scholarly journals OF IMPLICATION, INSINUATION AND INCITEMENT R v Jones [2010] 3 All ER 1186 (CA)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Hoctor ◽  
Samantha Krause
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Way

Can the crime of incitement be committed by insinuation? Can a conversation about growing tomatoes by implication actually be aconversation about the crime of producing cannabis? These are the questions which arise from the recent English case of R v Jones ([2010] 3 All ER 1186 (CA)). Although the English law relating to the way in which encouraging crime is criminalised has recently changed, the similarities between the previous (common-law) position in England (which was the law to be applied in Jones) and the current South African law make for a useful comparison between these systems, and it is to this that we now turn.

English Foundations of American Law, 1500s–1776

2018 ◽  
pp. 48-74
Author(s):  
John B. Nann ◽  
Morris L. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Colonial Period ◽  
Legal Issue ◽  
Good Case ◽  
American Law ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law

This chapter describes current sources and techniques useful for finding seventeenth- and eighteenth-century laws of England and introduces some methods an attorney in England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries might have used. Before researchers can find the law, they must know what was considered to be the source of law in the period being investigated. Reporting, publishing, and finding cases has been important in English law for centuries. Parliamentary enactments during the colonial period also play an important part in the framework surrounding any particular legal issue. Meanwhile, English law is built on a foundation of common law, which is built on case law. As such, finding cases that relate to a particular topic is critical in research. A good case-finding option is a digest of cases; these have been written over the centuries, as have abridgments and treatises on particular areas of law.

scholarly journals A COMPARATIVE EXPOSITION OF THE LAW OF HUSBAND AND WIFE IN TERMS OF ISLAMIC LAW, SOUTH AFRICAN LAW AND THE LAW OF ENGLAND AND WALES ‒ PART TWO

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Razaana Denson
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Muslim Communities ◽  
Personal Law ◽  
Legal Consequences

The article discusses and compares the dissolution of a marriage as well as the legal consequences thereof in Islamic law, South African law and English law. This is done in order to demonstrate that despite similarities, there are vast differences between the three legal systems. This impacts on how Muslim personal law (MPL) can be recognised and regulated in South Africa and in England and Wales as constitutional democracies. South Africa, England and Wales share a commitment to human rights and have adopted various approaches in respect of accommodating the application of Islamic law. Internal pluralism also exists within the Muslim communities in South Africa, England and Wales as the majority of Muslims in these countries have to varying degrees developed diverse strategies to ensure compliance with Islamic law, as well as with South African and English law. Notwithstanding the accommodation of MPL in terms of South African and English law, the differences between these legal systems have resulted in decisions that, while providing relief to the lived realities of Muslims, are in fact contrary to the teachings and principles of Islam and therefore problematic for Muslims.

Fiduciary Law as Equity’s Child

Equity ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 113-151
Author(s):  
Irit Samet
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Duty Of Loyalty ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

This chapter challenges the argument that one of Equity’s most distinctive doctrines, fiduciary law, must be fused with a common law doctrine—the law of contract. In particular, it highlights the disadvantages of transforming the equitable duty of loyalty into an ordinary contractual obligation. The chapter first considers the ‘contractarian’ interpretation of fiduciary law according to which fiduciary duties are no more than a species of contractual obligations before explaining why, in contrast with the contractarian argument, Equity was right in claiming that the fiduciary relationship was essentially different from contract. After making the case of why fiduciary law should be treated as a sui generis equitable doctrine, the chapter examines two features of equitable fiduciary law that will change dramatically if the fusion suggestion is adopted (the language in which it is set and the way into the relationship) and shows the adverse consequences of moving in that direction. It concludes with the contention that the concept of ‘conscience’ still has an active role to play in the legal reasoning about fiduciaries.

Introduction

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt X. Metzmeier
Keyword(s):  
American Revolution ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Political Environment ◽  
American Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
Background History ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Subsidies ◽  
Law Reports

The introduction provides the background history of American law reporting. After the American Revolution, the early law reporters helped create a new common law inspired by the law of England but fully grounded in the printed decisions of American judges. English law reports, whose reporters eventually achieved the same authority as their reports, were the model. It took time for the first state opinions to appear in print because publication was not commercially feasible. The first law reporters collected the opinions of the court, selected the best, and financed their printing; later they received state subsidies. The early Kentucky law reports were extensions of the personalities of their creators, an individualistic group of rising young lawyers, future and former judges, aspiring politicians, and enterprising journalists. The history of Kentucky courts and the state’s political environment are also surveyed.

Sovereignty and Common Law Judicial Office in Taylor's Case (1675)

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kearns
Keyword(s):  
Church Of England ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Ecclesiastical Law ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
Spiritual Nature ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Church ◽  
Law Making

This essay argues that the 1675 conviction of John Taylor by the Court of King's Bench for slandering God reveals Chief Justice Matthew Hale implementing a model of conjoint law-making between courts, Parliament, and crown that gave pre-eminent power to the common lawyers, and none to the Church of England. In doing so, it counters the prevailing literature on Restoration English law, which has treated the law as hierarchical, with the common lawyers subordinate to the sovereign. Rather than following statute or ecclesiastical law, which emphasised the spiritual nature of crimes like Taylor's, Hale located Taylor's offence in the exclusively temporal common law jurisdiction of defamation, which existed largely outside of monarchical purview. Hale's judgment reflected his rhetoric of judicial office outside the courtroom, where he argued the judiciary worked alongside King and Parliament in making law, but were not subservient to these institutions, for common lawyers relied on sources of law beyond sovereign-made statute. The language of sovereignty as hierarchical was thus a factional attack on an independent common law, an attempt to subordinate the common lawyers to the crown that was resisted by the lawyers like Hale in his rhetoric and exercise of office, and should not ground accounts of the Restoration regime.

Liability of the State and Public Authorities in Israel and South Africa

2013 ◽  
pp. 1-47
Author(s):  
Max Loubser ◽  
Tamar Gidron
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The South ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The Law

Both the Israeli and the South African legal systems are classified as mixed legal systems, or mixed jurisdictions. In Israel, tort law was originally pure English common law, adopted by legislation and later developed judicially. In South Africa, the law of delict (tort) was originally Roman-Dutch but was later strongly influenced by the English common law. Under both systems, tort law is characterized by open-ended norms allowing extensive judicial development. This paper traces and compares the structural basis, methodology, policy, and trends of the judicial development of state and public-authority liability in the Israeli and South African jurisdictions. Specific factors that have impacted the development of state- and public-authority liability are: (1) constitutional values, (2) the courts’ recognition of the need for expanded protection of fundamental human rights and activism towards achieving such protection, (3) the multicultural nature of the societies, (4) problems of crime and security, and (5) worldwide trends, linked to consumerism, toward the widening of liability of the state and public authorities.Within essentially similar conceptual structures the South African courts have been much more conservative in their approach to state liability for pure economic loss than their Israeli counterparts. This can perhaps be attributed to a sense of priorities. In a developing country with huge disparities in wealth, the courts would naturally be inclined to prioritize safety and security of persons above pure economic loss. The South African courts have been similarly more conservative in cases involving administrative negligence and evidential loss.The development of the law on state and public-authority liability in Israel and South Africa is also the product of factors such as the levels of education, the effectiveness of the public service, and the history and pervasiveness of constitutional ordering. Despite important differences, the law in the two jurisdictions has developed from a broadly similar mixed background; the courts have adopted broadly similar methods and reasoning; and the outcomes show broadly similar trends.

Defaming the Dead

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don Herzog
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Dead Person ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Dead ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Way

If you defame the dead, even someone who recently died, tort law does not think that’s an injury: not to the grieving survivors and not to the dead person. This book argues that defamation is an injury to the recently dead. It explores history, including the shaping of the common law, and offers an account of posthumous harm and wrong. Along the way, it offers a sustained exploration of how we and the law think about corpse desecration.

Unjustified Enrichment in Comparative Perspective

2006 ◽  
pp. 968-1002
Author(s):  
Daniel Visser
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

Unjustified enrichment confronted both civil and common lawyers with thinking which was often completely outside the paradigm to which they had become accustomed. The recognition of unjustified enrichment as a cause of action in its own right in English law created a new arena of uncertainty between the systems. This article argues that comparative lawyers can make an important contribution to the future of the fractured and fractious world of unjustified enrichment. It may help to uncover the enormous wealth of learning of which both the common law and the civil law are the repositories, and so bring the same level of understanding to the law of unjustified enrichment which has, over the years, been achieved between the systems in regard to contract and tort.

The judicial development of the Roman-Dutch doctrine of parental authority in South African law

2008 ◽  
Vol 76 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 133-153
Author(s):  
Lawrence Schäfer
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Turning Points ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Parental Authority ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
The South ◽  
English Law ◽  
Illegitimate Children

AbstractThe Roman-Dutch doctrine of parental authority differed markedly from the parallel doctrine in English common law, particularly in relation to the balance of power between parents and generally in relation to illegitimate children. This paper traces the judicial development of the Roman-Dutch doctrine by the South African courts and focuses on two important turning points, at which the unnecessary adoption of principles of English law resulted in a departure from Roman-Dutch principles. The product of this judicial development was a doctrine of parental authority that differentiated sharply between legitimate and illegitimate children, and greatly impeded the capacity of judges to apply the 'best interests' principle in disputes concerning the latter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document