Strikes, Nurses and The Law in the UK

1997 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 269-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridgit Dimond

This paper explores the law relating to strikes and other industrial action in the UK and the problems faced by nurse practitioners. It also reviews the advice given to nurses by the professional associations. If any employee takes part in industrial action, he or she could personally face four arenas of accountability for this action: disciplinary proceedings before the employer; criminal proceedings; civil proceedings for negligence; and professional conduct proceedings.

2020 ◽  
pp. 846-846
Author(s):  
David Cabrelli

This chapter examines the law of trade disputes and industrial action in the UK, i.e. the law which regulates action taken by members of a trade union which imposes restrictions upon employers when collective relations between the employer and the workforce have broken down. The position is analysed in the context of the legality of industrial action in European law and under the European Convention on Human Rights....


Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo

Chapter 11 discusses the law on hearsay evidence. It covers the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, now governed by the Civil Evidence Act 1995; other proceedings in which the hearsay rule is inapplicable; and the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings.


2021 ◽  
pp. 262-294
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo

Chapter 11 discusses the law on hearsay evidence. It covers the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, now governed by the Civil Evidence Act 1995; other proceedings in which the hearsay rule is inapplicable; and the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings.


Author(s):  
David Cabrelli

This chapter examines the law of trade disputes and industrial action in the UK, i.e. the law which regulates action taken by members of a trade union which imposes restrictions upon employers when collective relations between the employer and the workforce have broken down. The position is analysed in the context of the legality of industrial action in European law and under the European Convention on Human Rights....


1968 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-101
Author(s):  
R. N. Gooderson

No expert long range forecast is needed to predict that in the near future a wind of change of a velocity and a turbulence hitherto unknown is going to sweep away many common law principles of the law of evidence regarded in the past as fundamental. In civil proceedings, the hurricane is upon us, with the thirteenth report of the Law Reform Committee, and the Civil Evidence Bill 1967, virtually providing for the abolition of the rule against first-hand hearsay and the rule against narrative, and substituting a wide discretion in the court. All the signs are that in a short time analogous reforms for criminal proceedings will be announced, and already previous statements have been rendered widely admissible by the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The object of this article is to look at the common law relating to the rule against narrative in criminal proceedings, as it is applied in England and in the United States, and to make a few comments on the procedure introduced by section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.The rule against narrative is sometimes called the rule against self-corroboration. This is misleading, in that a witness can never corroborate himself where corroboration is required by any rule of law or practice. In the thirteenth report, the first description is said to be a misnomer, but a helpful summary of the rule is given: “what the witness himself said outside the witness-box is not evidence.” Wills describes the rule in this way: “… the witness may not repeat to the Court his own previous narratives or statements concerning the relevant facts made to other persons out of Court; when he is in the witness-box he must take his mind back, directly so to speak, to the facts he is called to prove, and must give to the Court his present recollection of those facts.”


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. 144-155
Author(s):  
V. A. Kovalenko

The paper examines the types of harm provided for by domestic legislation, their procedural features in a criminal case by filing a civil claim. The author argues that there is a need to amend the existing normative legal acts regulating the issues of compensation for harm caused by a crime, in particular, presents some arguments about the disclosure and legislative consolidation of the concept of “harm” in the framework of criminal proceedings. The author analyzes the gaps associated with compensation for property damage, in terms of the difficult simultaneous compensation for property and moral damage, as well as the lack of opportunity in the criminal procedure to recover lost profits. Some features of compensation for moral damage in relation to individuals and legal entities are investigated, for example, the issue of applying the rules for compensation for moral damage when a civil claim is filed by a legal entity. The process of proving the damage caused and the gaps in the issues of awarding compensation amounts in civil claims for compensation for damage, taking into account judicial practice, are considered. The author expresses her opinion on the matter of interim measures application in relation to the property of tortfeasor and imposing on the judge the obligation to render a decision in case of such a need, and not the right. Some differences between a civil claim for damages in criminal proceedings and civil proceedings are given, for example, the possibility of indexing the amounts subject to compensation has been analyzed. The analysis of some regulatory acts and the study of the procedure for compensation for harm caused by a crime in the UK. The author presents an argument about the development of scientifically grounded methodological recommendations that would fully reveal the existing gaps and problems in compensation for various kinds of harm caused by a crime.


1968 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yehuda Z. Blum

Two recent decisions handed down by the Hebron magistrate, Mr. Hussein El-Shajuchi, and by the Bethlehem magistrate, Mr. Tawfik El-Sakka, on February 5, 1968 and on February 27, 1968, respectively, have brought to the fore some interesting legal problems arising from the Six Day War of June, 1967 as a result of which Judea and Samaria (formerly known as the “West Bank” of the Kingdom of Jordan) have come under Israeli control.The immediate cause that has given rise to the elaboration by the two learned magistrates of the problems to be dealt with in this paper was the promulgation by the Officer Commanding, Israel Defence Forces in Judea and Samaria, on October 23, 1967, of Order No. 145, concerning the status of Israeli advocates in the courts of Judea and Samaria. Article 2 of the said Order provides that “notwithstanding any existing provisions to the contrary, any party to civil proceedings and any defendant in criminal proceedings may authorise an Israeli advocate to represent him in such proceedings.” Article 4 of the same Order stipulates that the Order shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of its entry into force (i.e. October 23, 1967) unless it is terminated at an earlier date by the Officer Commanding, Israel Defence Forces in Judea and Samaria. In the preamble to the Order the reasons given for its promulgation are “to ensure the efficient maintenance of the law, to enable the uninterrupted functioning of the Courts in the District [of Judea and Samaria] and to make available the services of advocates to the local population.” As will be more fully explained later, the reason for promulgating this Order was the strike of Arab lawyers in Judea and Samaria, which threatened to deprive courts and clients there of legal services.


Author(s):  
В. В. Король ◽  
В. Д. Юрчишин

У статті зазначається, що серед учасників кримінального провадження суд посідає ви­ключне становище, оскільки тільки він є єдиним державним органом, що здійснює судову владу у визначених законом процесуальних формах. При цьому вказується, що суд по­трібно вважати встановленим законом лише за умови, що він утворений безпосередньо на підставі закону, діє в межах своєї предметної, функціональної й територіальної юрисдикції та в законному складі суду.   The article notes that among the participants in criminal proceedings the court occupies a unique position, because only it is the only governmental body which exercises the judicial power as defined by law procedural forms. It is submitted, that the court should consider the law only when it is formed directly on the basis of the law, acting within their subject, func­tional and territorial jurisdiction and legal composition of court.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen O’Brien Pott ◽  
Anissa S. Blanshan ◽  
Kelly M. Huneke ◽  
Barbara L. Baasch Thomas ◽  
David A. Cook

Abstract Background CPD educators and CME providers would benefit from further insight regarding barriers and supports in obtaining CME, including sources of information about CME. To address this gap, we sought to explore challenges that clinicians encounter as they seek CME, and time and monetary support allotted for CME. Methods In August 2018, we surveyed licensed US clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), sampling 100 respondents each of family medicine physicians, internal medicine and hospitalist physicians, medicine specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (1895 invited, 500 [26.3%] responded). The Internet-based questionnaire addressed barriers to obtaining CME, sources of CME information, and time and monetary support for CME. Results The most often-selected barriers were expense (338/500 [68%]) and travel time (N = 286 [57%]). The source of information about CME activities most commonly selected was online search (N = 348 [70%]). Direct email, professional associations, direct mail, and journals were also each selected by > 50% of respondents. Most respondents reported receiving 1–6 days (N = 301 [60%]) and $1000–$5000 (n = 263 [53%]) per year to use in CME activities. Most (> 70%) also reported no change in time or monetary support over the past 24 months. We found few significant differences in responses across clinician type or age group. In open-ended responses, respondents suggested eight ways to enhance CME: optimize location, reduce cost, publicize effectively, offer more courses and content, allow flexibility, ensure accessibility, make content clinically relevant, and encourage application. Conclusions Clinicians report that expense and travel time are the biggest barriers to CME. Time and money support is limited, and not increasing. Online search and email are the most frequently-used sources of information about CME. Those who organize and market CME should explore options that reduce barriers of time and money, and creatively use online tools to publicize new offerings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document