Legal Principles Governing Fetal Surgery in the United Kingdom, European Union and the United States
1a) Section 3 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) upholds the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. This section gives wide discretion to the courts to implement the provisions of the HRA and give a wide scope to the statutory language .The statutory language of the legislation shall be read in such a way so to be compliant with the principles of the ECHR. The Convention rights uphold the basic tenets of human rights and therefore the subordinate and primary legislations must comply with those rights. Section 3 of the HRA shall not invalidate the enforcement of any incompatible legislation. Section 4 of the HRA says that whenever a statute is not complying with the provisions of the European Commission of Human Rights, the Court has the power to declare that provision incompatible . The Parliament cannot be coerced to change the laws because there might be reasonable reasons for putting limitations on the rights, the Parliament shall always exercised its authority to correct the concerned laws .The Courts have the power to check if the legislations are compatible with the Convention rights. In cases when the provisions are not complying with the convention rights, the Courts have the right to declare the laws incompatible. The Courts which have the power are Supreme Court, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Court Martial Appeal Court.
1b) The principle of direct effect says that a person can enforce their rights and obligations in the national courts. This gives the individuals a power to bring an action in the United Kingdom Court against them basing the allegation on the principles of EU Law .A person can file a suit on the basis of UK law rather than national law. The reason behind this is that it sometimes happens that a person is denied rights that he is entitled to and the UK law is in breach of TFEU regulations. The UK Government might have lagged behind in implementing an EU doctrine or could have taken some time or worse case, could have erred in their decision making. In such cases a person can rely on the EU laws instead of national laws and by doing that the person will have a better chance of getting remedy. The remedy will be granted in light of the intention that the EU intended to apply in UK. Applying the direct effect principle has a limitation on individual who are dealing with private bodies. This is unfair to private sector employees.
Dilemmas of Regional Integration in the European Union
2.a) Issue: 1. whether Sophia is responsible for food poisoning of the customer at Happy Piggy and whether Sophia is liable to pay compensation?
2.Has Sophia committed theft?
Rule: The law of theft according to Theft Act 1969 shall apply wherein it is defined that a person shall be guilt of theft if he dishonestly or with an intention to misappropriate the property belonging to another person takes it from his possession and deprives him of the property.
Application: In this case, Sophia did not have an intention to deprive hence she is not liable for theft.
Sophia has not followed proper hygiene and safety guidelines and the customer has suffered food poisoning. Sophia should have taken enough precaution to maintain a safe and hygienic restaurant.
Conclusion: Sophia has not committed theft and the onus is Sophia to prove that she is not responsible for the customer’s health.
2b) Claims for less than £25,000 can be initiated in the county court. First appeals are heard by the next judge who shall be in the order of hierarchy. County courts can hear matters related to civil matters and they do not have jurisdiction over criminal matters. They do not hear criminal proceedings. County Courts deal with tort cases-where the claimant can prove negligence or bring cases against the defendant claiming that he has breached his duty of care. In hierarchy, the country courts and magistrate courts are at the bottom and the Supreme Court is at the apex. The courts of ‘first instance’ are the first courts to hear the criminal and civil cases and include magistrates’ courts, county courts, the Crown Court and the High Court. The courts of first instance are for fact finding and they check the facts and apply relevant laws to those facts. In minor cases, if the parties are not happy with the decision of the lower court, they prefer an appeal to the higher court. Appeals preferred from lower courts are heard in higher courts. The Court of Appeal checks if the lower court had applied the legal principle correctly and whether there needs to be corrections to the decision taken by the lower court. Civil cases arise out of disputes between two parties which can be resolved with the help of the civil courts. The difference between civil and criminal court is that civil cases are between two parties and the nature of wrong is civil. In civil cases damages are fixed by the court which needs to be paid by the wrongdoer as compensation.In criminal cases, punitive actions are taken against the wrongdoer and criminal cases are filed by the state because a wrong is committed against the state. In the present case, it is a civil wrong because the customer had incurred personal loss and there is no proof that the wrong was committed by Sophia. In the case of the food poisoning, the onus of proof lies on the person claiming that a wrong has been committed. There is no proof that the food poisoning happened due to the unhygienic food and therefore the customer has to establish that he became ill after consumption of the food from Sophia’s restaurant. Again, in case of proving theft, the onus of proof lies on Sophia to prove that she had no intention to steal and therefore has not committed any theft. In civil cases, damages are warded as compensation and therefore, if it is proved that the customer fell ill because of Sophia’s shortcoming to maintain a healthy and hygienic environment, Sophia will have to pay damages for not abiding by guidelines. If the court order goes against a party, he shall have the right to prefer an appeal against the order. The accusation of theft was of a wine bottle worth £45 and according to the hierarchy of courts claims for less than £25,000 must be started in the county court. Hence, in this case the County Court shall have the jurisdiction. Therefore the matter of compensation shall be a matter of civil wrong which will be resolved by a court having civil jurisdiction and a decision will be passed after the customer can prove that the food poisoning happened after consuming food from Sophia’s restaurant. Sophia in her defence has to prove that the condition of the restaurant was not a factor in the food poisoning of the consumer.
3a) The three steps taken to prepare the plan was find the issue in question, apply the relevant provisions of law that are applicable to the facts and understand the liability of Sophia in relation to the applied rules. The rules applied to the facts are derived from legislature and the orders of the Court are founded on principles of equity and good faith. The Courts have the power to adjudicate on civil disputes.
3b) The problem encountered was in fixing the liability and drawing a parallel between the action and the liability. In cases of personal damage, finding the intention of the party is subject to interpretation and analysing the intention of Sophia in the present case was a difficulty. Another problem encountered was in understanding the jurisdiction of court and scrutinizing in what cases appeal can be preferred.
Bibliography
Cao, K.X., Booth, A., Ourselin, S., David, A.L. and Ashcroft, R., 2018. The Legal Frameworks that Govern Fetal Surgery in the United Kingdom, European Union and the United States. Prenatal diagnosis.
Caporaso, J.A., 2018. The european union: dilemmas of regional integration. Routledge.
Dvo?ák, B., 2018. On the Review Appeal in Civil Matters. Pravnik, 157(4).
Elliott, M., 2018. THE RULE OF LAW AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE: SOME HOME TRUTHS. The Cambridge Law Journal, 77(1), pp.5-8.
Macaulay, S., 2018. Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. In The Law and Society Canon (pp. 155-167). Routledge.
McEldowney, J., 2018. 13 The UK Supreme Court and Parliament. New Challenges to Constitutional Adjudication in Europe: A Comparative Perspective, p.31.
Murkens, J.E.K., 2018. Democracy as the legitimating condition in the UK constitution. Legal Studies, 38(1), pp.42-58.
Paris, D., 2018. Constitutional courts as European Union courts: the current and potential use of EU law as a yardstick for constitutional review. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, p.1023263X17747232.
Schutze, R., 2018. Oxford Principles of European Union Law: Volume 1: the European Union Legal Order (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Titi, C., 2018. Procedural Multilateralism and Multilateral Investment Court: Discussion in Light of Increased. Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State: Transatlantic Relations: Data, Privacy and Trade Law, 10, p.149.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
