Stay ConnectedLaw in Focus is a collection of short interviews 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.
For videos see: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLy4oXRK6xgzHukYwMI806wyHrLBoL9K0v
Copyright: © 2018
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
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.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
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
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.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
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
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.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
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.
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
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.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
'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.
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
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.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
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
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.
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
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.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
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
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.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
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
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.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
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
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.
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
