Dr Sara Fovargue, Lancaster University Dr Alexandra Mullock, University of Manchester
The relationship between medical practice and criminal law is much closer than many realise. Doctors are permitted to do things that others are not, provided that what they do is regarded as ‘proper medical treatment’. The legal justification for bodily invasions in the medical context has developed according to the ‘medical exception’ to the criminal law discussed by the House of Lords in the cases of Rv Brown  and Airedale NHS Trust v Bland , and by the Law Commission in 1994. As those involved in sado-masochistic activities discovered in Brown, consent, in the absence of medical (or legitimate sporting) justification, is not enough to make harming others lawful. And in Bland, while it was legitimate for the doctors to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, if a concerned relative did the same it would become a criminal matter.
As sex industry research expands, so too do sex work preconceptions. A popular stereotype and ‘myth’ is that men are always the sex purchasers, and women the service providers. However, a recent study by Lancaster University demonstrates women buy sexual services too, in a range of settings and scenarios.
This study, led by Dr Sarah Kingston of Lancaster University promises to be the most in-depth analysis of female clients in the sex industry ever undertaken in the UK, and the early results are revealing.
Under the Climate Change Act 2008, the UK has made a binding commitment to an immensely ambitious and costly programme of ‘decarbonisation’ so that (let us allow for the purposes of argument) its anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 will be 80% less than they were in 1990. Putting aside the myriad other issues which an assessment of the wisdom of this commitment must take into account, its basic rationality depends on the likelihood of other countries making comparable commitments. Decarbonisation is intended to mitigate global warming. But global warming is, precisely, a global issue. Continue reading →
In March 2015 a group of seven School of Law students and one staff member visited Lancaster University’s partner campus in Accra, Ghana as part of the Lancaster-Ghana Ambassadors scheme. They were accompanied by staff and students from Linguistics and Politics, Philosophy and Religion (PPR) and followed an intensive programme of educational and networking activities.
Staff at the European Children’s Rights Unit (University of Liverpool) and elsewhere are involved in Children’s Rights Judgments – a project to progress the use of a children’s rights approach in judgment writing. Re A (Application for DNA Testing)  EWCA Civ 133 concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Liverpool County Court and it provides a notable case study to consider from a children’s rights perspective. It is probably the least child-friendly judgment you are likely to see in this jurisdiction in recent times. The reaction by a judge to the application of a child for a court order makes for extraordinary reading, and serves as a reminder of the distance left to travel in terms of universal acceptance of children’s rights as legal actors and indeed as human beings.