Masks, Mingling and Magic: Gibberish Law in the Age of Covid

The experience of Covid-19 has taught us many things, not least the consequence of what John Milton termed ‘gibberish law’. Law drafted amidst the ‘throng and noises of irrational men’. The closer purpose of this article is the attempt to regulate ‘gatherings’ during the coronavirus pandemic, including the re-invention of a bespoke crime of ‘mingling’. A jurisprudential curiosity which, it will be suggested, is symptomatic of a broader malaise. An assault on the integrity of the rule of law which is only too familiar; much, it might be said, like the arrival of a pandemic. The first part of the article will revisit three particular gatherings, in part to debunk the myth of the unprecedented. But also to introduce some themes, literal and figurative, of masking and muddle. The conjuring of what Shakespeare called ‘rough magic’. The second part of the article will then take a closer look at the jurisprudential consequence of this conjuration. The final part will venture some larger concerns, about the crisis of parliamentary democracy in the ‘age of Covid’.

The Defence of Illegality in Private Law

The defence of illegality is invoked across private law, but has a reputation for being confused. This article argues that the defence can be rendered intelligible and sharply focused by understanding its underlying rationale, and applying that discretely and to different effect in each of tort, contract, unjust enrichment, and trusts.

Are Fish Wild?

As the global biodiversity crisis continues, it is important to examine the legislative protection that is in place for species around the world. Such legislation not only includes environmental or wildlife law, but also trade law, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which gets transposed into national legislation. This commentary analyses legislative definitions of wildlife, whether or not that includes fish, which has implications for fish welfare, use of fish for food security, and biodiversity conservation when fish, or other wildlife, are excluded. Through a legislative content analysis of the 183 parties’ legislation of CITES, we explore whether fish are afforded the same protections as other species by being included in legal definitions of wildlife. We found that while a majority of CITES parties’ legislation appear to define fish as wildlife, there are a number of instances where this is unclear or not the case, and this could have significant ramifications for the welfare of non-human animals, their use, and conservation.