- Published on
Legal Terms -Constitutional Treaty of the European Union
A convention was formed to produce a streamlined single document that would serve as a "constitution for the EU" after the *Treaty of Nice was signed in 2001. Member states approved the Constitutional Treaty in October 2004; it was scheduled to go into effect in 2006. The treaty curtailed national veto power and established an EU president and foreign minister. However, it was not adopted and did not become law after unfavorable referendums in the Netherlands and France in 2005. The 2009 ratification of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty bears many similarities to the 2009 Constitutional Treaty.
A convention was formed to produce a streamlined single document that would serve as a "constitution for the EU" after the *Treaty of Nice was signed in 2001. Member states approved the Constitutional Treaty in October 2004; it was scheduled to go into effect in 2006. The treaty curtailed national veto power and established an EU president and foreign minister. However, it was not adopted and did not become law after unfavorable referendums in the Netherlands and France in 2005. The 2009 ratification of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty bears many similarities to the 2009 Constitutional Treaty.
- Published on
Legal Terms -constructive total loss
a partial loss of a ship or cargo that is handled as a *actual total loss for the purposes of a maritime insurance policy. This could happen if a real total loss seems certain (as when perishable cargo gets stuck forever) or if it can only be avoided by paying more than the ship or cargo are worth. Salvage operations costs are a crucial aspect to consider when evaluating the cost of repairs for this purpose, but general average payments by other insurers are not taken into account. A notification of *abandonment of the ship or cargo must be served to the underwriters by the insured. This is irreversible once approved by the underwriters and needs to be fulfilled unconditionally and within a reasonable amount of time after he learns of the loss. In exchange for all of his rights to the ship or cargo, the underwriters agree to indemnify him for a complete loss.
a partial loss of a ship or cargo that is handled as a *actual total loss for the purposes of a maritime insurance policy. This could happen if a real total loss seems certain (as when perishable cargo gets stuck forever) or if it can only be avoided by paying more than the ship or cargo are worth. Salvage operations costs are a crucial aspect to consider when evaluating the cost of repairs for this purpose, but general average payments by other insurers are not taken into account. A notification of *abandonment of the ship or cargo must be served to the underwriters by the insured. This is irreversible once approved by the underwriters and needs to be fulfilled unconditionally and within a reasonable amount of time after he learns of the loss. In exchange for all of his rights to the ship or cargo, the underwriters agree to indemnify him for a complete loss.
- Published on
Legal Terms - constructive trust
a trust created by the legal system. Section 53(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 exempts it from the writing formalities, as it is a type of implied trust. Although constructive trust can take many different forms, it can be divided into two main categories: remedial constructive trust and institutional constructive trust. The only people recognized by English law fall under the former group. When specific unethical events take place (usually as a result of the purported trustee's actions), such as when a fiduciary makes an illicit profit, when an outsider meddles in a trust, or when a vendor-purchaser transaction fails, an institutional constructive trust is automatically created. The trust is made clear by the court's later declaration regarding the beneficial entitlement to property; however, the trust and its proprietary consequences are said to be recognized without judicial discretion, and they become effective at the time of the conduct giving rise to the trust. A *common aim constructive trust can develop in a family context. A remedial constructive trust, on the other hand, is a court tool that is commonly used in Canada and Australia. The judge may impose it as a remedy, and it typically only becomes effective at the time of the judicial pronouncement. Remedial constructive trusts are frequently used to undo the defendant's unjust enrichment, putting *restitution into force in those jurisdictions that recognize them. Frequently, the effect on third-party creditors serves as the primary differentiation between the two types of trusts. Senior judges have supported the adoption of the restorative constructive trust (Thorner v. Major [2009] UKHL 18 per Lord Scott), even if English law has not been ready to accept it (Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 (HL)).
a trust created by the legal system. Section 53(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925 exempts it from the writing formalities, as it is a type of implied trust. Although constructive trust can take many different forms, it can be divided into two main categories: remedial constructive trust and institutional constructive trust. The only people recognized by English law fall under the former group. When specific unethical events take place (usually as a result of the purported trustee's actions), such as when a fiduciary makes an illicit profit, when an outsider meddles in a trust, or when a vendor-purchaser transaction fails, an institutional constructive trust is automatically created. The trust is made clear by the court's later declaration regarding the beneficial entitlement to property; however, the trust and its proprietary consequences are said to be recognized without judicial discretion, and they become effective at the time of the conduct giving rise to the trust. A *common aim constructive trust can develop in a family context. A remedial constructive trust, on the other hand, is a court tool that is commonly used in Canada and Australia. The judge may impose it as a remedy, and it typically only becomes effective at the time of the judicial pronouncement. Remedial constructive trusts are frequently used to undo the defendant's unjust enrichment, putting *restitution into force in those jurisdictions that recognize them. Frequently, the effect on third-party creditors serves as the primary differentiation between the two types of trusts. Senior judges have supported the adoption of the restorative constructive trust (Thorner v. Major [2009] UKHL 18 per Lord Scott), even if English law has not been ready to accept it (Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 (HL)).
- Published on
Legal Terms – Consul
n. A *diplomatic agent appointed by a sovereign state to live in a foreign city, represent the sending state's interests in trade and politics, and offer assistance in any way related to business dealings between the two nations.
n. A *diplomatic agent appointed by a sovereign state to live in a foreign city, represent the sending state's interests in trade and politics, and offer assistance in any way related to business dealings between the two nations.
- Published on
41)
Legal Terms - constructive trustee
a person who, via constructive trust, is the rightful owner of property. It is a trusteeship that is placed upon him because of his behavior, and he is not always subject to the same obligations and liabilities as the trustee of a *express trust. The constructive trustee might not be aware that he is holding the property in trust for someone else until the court determines that a constructive trust has been established. Long after the events or behavior giving birth to the obligation of trust occurred, a court order or declaration frequently establishes a person's status as a constructive trustee. A constructive trust established by an organization holds proprietary (or personal)
Repercussions begin to arise as soon as the behavior or situation that gave rise to the trusteeship occurs. Although the degree of his accountability may differ case-by-case based on the specifics of the property in question, the trustee will have an obligation to the trust.
The courts have frequently used the metaphor "liability to account as a constructive trustee" to describe the personal liability that results from the duty to *account when it is imposed upon a fiduciary for receiving an unauthorized profit, or upon a stranger for dishonest assistance or for receiving property in *breach of trust. This is frequently the result of the trustee never owning the contested property or ceasing to do so, and any fallout from the trust's funding providing a personal remedy against the trustee. It has been said that this phrase is confusing (Paragon Finance v. D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400 (CA)).
Legal Terms - constructive trustee
a person who, via constructive trust, is the rightful owner of property. It is a trusteeship that is placed upon him because of his behavior, and he is not always subject to the same obligations and liabilities as the trustee of a *express trust. The constructive trustee might not be aware that he is holding the property in trust for someone else until the court determines that a constructive trust has been established. Long after the events or behavior giving birth to the obligation of trust occurred, a court order or declaration frequently establishes a person's status as a constructive trustee. A constructive trust established by an organization holds proprietary (or personal)
Repercussions begin to arise as soon as the behavior or situation that gave rise to the trusteeship occurs. Although the degree of his accountability may differ case-by-case based on the specifics of the property in question, the trustee will have an obligation to the trust.
The courts have frequently used the metaphor "liability to account as a constructive trustee" to describe the personal liability that results from the duty to *account when it is imposed upon a fiduciary for receiving an unauthorized profit, or upon a stranger for dishonest assistance or for receiving property in *breach of trust. This is frequently the result of the trustee never owning the contested property or ceasing to do so, and any fallout from the trust's funding providing a personal remedy against the trustee. It has been said that this phrase is confusing (Paragon Finance v. D B Thakerar & Co [1999] 1 All ER 400 (CA)).
- Published on
Land Law – Passing the Burden of Covenants in Equity between successors in title
Equity alone allows the imposition of restrictive covenants. You can therefore be certain that the question is false if it discusses the obligation of a positive covenant being passed in equity. As we shall discuss later in this chapter, the only advantage that can transfer in equity is the benefit of a restrictive covenant.
For the burden of a restrictive covenant to "run with the land," or transfer to a successor in title, four requirements must be met. These are:
-Negative, or restrictive, covenants are required.
-At the date of the covenant, the covenantee retained land which was benefited by the covenant.
-The land must be "touched and concerned" by the covenant.
-The burden of the covenant must be intended to run with the land.
Case example
Maria purchased a plot of open land from Jonathan in the middle of a crowded city. The conveyance for the sale specified that the open space had to be kept "uncovered with any buildings in neat ornamental order" in order to protect the site for recreational uses. Later, Maria sold to Michael the land. Michael knows about the covenant when he bought the property, but he refuses to acknowledge it and moves forward with plans to develop. After that, Jonathan files a lawsuit against Michael in an effort to stop the planned violation.
Is it possible for Jonathan to request an injunction based on the argument that Michael, Maria’s successor in title, was required to abide by the restrictive covenant?
The details of Tulk v. Moxhay [1848] are as follows. Michael was found to be in equity bound by the restricted covenant by the court. This was justified by the fact that Michael, as the land's heir in title, had been informed of the covenant's existence and that it was meant to run alongside the land. As a result, Michael was prohibited from building on the property under the equitable restrictive covenant. The four requirements that need to be fulfilled in order for the burden of an equitable restrictive covenant to transfer to a successor in title were also established by this case and are listed above.
We will now examine those conditions in the following manner:
The covenant ought to be of a negative kind.
Negative covenants, as we already know, prohibit a party from using the land for certain purposes. Positive covenants will not transfer in equity.
The land that benefited from the covenant was retained by the covenantee as of the covenant's date.
A person will not be able to enforce the covenants in equity if they own a sizable tract of land but sell it all off and leave no land left that benefits from them.
Case example
The Local Authority granted Mr. Allen a large parcel of land in exchange for a pledge not to build on a smaller portion of the property. After that, Mr. Allen sold the land to his wife, who started building on the whole area, even the tiny portion that was subject to the covenant. Is Mrs. Allen subject to the Local Authority's enforcement of the restrictive covenant?
The facts of London CC v. Allen [1914] are as follows. Due to their lack of ownership of land that benefited from the covenant at the time it was given, the Council was unable to enforce it. This might have contributed to the creation of construction schemes.
The land must be "touched and concerned" by the covenant.
If a covenant is not personal in character and it relates to how the property is used or valued, it will "touch and concern" the land. For example, if the area benefiting from a restriction covenant was 100 miles away from the burdened land, then the covenant would be of no service if it stated that noise levels were to be kept to a minimum between 11 pm and 6 am. The noise would never be heard by anyone on the benefitting land.
The covenant's obligation must be meant to run alongside the covenantee's land.
Equity alone allows the imposition of restrictive covenants. You can therefore be certain that the question is false if it discusses the obligation of a positive covenant being passed in equity. As we shall discuss later in this chapter, the only advantage that can transfer in equity is the benefit of a restrictive covenant.
For the burden of a restrictive covenant to "run with the land," or transfer to a successor in title, four requirements must be met. These are:
-Negative, or restrictive, covenants are required.
-At the date of the covenant, the covenantee retained land which was benefited by the covenant.
-The land must be "touched and concerned" by the covenant.
-The burden of the covenant must be intended to run with the land.
Case example
Maria purchased a plot of open land from Jonathan in the middle of a crowded city. The conveyance for the sale specified that the open space had to be kept "uncovered with any buildings in neat ornamental order" in order to protect the site for recreational uses. Later, Maria sold to Michael the land. Michael knows about the covenant when he bought the property, but he refuses to acknowledge it and moves forward with plans to develop. After that, Jonathan files a lawsuit against Michael in an effort to stop the planned violation.
Is it possible for Jonathan to request an injunction based on the argument that Michael, Maria’s successor in title, was required to abide by the restrictive covenant?
The details of Tulk v. Moxhay [1848] are as follows. Michael was found to be in equity bound by the restricted covenant by the court. This was justified by the fact that Michael, as the land's heir in title, had been informed of the covenant's existence and that it was meant to run alongside the land. As a result, Michael was prohibited from building on the property under the equitable restrictive covenant. The four requirements that need to be fulfilled in order for the burden of an equitable restrictive covenant to transfer to a successor in title were also established by this case and are listed above.
We will now examine those conditions in the following manner:
The covenant ought to be of a negative kind.
Negative covenants, as we already know, prohibit a party from using the land for certain purposes. Positive covenants will not transfer in equity.
The land that benefited from the covenant was retained by the covenantee as of the covenant's date.
A person will not be able to enforce the covenants in equity if they own a sizable tract of land but sell it all off and leave no land left that benefits from them.
Case example
The Local Authority granted Mr. Allen a large parcel of land in exchange for a pledge not to build on a smaller portion of the property. After that, Mr. Allen sold the land to his wife, who started building on the whole area, even the tiny portion that was subject to the covenant. Is Mrs. Allen subject to the Local Authority's enforcement of the restrictive covenant?
The facts of London CC v. Allen [1914] are as follows. Due to their lack of ownership of land that benefited from the covenant at the time it was given, the Council was unable to enforce it. This might have contributed to the creation of construction schemes.
The land must be "touched and concerned" by the covenant.
If a covenant is not personal in character and it relates to how the property is used or valued, it will "touch and concern" the land. For example, if the area benefiting from a restriction covenant was 100 miles away from the burdened land, then the covenant would be of no service if it stated that noise levels were to be kept to a minimum between 11 pm and 6 am. The noise would never be heard by anyone on the benefitting land.
The covenant's obligation must be meant to run alongside the covenantee's land.
- Published on
Land Law – Passing the Benefits of Covenants in Equity between Successors in Title
Just a brief reminder that the benefit of the covenant must also be demonstrated to pass in equity in order for the burden of the covenant to pass in equity. Both positive and restrictive covenants may transfer in equity, but there are a few requirements that must be fulfilled:
The benefit of the covenant was meant to flow with the land, therefore it must "touch and concern" the land, and the person who succeeds to the original covenantee must have a legal or equitable estate therein. Three more categories can be created out of this:
- by annexation by statute, stated, or inferred under section 78 LPA 1925 By way of explicit or implicit assignment, the disputed land is included in a "building scheme."
After discussing the first two requirements earlier in the chapter, we will now talk about how the covenant's benefit can run alongside the land.
In express, implicit, or annexation under s. 78 LPA 1925
This was covered in full in the section on "passing of the benefit of covenants in law," but the following is a quick summary of those general guidelines:
by express annexation
When the deed specifically states that the covenant will benefit a certain plot of land and that it is meant to pass to subsequent landowners, using some sort of annexation language. Under these conditions, the benefit of the covenant will automatically transfer to subsequent owners of the land.
by implied annexation
If the case's circumstances demonstrate that the land being benefited by the covenant is sufficiently identifiable, the court could be willing to infer that the benefit will transfer to successors in title. However, because express annexation and the statutory provisions of s. 78 LPA 25 are both available, both are employed relatively infrequently.
Statutory Annexation pursuant to LPA 1925 Section 78
This is the annexation strategy that is most likely to be used in a problem.
query. It implies that all covenants that are held to affect or touch the land will be automatically annexed to that land, and the benefit of those covenants will automatically transfer to the land's successors in title in equity. This has helped to address the express and implicit annexation difficulties in some way.
Assignment, explicit or implicit
The transfer of land occurs through an assignment, and it's critical to understand the distinctions between annexation and assignment.
Important word: assignment
The transfer of land occurs during assignment, which may occur years after annexation. If a chain of indemnity is broken—that is, if it is not assigned in the deed to a successor in title—the covenant's benefit may be forfeited.
The advantage of that covenant is transferred to a specific individual through this kind of assignment. With this manner of transmission, the benefit will only pass along with the land provided that the next deeds contain terms of assignment.
Revision advice
Since the passage of Section 78 LPA 1925, implied assignment may be considered as having little value, yet clear assignment is still crucial when it comes to covenants.
Three main criteria are outlined for the assignment:
The covenant must be able to benefit the land.
The land must be able to be identified.
The covenant assignment needs to happen concurrently with the ownership transfer.
Case example
Dona owns a large plot of land and builds a house known as ‘The Poppy’. She gives Nicki a piece of land, but the deed has a restriction on using the land for commercial purposes. Since the deed specifies that the benefit of this covenant would not pass without specific assignment, the covenant is not annexed to the land. Dona subsequently transfers the benefit of the covenant to Harry through the sale of "The Poppy," which is recorded in the deed. Harvey may enforce the covenant if Nicki later begins to operate any kind of business on her property.
Later on, Harry gives Lemar "The Poppy," but he neglects to assign the deed's benefit of the covenant. Is Lemar able to hold Nicki accountable for any breaches of this covenant?
No, even though the land is capable of benefiting from the covenant and can be identified, in this case the "chain of assignment"—also referred to as the "chain of indemnity"—has been broken, making it impossible for Lemar to enforce the covenant. Moreover, Harvey cannot make this right later on because he is no longer the owner and cannot assign the benefit. Since the deed makes it very plain that the covenant would not pass without express assignment—which would be against the intention of Section 78—and since it does not supersede that written condition, S. 78 will not apply to save this covenant.
The disputed land is a component of a "building scheme."
This has to do with a specific parcel of land that is later divided up and sold to several buyers. These are frequently connected to newly constructed housing estates, when a large number of homes are constructed, sold, and then moved into by other homeowners, depriving the original owner, known as the covenantee, of any land.
Since the builder no longer owns any land, the enforcement of the covenants discussed in this chapter may not be applicable. As a result, the homeowners would have no means of taking advantage of or upholding these covenants. The concept of a construction scheme is that each home on the housing estate continues to benefit from the covenants, which are enforceable amongst the current homeowners.
To determine whether a building scheme exists, there are two primary requirements that must be met: proof of a shared intention among all buyers that the land will be sold in plots, and a clear intention that each buyer of a specific plot will be bound by those reciprocal and mutual covenants.
Case Example
Ali owned a large plot of land known as the Seaham View Estate. He died and the estate was sold off in plots. There were nine transfers in total, the first four were administered by Ali’s daughter and the other five by his brother. They had identical restrictive covenants within them detailing what could be built upon these plots of land. One of the purchasers planned to build on the plot in a way that would have been inconsistent with the terms of this covenant. Could this purchaser claim that they were not bound by the covenants and no building scheme was established as there was no common vendor in line with the authority at the time?
This is based on the facts of Re Dolphin’s Conveyance (1970) in
which the High Court held that a building scheme had been established despite there being no common vendor. Considering all the other circumstances of the case there was a very clear intention that the covenants were to be enforceable by each owner against all other owners. The covenants were clearly for the mutual benefit of every homeowner on the estate
Just a brief reminder that the benefit of the covenant must also be demonstrated to pass in equity in order for the burden of the covenant to pass in equity. Both positive and restrictive covenants may transfer in equity, but there are a few requirements that must be fulfilled:
The benefit of the covenant was meant to flow with the land, therefore it must "touch and concern" the land, and the person who succeeds to the original covenantee must have a legal or equitable estate therein. Three more categories can be created out of this:
- by annexation by statute, stated, or inferred under section 78 LPA 1925 By way of explicit or implicit assignment, the disputed land is included in a "building scheme."
After discussing the first two requirements earlier in the chapter, we will now talk about how the covenant's benefit can run alongside the land.
In express, implicit, or annexation under s. 78 LPA 1925
This was covered in full in the section on "passing of the benefit of covenants in law," but the following is a quick summary of those general guidelines:
by express annexation
When the deed specifically states that the covenant will benefit a certain plot of land and that it is meant to pass to subsequent landowners, using some sort of annexation language. Under these conditions, the benefit of the covenant will automatically transfer to subsequent owners of the land.
by implied annexation
If the case's circumstances demonstrate that the land being benefited by the covenant is sufficiently identifiable, the court could be willing to infer that the benefit will transfer to successors in title. However, because express annexation and the statutory provisions of s. 78 LPA 25 are both available, both are employed relatively infrequently.
Statutory Annexation pursuant to LPA 1925 Section 78
This is the annexation strategy that is most likely to be used in a problem.
query. It implies that all covenants that are held to affect or touch the land will be automatically annexed to that land, and the benefit of those covenants will automatically transfer to the land's successors in title in equity. This has helped to address the express and implicit annexation difficulties in some way.
Assignment, explicit or implicit
The transfer of land occurs through an assignment, and it's critical to understand the distinctions between annexation and assignment.
Important word: assignment
The transfer of land occurs during assignment, which may occur years after annexation. If a chain of indemnity is broken—that is, if it is not assigned in the deed to a successor in title—the covenant's benefit may be forfeited.
The advantage of that covenant is transferred to a specific individual through this kind of assignment. With this manner of transmission, the benefit will only pass along with the land provided that the next deeds contain terms of assignment.
Revision advice
Since the passage of Section 78 LPA 1925, implied assignment may be considered as having little value, yet clear assignment is still crucial when it comes to covenants.
Three main criteria are outlined for the assignment:
The covenant must be able to benefit the land.
The land must be able to be identified.
The covenant assignment needs to happen concurrently with the ownership transfer.
Case example
Dona owns a large plot of land and builds a house known as ‘The Poppy’. She gives Nicki a piece of land, but the deed has a restriction on using the land for commercial purposes. Since the deed specifies that the benefit of this covenant would not pass without specific assignment, the covenant is not annexed to the land. Dona subsequently transfers the benefit of the covenant to Harry through the sale of "The Poppy," which is recorded in the deed. Harvey may enforce the covenant if Nicki later begins to operate any kind of business on her property.
Later on, Harry gives Lemar "The Poppy," but he neglects to assign the deed's benefit of the covenant. Is Lemar able to hold Nicki accountable for any breaches of this covenant?
No, even though the land is capable of benefiting from the covenant and can be identified, in this case the "chain of assignment"—also referred to as the "chain of indemnity"—has been broken, making it impossible for Lemar to enforce the covenant. Moreover, Harvey cannot make this right later on because he is no longer the owner and cannot assign the benefit. Since the deed makes it very plain that the covenant would not pass without express assignment—which would be against the intention of Section 78—and since it does not supersede that written condition, S. 78 will not apply to save this covenant.
The disputed land is a component of a "building scheme."
This has to do with a specific parcel of land that is later divided up and sold to several buyers. These are frequently connected to newly constructed housing estates, when a large number of homes are constructed, sold, and then moved into by other homeowners, depriving the original owner, known as the covenantee, of any land.
Since the builder no longer owns any land, the enforcement of the covenants discussed in this chapter may not be applicable. As a result, the homeowners would have no means of taking advantage of or upholding these covenants. The concept of a construction scheme is that each home on the housing estate continues to benefit from the covenants, which are enforceable amongst the current homeowners.
To determine whether a building scheme exists, there are two primary requirements that must be met: proof of a shared intention among all buyers that the land will be sold in plots, and a clear intention that each buyer of a specific plot will be bound by those reciprocal and mutual covenants.
Case Example
Ali owned a large plot of land known as the Seaham View Estate. He died and the estate was sold off in plots. There were nine transfers in total, the first four were administered by Ali’s daughter and the other five by his brother. They had identical restrictive covenants within them detailing what could be built upon these plots of land. One of the purchasers planned to build on the plot in a way that would have been inconsistent with the terms of this covenant. Could this purchaser claim that they were not bound by the covenants and no building scheme was established as there was no common vendor in line with the authority at the time?
This is based on the facts of Re Dolphin’s Conveyance (1970) in
which the High Court held that a building scheme had been established despite there being no common vendor. Considering all the other circumstances of the case there was a very clear intention that the covenants were to be enforceable by each owner against all other owners. The covenants were clearly for the mutual benefit of every homeowner on the estate
- Published on
Legal Terms - Consolidated Fund
the government's central bank account with the Bank of England, which it uses to collect taxes and pay for expenses. Consolidated Fund Acts approve the majority of its payments each year, although others (such judge salaries) are statutory charges that are made to it permanently.
the government's central bank account with the Bank of England, which it uses to collect taxes and pay for expenses. Consolidated Fund Acts approve the majority of its payments each year, although others (such judge salaries) are statutory charges that are made to it permanently.
- Published on
Legal Terms – conference
n. 1. A gathering of members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords called to try to come to an agreement when one House rejects changes made by the other to one of its bills. 2. A conference to talk about a case they are working on involving attorneys, solicitors, and clients. Typically, conferences are held in the attorney's office. A consultation is called when a QC is the barrister in question.
n. 1. A gathering of members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords called to try to come to an agreement when one House rejects changes made by the other to one of its bills. 2. A conference to talk about a case they are working on involving attorneys, solicitors, and clients. Typically, conferences are held in the attorney's office. A consultation is called when a QC is the barrister in question.
- Published on
Legal Terms – Confession
An admission of guilt, either fully or partially, made by the accused. Section 82 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) defines a confession as any statement, whether verbal or nonverbal, made to a person in authority that is totally or partially unfavorable to the person making it. Confessions were acceptable under common law if they were given willingly, meaning they weren't gained by coercion or
an offer made by someone in a position of authority (like a police officer). They are now subject to section 76 of PACE, which mandates that the prosecution, if asked to do so, establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was not gained by coercion of the witness or as a result of anything that would have made it unlikely that the witness would provide an accurate account of the events. Section 78 of PACE may also declare a confession inadmissible if the court determines, after considering all relevant circumstances, including the circumstances surrounding the evidence's acquisition, that admitting the evidence would materially impair the fairness of the proceedings and that the court should not admit it (for instance, in cases where a suspect has been unjustly refused access to legal counsel).
An admission of guilt, either fully or partially, made by the accused. Section 82 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) defines a confession as any statement, whether verbal or nonverbal, made to a person in authority that is totally or partially unfavorable to the person making it. Confessions were acceptable under common law if they were given willingly, meaning they weren't gained by coercion or
an offer made by someone in a position of authority (like a police officer). They are now subject to section 76 of PACE, which mandates that the prosecution, if asked to do so, establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was not gained by coercion of the witness or as a result of anything that would have made it unlikely that the witness would provide an accurate account of the events. Section 78 of PACE may also declare a confession inadmissible if the court determines, after considering all relevant circumstances, including the circumstances surrounding the evidence's acquisition, that admitting the evidence would materially impair the fairness of the proceedings and that the court should not admit it (for instance, in cases where a suspect has been unjustly refused access to legal counsel).
