Reprimanding Juveniles and the Right to Due Process

Date01 November 2005
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2005.570_2.x
Published date01 November 2005
tion of pleural plaques onchest x-rays.These witness exposure to asbestos. Are
they ‘‘physical damage such that a person with them, albeit currently symp-
tom-free, can sue for the consequential fear or phobia of contracting a future
asbestosdisease? What about thecosts of medical monitoring? Claimsby these
so-called ‘‘worried well’’ are booming in the United States where there is con-
cern that they will denude the dwindling pool of available compensation
funds at the expense of those who eventually contract a highly debilitating
asbestos disease.
52
A large test case that raises many of these issues is currently
on appeal to the Court of Appeal.
53
6. The Lords in Gregg did not agree on the ranking of interests protected by the
tort of neglige nce.
54
Take our heart valve recipient. Could he sue if his uncer-
tain medicalprognosis had losthim a pre-trial chanceof lucrativeemployment
by some third party, even where this chance, pre-tort, was less than 50%?
What about the loss of chances of post-tr ial employment opportunities?
55
Judges and commentators are divided about the appropriateness of the law
appearing to rank the market value of a persons labour higher than his or her
interest in physical security. This may yet prove to be the lever used to reopen
and challenge the decision in Hotson.
Reprimanding Juveniles and the Right to Due Process
Alisdair A. Gillespie
n
This note discusses the recent decision by the House of Lords in RvDurham
Police and another, ex parte R.
1
This case concerns the legality of the reprimand
scheme introduced by the Crime and Disord er Act 1998
2
which replaced the
previous i nformal and formal system of cautions. The principal issue in this
case was whether it was necessary for an o¡ender to consent to a reprimand
being issued or whether one can be imposed on a youth o¡ender. Consent
was a pre-requisite for formal cautions, and continues to be so for adult
o¡enders yet the statute is silent as to the place of consent in the reprimand
52 S Carroll et al, Asbestos Litigation (Rand, 2005); J Goldberg and B Zipursky,‘‘Unrealized Torts’
(2002) 88 Virg L Rev 1625.
53 Grieves vFT Everard & So ns [2005] EWHC88(QB). Compare[2005] UKHL 2, at para118,per Lord
Hope.
54 Compare for example Baroness Hale Gregg at para 220, with LordNicholls at para 25.
55 See also the orphanage and asbestos exposure examples in Stapleton (2003), supra, No te 15, 40 9.
n
Reader in Law, De Montfort University. I wish to thank my former colleague Jude Beadle of the
Universityof Teesside for her comments on an earlier draft of thi s article.
2 Sections 65 to 66.
Due Process and Reprimanding Juveniles
10 0 6 rThe Modern LawReview Limited 2005

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT