Jurisprudence in UK Law

He argues that it is the consequence of the express provision that questions of procedure shall be governed by the law of the Court seised of the case. By way of example, if the procedural law of the chosen forum imposed a 12 month limitation period, it does not seem to me that this could displace the 2 year period of limitation laid down by Article 29 of the Convention.

I will assume that Mr. Blackburn is right in what he says on those matters. Negotiations are still in progress for us to join the Common Market. Even if a treaty is signed, it is elementary that these Courts take no notice of treaties as such. We take no notice of treaties until they are embodied in laws enacted by Parliament, and then only to the extent that Parliament tells us. That was settled in a case about a treaty between the Queen of England and the Emporer of China.

The important words in that statement are “to the extent” and the reference to familiar principles and legal concepts.The important words in that statement are “to the extent” and the reference to familiar principles and legal concepts.

There is thus a spectrum of circumstances in which the principal variable is the degree to which the judge can use his or her skill and experience of domestic law and of the domestic rules of statutory interpretation to ascertain the foreign law and apply it to the case in question. There is thus a spectrum of circumstances in which the principal variable is the degree to which the judge can use his or her skill and experience of domestic law and of the domestic rules of statutory interpretation to ascertain the foreign law and apply it to the case in question.

I consider that Kennedy LJ in Bramley correctly doubted the decision in Fitzpatrick, as set out above, that a search is rendered unlawful if there is any transgression, in the sense that an item is taken that falls outside the scope of the warrant. I have already cited the relevant passage from Bramley above, and the reasoning set out therein seems to me to be entirely persuasive.

In exercising his discretion whether to admit the evidence of an undercover officer, some, but not an exhaustive list, of the factors that the judge may take into account are as follows: Was the officer acting as an agent provocateur in the sense that he was enticing the defendant to commit an offence he would not otherwise have committed? Does the evidence consist of admissions to a completed offence, or does it consist of the actual commission of an offence?

We are not going to lay down any final conclusions about this case. When a new point of this kind has to be developed, it is better if it is developed slowly. We shall look at the circumstances of this case and see how the statutory provisions work out in relation to it.