The Plymouth Law & Criminal Justice Review, Volume 01 - 2008https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/87792024-03-18T21:40:03Z2024-03-18T21:40:03ZCohabitation and Property: The End of the Road for the Traditional Trust?Todd, Paulhttps://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/89432019-05-22T15:14:43Z2008-01-01T00:00:00ZCohabitation and Property: The End of the Road for the Traditional Trust?
Todd, Paul
It is generally assumed that financial apportionment between cohabiting parties, when the relationship ends, is determined by the law of property, in which the institution of the trust has a large role to play. Until recently, it has also been assumed that the ordinary law applies, rather than a special law for cohabitants. The trust developed to deal with fact situations far removed from those of modern cohabitation, and it may not be the most appropriate device for the resolution of what are essentially financial disputes between cohabitants. This article examines the limitations of the trust concept in this regard.
2008-01-01T00:00:00ZFood Fraud, Current Issue but an Old ProblemShears, Peterhttps://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/89422019-05-22T15:14:43Z2008-01-01T00:00:00ZFood Fraud, Current Issue but an Old Problem
Shears, Peter
Purposes: This article addresses the topic of food fraud which has been so widely and variously reported over recent months and years. Its purposes are to set current experience into an historical context and to illustrate the tension between the science of deception and the science of detection. Approach: This is a desk study of published literature and historical documentation, together with interviews with those professionally concerned with detection and enforcement. Findings: The piece concludes that with all the scientific developments and analytical techniques that seem so mind-bendingly sophisticated, there remains the basic problem of a lack of resources. Implications: It is asserted that we owe more to the memories and the reputations of those who pioneered the effort to combat food fraud. Without a considerable increase in the resources made available for the appliance of the science we have and are developing, the battle will never be fully engaged, yet alone won. Originality/value: This review is unique in that it seeks to take a long view of current concern, and even scandal, showing that we have been here before and that we ought to know better by now.
2008-01-01T00:00:00ZHow Effective are Anti-Doping Sport Measures in the UK? Harris, Louisehttps://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/89412019-05-22T15:14:43Z2008-01-01T00:00:00ZHow Effective are Anti-Doping Sport Measures in the UK?
Harris, Louise
2008-01-01T00:00:00ZThe Halliday Report: In Pursuit of a New Sentencing Framework or a Catastrophic Failure?Boothe, Chivonnehttps://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/89402019-05-22T15:14:43Z2008-01-01T00:00:00ZThe Halliday Report: In Pursuit of a New Sentencing Framework or a Catastrophic Failure?
Boothe, Chivonne
In 2001 the Halliday Report, Making Punishments Work: A Review of the Sentencing Framework for England & Wales devised a sentencing framework where sentences – custodial and non-custodial - meant what they said, benefited offenders and society, and ultimately made sense. The new framework was designed to successfully rehabilitate offenders, reduce re-offending and reserve prison for those offenders that justify it by creating novel but ingenious ways of changing the attitudes and behaviours of offenders. The framework was to be one that generated public confidence. Changes were proposed of such magnitude that it was believed the reform would lead to an overhaul of the dismal state of the sentencing framework. This article examines three major proposals from the Halliday report; the reform and use of custodial sentences and non-custodial sentences and the formulation of sentencing guidelines. It argues that despite specified aims the proposals have been implemented in such diluted ways that they have limited the chance of achieving the success predicted. The discussion seeks to show that despite the extensive Report, heralded by the government as the way forward in improving sentencing practice, the government has failed to acknowledge the recommendations made and use the Report to its full benefit. The underlying question posed is whether the government has successfully put the ‘sense back into sentencing’?
2008-01-01T00:00:00Z