Ian Loveland – författare

The size of Britain's homeless population has risen considerably since the introduction of the Housing (Homeless) Persons Act 1977. Recently, the Government announced plans radically to reform the existing legislation, a recognition of the political sensitivity of homelessness and the need for a coherent policy to tackle the problem.Housing the homeless is an issue which embraces housing, family and social security policy; it has also generated considerable interest for public lawyers, as the scope of discretionary powers provided by the Act has provoked a great deal of litigation in the High Court.In the original study the author presents a detailed empirical study of three local authorities implementation of the homelessness legislation. He focuses in particular on the processes of administrative decision-making at the lowest level, and reveals that `law' plays a very limited role in shaping administrative policy decisions. Placing law within a context of administrative action, the author illustrates how administrative law must be understood by reference to the complex institutional structures with which it is daily involved.

A collection of topical essays by many of the UK's leading public lawyers and centred on a single theme: the influence of US jurisprudence upon English Public Law. The contributors address a lively range of topics, while the introduction pulls the many and varied discussions and observations together and deals with a more general theory of the influence of US Public Law upon English Law.

Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights provides an introduction to public law which draws on developments in politics, the law and society to help the reader gain a fundamental appreciation of the law in its wider context. In addition, it explores the latest ongoing debates around potential constitutional reforms and the author's stimulating style encourages critical analysis.Digital formats and resourcesThe ninth edition is available for students and institutions to purchase in a variety of formats, and is supported by online resources. · The e-book offers a mobile experience and convenient access along with functionality tools, navigation features and links that offer extra learning support: www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/ebooks · The online resources include an online casebook with edited versions of leading cases and relevant legislation; a selection of mind maps to help with revision; bonus chapters on the history of the EU; and suggested tutorial outlines for lecturers.

In this two-volume work, Ian Loveland offers a detailed exploration and analysis of 2 Australian entrenchment cases which have long been a source of fascination and inspiration to lawyers. This first volume, focusing on the McCawley case, introduces non-Australian readers to the remarkably rich legal and political history of constitutional formation and development in New South Wales and Queensland in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It culminates with a deeply contextualised analysis of the emergence of the bizarre ‘Two Act entrenchment’ principle which emerged in Queensland’s constitutional law in 1908 and the subsequent and celebrated McCawley judgments of the Australian High Court and Privy Council. The judgments are placed in both their deep and immediate historical and political contexts; from the legal formation of New South Wales in the late 1700s, through the creation of New South Wales and Queensland as distinct colonies in the 1850s and the subsequent passage of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, on to the fiercely contested reformism espoused by Labour governments in Queensland in the early part of the twentieth century.

In this two-volume work, Ian Loveland offers a detailed exploration and analysis of 2 Australian entrenchment cases which have long been a source of fascination and inspiration to lawyers. This first volume, focusing on the McCawley case, introduces non-Australian readers to the remarkably rich legal and political history of constitutional formation and development in New South Wales and Queensland in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It culminates with a deeply contextualised analysis of the emergence of the bizarre ''Two Act entrenchment'' principle which emerged in Queensland''s constitutional law in 1908 and the subsequent and celebrated McCawley judgments of the Australian High Court and Privy Council. The judgments are placed in both their deep and immediate historical and political contexts; from the legal formation of New South Wales in the late 1700s, through the creation of New South Wales and Queensland as distinct colonies in the 1850s and the subsequent passage of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, on to the fiercely contested reformism espoused by Labour governments in Queensland in the early part of the twentieth century.

In this two-volume work, Ian Loveland offers a detailed exploration and analysis of 2 Australian entrenchment cases which have long been a source of fascination and inspiration to lawyers. This first volume, focusing on the McCawley case, introduces non-Australian readers to the remarkably rich legal and political history of constitutional formation and development in New South Wales and Queensland in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It culminates with a deeply contextualised analysis of the emergence of the bizarre ''Two Act entrenchment'' principle which emerged in Queensland''s constitutional law in 1908 and the subsequent and celebrated McCawley judgments of the Australian High Court and Privy Council. The judgments are placed in both their deep and immediate historical and political contexts; from the legal formation of New South Wales in the late 1700s, through the creation of New South Wales and Queensland as distinct colonies in the 1850s and the subsequent passage of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, on to the fiercely contested reformism espoused by Labour governments in Queensland in the early part of the twentieth century.

This book explores current human rights controversies arising in UK law, in the light of the way such matters have been dealt with in Canada.Canada’s Charter of Rights predates the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act by some 20 years, and in the 40 years of the Charter’s existence, Canada’s Supreme Court has produced an increasingly sophisticated body of public law jurisprudence. In its judgments, it has addressed broad questions of constitutional principle relating to such matters as the meaning of proportionality, the ‘horizontal’ impact of human rights norms, and the proper role of judicial ‘dereference’ to legislative decision-making. The court has also considered, more narrowly, specific issues of political controversy such as assisted dying, voting rights for prisoners, the wearing of religious symbols, parental control of their children’s upbringing, the law regulating libel actions brought by politicians, pornography and labour rights. All of these issues are discussed in the book.The contributions to this volume provide detailed analyses of such broad and narrow matters in a comparative perspective, and suggest that the United Kingdom’s public law jurisprudence and scholarship might benefit substantially from a closer engagement with their Canadian counterparts.

This book explores current human rights controversies arising in UK law, in the light of the way such matters have been dealt with in Canada.Canada''s Charter of Rights predates the United Kingdom''s Human Rights Act by some 20 years, and in the 40 years of the Charter''s existence, Canada''s Supreme Court has produced an increasingly sophisticated body of public law jurisprudence. In its judgments, it has addressed broad questions of constitutional principle relating to such matters as the meaning of proportionality, the ''horizontal'' impact of human rights norms, and the proper role of judicial ''dereference'' to legislative decision-making. The court has also considered, more narrowly, specific issues of political controversy such as assisted dying, voting rights for prisoners, the wearing of religious symbols, parental control of their children''s upbringing, the law regulating libel actions brought by politicians, pornography and labour rights. All of these issues are discussed in the book.The contributions to this volume provide detailed analyses of such broad and narrow matters in a comparative perspective, and suggest that the United Kingdom''s public law jurisprudence and scholarship might benefit substantially from a closer engagement with their Canadian counterparts.

This book explores current human rights controversies arising in UK law, in the light of the way such matters have been dealt with in Canada.Canada''s Charter of Rights predates the United Kingdom''s Human Rights Act by some 20 years, and in the 40 years of the Charter''s existence, Canada''s Supreme Court has produced an increasingly sophisticated body of public law jurisprudence. In its judgments, it has addressed broad questions of constitutional principle relating to such matters as the meaning of proportionality, the ''horizontal'' impact of human rights norms, and the proper role of judicial ''dereference'' to legislative decision-making. The court has also considered, more narrowly, specific issues of political controversy such as assisted dying, voting rights for prisoners, the wearing of religious symbols, parental control of their children''s upbringing, the law regulating libel actions brought by politicians, pornography and labour rights. All of these issues are discussed in the book.The contributions to this volume provide detailed analyses of such broad and narrow matters in a comparative perspective, and suggest that the United Kingdom''s public law jurisprudence and scholarship might benefit substantially from a closer engagement with their Canadian counterparts.

This book explores current human rights controversies arising in UK law, in the light of the way such matters have been dealt with in Canada.Canada’s Charter of Rights predates the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act by some 20 years, and in the 40 years of the Charter’s existence, Canada’s Supreme Court has produced an increasingly sophisticated body of public law jurisprudence. In its judgments, it has addressed broad questions of constitutional principle relating to such matters as the meaning of proportionality, the ‘horizontal’ impact of human rights norms, and the proper role of judicial ‘dereference’ to legislative decision-making. The court has also considered, more narrowly, specific issues of political controversy such as assisted dying, voting rights for prisoners, the wearing of religious symbols, parental control of their children’s upbringing, the law regulating libel actions brought by politicians, pornography and labour rights. All of these issues are discussed in the book.The contributions to this volume provide detailed analyses of such broad and narrow matters in a comparative perspective, and suggest that the United Kingdom’s public law jurisprudence and scholarship might benefit substantially from a closer engagement with their Canadian counterparts.

In this two-volume work, Ian Loveland offers a detailed exploration and analysis of 2 Australian entrenchment cases which have long been a source of fascination and inspiration to lawyers. This first volume, focusing on the McCawley case, introduces non-Australian readers to the remarkably rich legal and political history of constitutional formation and development in New South Wales and Queensland in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It culminates with a deeply contextualised analysis of the emergence of the bizarre ‘Two Act entrenchment’ principle which emerged in Queensland’s constitutional law in 1908 and the subsequent and celebrated McCawley judgments of the Australian High Court and Privy Council. The judgments are placed in both their deep and immediate historical and political contexts; from the legal formation of New South Wales in the late 1700s, through the creation of New South Wales and Queensland as distinct colonies in the 1850s and the subsequent passage of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, on to the fiercely contested reformism espoused by Labour governments in Queensland in the early part of the twentieth century.

In the second part of this two-volume study, Ian Loveland delves deeply into the immediate historical and political context of the Trethowan litigation which began in New South Wales in 1930 and reached the Privy Council two years later. The litigation centred on the efforts of a conservatively-inclined government to prevent a future Labour administration led by the then radical politician Jack Lang abolishing the upper house of the State’s legislature by entrenching the existence of the upper house through the legal device of requiring that its abolition be approved by a state-wide referendum. The book carefully examines the immediate political and legal routes of the entrenchment device fashioned by the State’s Premier Sir Thomas Bavin and his former law student, colleague and then Dean of the Sydney University law school Sir John Peden, and places the doctrinal arguments advanced in subsequent litigation in the State courts, before the High Court and finally in the Privy Council in the multiple contexts of the personal and policy based disputes which pervaded both the State and national political arenas. In its final chapter, the book draws on insights provided by the detailed study of McCawley (in volume one) and Trethowan to revisit and re-evaluate the respective positions adopted by William Wade and Ivor Jennings as to the capacity of the United Kingdom’s Parliament to introduce entrenching legislation which would be upheld by the courts.

In the second part of this two-volume study, Ian Loveland delves deeply into the immediate historical and political context of the Trethowan litigation which began in New South Wales in 1930 and reached the Privy Council two years later. The litigation centred on the efforts of a conservatively-inclined government to prevent a future Labour administration led by the then radical politician Jack Lang abolishing the upper house of the State''s legislature by entrenching the existence of the upper house through the legal device of requiring that its abolition be approved by a state-wide referendum. The book carefully examines the immediate political and legal routes of the entrenchment device fashioned by the State''s Premier Sir Thomas Bavin and his former law student, colleague and then Dean of the Sydney University law school Sir John Peden, and places the doctrinal arguments advanced in subsequent litigation in the State courts, before the High Court and finally in the Privy Council in the multiple contexts of the personal and policy based disputes which pervaded both the State and national political arenas. In its final chapter, the book draws on insights provided by the detailed study of McCawley (in volume one) and Trethowan to revisit and re-evaluate the respective positions adopted by William Wade and Ivor Jennings as to the capacity of the United Kingdom''s Parliament to introduce entrenching legislation which would be upheld by the courts.

In the second part of this two-volume study, Ian Loveland delves deeply into the immediate historical and political context of the Trethowan litigation which began in New South Wales in 1930 and reached the Privy Council two years later. The litigation centred on the efforts of a conservatively-inclined government to prevent a future Labour administration led by the then radical politician Jack Lang abolishing the upper house of the State''s legislature by entrenching the existence of the upper house through the legal device of requiring that its abolition be approved by a state-wide referendum. The book carefully examines the immediate political and legal routes of the entrenchment device fashioned by the State''s Premier Sir Thomas Bavin and his former law student, colleague and then Dean of the Sydney University law school Sir John Peden, and places the doctrinal arguments advanced in subsequent litigation in the State courts, before the High Court and finally in the Privy Council in the multiple contexts of the personal and policy based disputes which pervaded both the State and national political arenas. In its final chapter, the book draws on insights provided by the detailed study of McCawley (in volume one) and Trethowan to revisit and re-evaluate the respective positions adopted by William Wade and Ivor Jennings as to the capacity of the United Kingdom''s Parliament to introduce entrenching legislation which would be upheld by the courts.

In the second part of this two-volume study, Ian Loveland delves deeply into the immediate historical and political context of the Trethowan litigation which began in New South Wales in 1930 and reached the Privy Council two years later. The litigation centred on the efforts of a conservatively-inclined government to prevent a future Labour administration led by the then radical politician Jack Lang abolishing the upper house of the State’s legislature by entrenching the existence of the upper house through the legal device of requiring that its abolition be approved by a state-wide referendum. The book carefully examines the immediate political and legal routes of the entrenchment device fashioned by the State’s Premier Sir Thomas Bavin and his former law student, colleague and then Dean of the Sydney University law school Sir John Peden, and places the doctrinal arguments advanced in subsequent litigation in the State courts, before the High Court and finally in the Privy Council in the multiple contexts of the personal and policy based disputes which pervaded both the State and national political arenas. In its final chapter, the book draws on insights provided by the detailed study of McCawley (in volume one) and Trethowan to revisit and re-evaluate the respective positions adopted by William Wade and Ivor Jennings as to the capacity of the United Kingdom’s Parliament to introduce entrenching legislation which would be upheld by the courts.

The South African case of Harris v. (Donges) Minister of the Interior is one familiar to most students of British constitutional law. The case was triggered by the South African government's attempt in the 1950s to disenfranchise non-white voters on the Cape province. It is still referred to as the case which illustrates that as a matter of constitutional doctrine it is not possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to produce a statute which limits the powers of successive Parliaments. The purpose of this book is twofold. First of all it offers a rather fuller picture of the story lying behind the Harris litigation,and the process of British acquisition of and dis-engagement from the government of its 'white' colonies in southern Africa as well as the ensuing emergence and consolidation of apartheid as a system of political and social organisation. Secondly the book attempts to use the South African experience to address broader contemporary British concerns about the nature of our Constitution and the role of the courts and legislature in making the Constitution work.In pursuing this second aim, the author has sought to create a counterweight to the traditional marginalistion of constitutional law and theory within the British polity. The Harris saga conveys better than any episode of British political history the enormous significance of the choices a country makes (or fails to make) when it embarks upon the task of creating or revising its constitutional arrangements. This, then, is a searching re-examination of the fundamentals of constitution-making, written in the light of the British government's commitment to promoting wholesale constitutional reform.

The political libel is as old as politics itself. The politician,seeking redress in the courts for an allegedly libellous publication, uses the English law of libel to attempt to remove the stain from his character. Wielding the 'sword of truth' he does battle with the media, often with huge attendant publicity, and at great risk to his reputation should he fail in his quest. At the same time he stands to pocket a substantial sum in damages if he can show the libel to have been committed. In this, the first modern study of the phenomenon of political libels, the author delves behind the headlines and looks at the political and legal problems which surround this little understood but controversial area of English law. In this highly readable and engaging work the author surveys the ancient and modern history of the political libel laws, and argues that the English law of libel has in the main been too jealous of defending the reputations of politicians and insufficiently alert to the legitimate interest of the public.A strong case is made for reforming the law substantially, a case which rests both on the experience of other countries (notably the USA), and also on a re-examination of a handful of English cases dating from the mid-to-late nineteenth century whose significance has been downplayed by lawyers in subsequent years.

The political libel is as old as politics itself. The politician,seeking redress in the courts for an allegedly libellous publication, uses the English law of libel to attempt to remove the stain from his character. Wielding the ''sword of truth'' he does battle with the media, often with huge attendant publicity, and at great risk to his reputation should he fail in his quest. At the same time he stands to pocket a substantial sum in damages if he can show the libel to have been committed. In this, the first modern study of the phenomenon of political libels, the author delves behind the headlines and looks at the political and legal problems which surround this little understood but controversial area of English law. In this highly readable and engaging work the author surveys the ancient and modern history of the political libel laws, and argues that the English law of libel has in the main been too jealous of defending the reputations of politicians and insufficiently alert to the legitimate interest of the public. A strong case is made for reforming the law substantially, a case which rests both on the experience of other countries (notably the USA), and also on a re-examination of a handful of English cases dating from the mid-to-late nineteenth century whose significance has been downplayed by lawyers in subsequent years.

The South African case of Harris v. (Donges) Minister of the Interior is one familiar to most students of British constitutional law. The case was triggered by the South African government''s attempt in the 1950s to disenfranchise non-white voters on the Cape province. It is still referred to as the case which illustrates that as a matter of constitutional doctrine it is not possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to produce a statute which limits the powers of successive Parliaments.The purpose of this book is twofold. First of all it offers a rather fuller picture of the story lying behind the Harris litigation,and the process of British acquisition of and dis-engagement from the government of its ''white'' colonies in southern Africa as well as the ensuing emergence and consolidation of apartheid as a system of political and social organisation. Secondly the book attempts to use the South African experience to address broader contemporary British concerns about the nature of our Constitution and the role of the courts and legislature in making the Constitution work. In pursuing this second aim, the author has sought to create a counterweight to the traditional marginalistion of constitutional law and theory within the British polity. The Harris saga conveys better than any episode of British political history the enormous significance of the choices a country makes (or fails to make) when it embarks upon the task of creating or revising its constitutional arrangements. This, then, is a searching re-examination of the fundamentals of constitution-making, written in the light of the British government''s commitment to promoting wholesale constitutional reform.

These studies by a group of eminent academics and judges compare the different approaches of the British, European and American courts to the questions of free speech, which lie at the heart of much debate in constitutional law. The authors of these studies adopt opposing views, some favouring the pursuit of a US-inspired approach to protecting free speech, in the belief that the political culture of British society would be enhanced if our courts were to fashion our common law in accordance with many First Amendment principles. Others, more sceptically, reject this embrace of US legal culture, offering distinctly "Ameri-sceptic" views and arguing for a solution based on common law principles and on the jurisprudence of the European courts.