegally or unfairly obtained.
Chapter
Ruth Lamont
This chapter explores the nature of family life and the role of the law in family relationships to identify the particular challenges facing family lawyers. In particular, it considers how the law interacts with family life, how family relationships are identified in law, and what role the law plays in regulating family behaviour. The diversity and personalised experience of ‘family’ means that the role of the law in these processes is complex. There are two central issues facing family lawyers. First, the identification of a relationship as being one of ‘family’ for the purposes of the law is an important label, and may give rise to specific rights and obligations, even if the particular relationship bears no significance for the individual. Secondly, identifying the nature of the rights and obligations arising from a family relationship is central to determining the significance of the relationship.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (No 1) [1975] AC 396, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (No 1) [1975] AC 396, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd (No 1) [1975] AC 396, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on evidence that is relevant but improperly obtained and thus may be excluded by judicial discretion. It looks at the exclusionary discretion contained within section 78 of the UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and explains how common law and statutory exclusionary discretion may be exercised in relation to other areas of evidence, such as character evidence and hearsay evidence, other than confessions. The chapter also looks at the most common areas of exclusion, other than confession evidence, including breach or evasion of legislation such as PACE and the Codes of Practice. It also reviews when a stay of prosecution might be the appropriate procedure. Finally, it discusses the relevant principles of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that are enshrined in section 78 of PACE.
Chapter
Mark Elliott and Jason Varuhas
This chapter examines principles of administrative law which seek to prevent abuse of discretion. It first considers the notion that there is no such thing as an unfettered discretion before discussing two key principles that encourage a mode of administration which is faithful to the legislative scheme set out by Parliament: those which require decision-makers to act only on the basis of factors which are legally relevant, and those which dictate that statutory powers may be used only for the purposes for which they were created. It also explores the propriety of purpose doctrine and the relevancy doctrine, citing a number of relevant cases such as Padfield v. Minister of Agrictulture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the process of criminal law. The focus is on the importance of the exercise of official discretion, on the criminal law in action, and on the role of bureaucracy in criminal law. There is also an outline of sentencing powers. Patterns of decision-making by criminal justice officials are one of four key pillars of criminal law and justice, along with criminal law principles, rules, and standards. We will see how these patterns are structured by crime management and bureaucratic-administrative techniques designed to reduce the number of contested trials and issues, and hence take pressure off the criminal justice system as a whole.
Chapter
This chapter discusses how judges can defer in appropriate ways to administrative authorities on some issues, while still opposing abuses of power. The chapter explains why the courts defer massively to administrative authorities on some issues involving foreign affairs and national security, public expenditure, planning, and legal and political processes. The mere fact that the law has allocated the power to an administrative body gives rise to a presumption that a court should not interfere unless there is a ground for review other than that the court would have reached a decision. The extent to which a court ought to defer is determined by the three reasons for allocating power to an administrative body: the body’s expertise, its political responsibility, and/or its decision-making processes.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the process of criminal law. The focus is on the importance of the exercise of official discretion, on the criminal law in action, and on the role of bureaucracy in criminal law. There is also an outline of sentencing powers. Patterns of decision-making by criminal justice officials are one of four key pillars of criminal law and justice, along with criminal law principles, rules, and standards. We will see how these patterns are structured by crime-management and bureaucratic–administrative techniques designed to reduce the number of contested trials and issues, and hence take pressure off the criminal justice system as a whole.
Chapter
Celebrated for their conceptual clarity, titles in the Clarendon Law Series offer concise, accessible overviews of major fields of law and legal thought. This chapter considers the questions that arise when trustees are given a dispositive discretion, i.e. the power to decide whom to pay, how much, and when. It first identifies five of the most important types of dispositive discretion: discretionary trusts; powers of appointment; powers of accumulation; powers of maintenance; and powers of advancement. It then turns to the duties and certainty requirements in trusts involving dispositive discretions. There are two main ones. The first is remaining within the terms of the disposition as laid down by the settlor (above all, paying only the right people). The other is handling the exercise of the discretion in a proper way. The chapter also discusses the proper bases for a decision and the depth of information with which trustees are required to equip themselves before making their decision.
Chapter
This chapter discusses how judges can defer in appropriate ways to administrative authorities on some issues, while still opposing abuses of power. The chapter explains why the courts defer massively to administrative authorities on some issues involving foreign affairs and national security, public expenditure, planning, and legal and political processes. The mere fact that the law has allocated the power to an administrative body gives rise to a presumption that a court should not interfere unless there is a ground for review other than that the court would have reached a decision; the extent to which a court ought to defer is determined by the three reasons for allocating power to an administrative body: the body’s expertise, its political responsibility, and/or its decision-making processes.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the admissibility of confessions under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (the 1984 Act). It considers how, under s 76(2) of the 1984 Act, confessions may be excluded as a matter of law where obtained by oppression or in consequence of something said or done which was likely to render any such confession unreliable. It also considers the discretion to exclude confessions under s 78(1) of the 1984 Act; the effect of breaches of the Codes of Practice issued under the 1984 Act; the voir dire; statements made in the presence of the accused; and facts discovered in consequence of inadmissible confessions.
Chapter
Essential Cases: Equity & Trusts provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1, House of Lords. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Derek Whayman.
