Laura Hoyano's career in academia and at the Canadian and English Bars focuses on the intersections between areas of law commonly regarded as disconnected: Child Abuse and Criminal, Tort, Human Rights, Family and Evidence Law (taking a comparative approach); Evidence Law and Human Rights; Medical Law & Ethics, Tort Law and Human Rights; and Criminal, Tort and Contract Law (deception and misrepresentation).2008 her book with Caroline Keenan, Child Abuse Law and Policy across Boundaries (OUP 2007), examining how allegations of child abuse are litigated in criminal, family, tort, and human rights law, and the rules of evidence, across 76 jurisdictions, was awarded the first Inner Temple Book Prize for outstanding contribution to legal scholarship and public policy, a competition open to all legal publications in English in the world in the previous four years. The OUP published an updated paperback edition in 2010, and a further complete edition, single-authored by Laura, will be published by the OUP in 2017. See further below under Research Interests and Publiations.
.Laura graduated from the University of Alberta in Canada with two degrees in medieval history before being converted to law, receiving a JD (Gold Medallist) from the University of Alberta. She was called to the Alberta Bar in 1983 after clerking at the Alberta Court of Appeal, and practised commercial, insurance, public inquiries and catastrophic personal injury law for 10 years, interrupted by a sabbatical year in 1990-91 to read for the B.C.L. (First Class) at Balliol College, Oxford funded by the National Viscount Bennett Fellowship (awarded by the Canadian Bar Association). In 1994 she moved to England to an academic appointment at the Law Faculty of the University of Bristol, continuing part-time practice at the Alberta Bar. From 1999 to 2013 she held a Tutorial Fellowship at Wadham College and a joint appointment (CUF) at the Faculty of Law, Oxford University. In October 2013 her Wadham post was converted to a Stipendiary Senior Research Fellowship to allow her to concentrate on her research. She continues with her usual Faculty duties as an Associate Professor, teaching Tort Law and Medical Law & Ethics (BCL/MJur), and supervising postgraduate research in all of her research field.
Laura is a tenant at Red Lion Chambers, a leading criminal and regulatory set of barristers in London, where her practice mirrors her research interests. In 2009 Laura was elected as a Fellow of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, where she serves on the Equality & Diversity Committee. She chairs the Human Rights Subgroup of the South Eastern Circuit's Access to Justice Working Party, which provides a 'rapid response' to government initiatives in the field of human rights. She has conducted empirical research for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office on prosecutorial decision-making and on child abuse prosecutions, and has been a consultant for the Ministry of Justice, Home Office, the Scottish Government, the Child Rapporteur for Ireland, and the Norwegian Law Commission. She chaired the Independent Advisory Committee on Child Maltreatment convened by Action for Children, which drafted a new offence of child maltreatment, part of which was enacted by Parliament. She also provides advice on law reform to the NSPCC, Action for Children, and the Loudoun Trust (which seeks to provide reliable research and educative materials on the root causes of child abuse). She collaborates with the Children's Rights Alliance and Just For Kids Law on strategic litigation to further children's rights, especially in the criminal justice system. In December 2012 she was invited by the Verma Committee on Amendments to the Criminal Law, appointed as a consequence of the furore sparked by a gang rape and murder in December 2012, to advise them on reform of substantive sexual assault offences for adults, children and other vulnerable persons, and a range of issues pertaining to more effective trials of such offences, including special measures for vulnerable witnesses; her contribution was acknowledged in the Report and in the national press conference held by Chief Justice Verma. She has recently been consulted by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies and the NSPCC with regard to their enquiries into the investigation of sexual abuse allegations against Jimmy Savile and legal and practice responses to the issues raised. She is also frequently consulted by the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Criminal Bar Association on a range of issues relating to child abuse and exploitation prosecutions, and the intersection of criminal justice and human rights more generally. For several years she was on the case commentary team for the Criminal Law Review, commenting on criminal judgments involving sex offences, child abuse and vulnerable witnesses. She is frequently contacted by national and international news media for commentary and background information on legal issues, particularly child abuse, including the BBC, Channel Four, The Times, The Guardian, The Economist, and New Scientist.
Laura has provided training and lectures, particularly on the handling of vulnerable witnesses, for the Criminal Bar Association, Middle Temple, the South Eastern Circuit and other Bar Circuits, the Family Bar Association, the Judicial Studies College,and the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee (on neuroscience and young offenders).
- This article s a response to a speech by Theresa May, then Home Secretary, at the Conservative party conference in 2015 in which she offered a 'deal' to human rights and immigration lawyers that if they would refuse to represent asylum seekers whom the Home Secretary deemed to be unmeritorious, then the government could be more generous in helping vulnerable people abroad. The article explains the origins of, and the continuing justifications for, the cab rank rule which prevents English barristers from choosing and refusing cases based on their perceived merits. It explains the fallacies underpinning the Home Secretary's rebuke of human rights and immigration lawyers, and rebuts recent criticisms by socio-economists of the cab rank rule.Equality of arms for child and other vulnerable defendants, in particular access to the special measures routinely provided to prosecution witnesses with the same vulnerabilities, has been contentious since 1999. Much progress has been forced through rulings by courts concerned about such defendants' capacity to cope with the demands of the adversarial trial. This progress appears to have been reversed by the April 2016 criminal practice direction stating that the appointment of defendant intermediaries should be "rare" for the defendant's testimony, and "extremely rare" for the entire trial. This article considers the legal options for challenging this retrograde step, including a synopsis of two recent child sexual exploitation cases which graphically demonstrate the inequality of arms where the complainant, but not the defendant, has access to an intermediary, and the difference in intermediary can make in facilitating the defendant's participation in the trial. The article also includes a diagram mapping all of the critical decisions which a defendant must make in the course of a trial to illustrate the point that much more is demanded intellectually of a defendant than of a prosecution witness providing his or her own narrative of past events.This is a substantial rewrite of the section D4 of Blackstones Criminal Practice 2012, which was written as a new chapter of the book.This is a tale of two negligent medical errors in the control of human fertility by public health services, with the same consequence for the patients, unwanted conception of healthy babies, occurring in two jurisdictions with common legal roots in tort law, but with diametrically opposed rulings on the scope of liability from their highest courts. One reflected the conventional philosophy underpinning medical tort law, corrective justice, and the other gingerly opened the door to an interloper, distributive justice, whilst allowing corrective justice to operate on part of the claim (with retributive justice implicitly tossed into the mix by two judicial chefs ). Perhaps surprisingly, the radical approach came from the House of Lords, in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board to which the Australian High Court responded in Cattanach v Melchior by adhering to orthodox principles. Both Courts pondered upon the moral attributes of creating life and parenthood, but they were wary of the moral content and ethical dimensions of professional negligence law. This chapter considers the causes, frequency and cost of failed sterilisation procedures, including statistical data up to 2013 of costs to the NHS. It analyses the different legal formulations for unwanted birth cases and provides a critical evaluation of the arguments discarded and accepted by the majorities and dissenting justices in the House of Lords and the Australian High Court. It offers a new analysis of the actionable damage, being the negligently performed surgery rather than the conception or the birth. It concludes that the judgments in both cases represent how far negligence law has come adrift of principle, supplanted by obscure pragmatism. For that reason, MacFarlane should not be treated as a landmark case for medical law as a whole, whilst Cattanach has essentially been erased by statutory reversal in several Australian states, to impose the MacFarlane result.ISBN: 9781849465649It has become fashionable to decry the adversarial trial as being incapable of achieving justice in trials involving vulnerable witnesses. Such critics usually ignore the plight of vulnerable defendants, and the very significant advances since 2009 in the courts management of child witnesses. This article evaluates the radical proposals which these critics have recently advanced as solutions: excluding counsel from cross-examination; concurrent cross-examination with ABE investigatory interviews; requiring prior approval for every question in cross-examination; and allowing independent legal representation for the complainant with full participation in the trial. It contends that these proposals would bring with them serious difficulties, especially for equality of arms and effective participation in the trial by the defendant. It sets out an alternative package of more modest proposals which would both preserve the adversarial mode of trial and protect witnesses: ticketing of all advocates; safeguarders for child witnesses and defendants; the establishment of Young Witness Advocacy Centres providing wraparound support; meaningful preparation of witnesses for cross-examination; treating vulnerable witnesses and defendants as individuals, not checklists; the use of admissions to reduce or eliminate cross-examination on ancillary topics; legal representation for witnesses in pre-trial applications for third party disclosure and cross-examination on previous sexual experience, and giving vulnerable defendants access to the full panoply of special measures, including Registered Intermediaries, if necessary throughout the trial.This is the text of an invited lecture to the Family Justice Council in February 2014. It comments on the hostile approach of the Norgrove Commission to parental rights under ECHR articles 6 and 8 to investigative and procedural fairness in care proceedings, and demonstrates that these rights are consonant with the child's rights, not in opposition to them. Discusses the 26-week rule in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and use of a single expert, arguing that delay must be permitted in complex cases which require access to expertise. Gives examples of miscarriages of justice in the family justice system.This article contests the notion, prevalent in British jurisprudence regarding ECHR Article 6, and recently adopted by the Grand Chamber in Al-Khawaja v UK, that the right to a fair trial involves the 'balancing' of the rights of the defendant against the rights of the prosecution, the complainant and other witnesses, and the community at large. It argues that the whole notion of balancing is fundamentally misconceived, setting up a conflictual trap whereby defence rights are always seen as being in antithesis to those of the prosecution representing the overarching public interest. Instead, I propose a model embodying a sense of objective fairness predicated upon the right to a verdict with integrity; as such this right is not allocated to any one participant in the trial but is a common good, erasing any perceived antitheses within Article 6. The article goes on to explore the concept of "the essence of the right" in Article 6(3) caselaw, and explains why this has been extinguished by the approach to Article 6 of the Grand Chamber in Al-Khawaja, sacrificing principle to juridical, and possibly political, expediency. The consequence is that Article 6 now only serves to protect the right to a 'fair-ish' trial.ISBN: 0011-135XConsiders the interpretation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James  UKSC 67, and regrets the last opportunity to consider the human rights dimensions offered by the ECHR.I have been interviewed and have acted as a legal adviser on a follow-up programme to a BAFTA award-winning Radio Four programme on historic allegations of institutional sexual abuse at a public school (Caldicutt). The programme was to be broadcast in June 2013 but because the prosecutions of the headmaster ended in a hung jury in mid-June,the completion of the film and broadcast has been postponed until the retrial which has been ordered.from BBC website: A leading children's charity, Action for Children, has said that the criminal law relating to child neglect in England and Wales is inadequate and should be changed. The Children and Young Persons Act came into force 80 years ago. Speaking on the Today programme Laura Hoyano, chair of Wadham College Oxford's independent advisory group on neglect for the charity Action for Children said that "although the social services have the benefit of up-to-date guidance on child neglect offences, the police are still working with a law that was initially drafted in 1868 and has not been updated since 1933". Professor Corinne May-Chahal of Lancaster University explained that social workers are frustrated that the police are unable to take action on some cases of child neglect, while the police are "frustrated that the current law doesn't enable them to take appropriate action and responsibility".The current offence of child cruelty in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (CYPA) originates in 1868. This article contends that it is not fit for its purpose, particularly given new understanding of the neurological and developmental impairments inflicted by neglect and emotional abuse. It should be replaced by a comprehensive maltreatment offence which is comprehensible to criminal and civil child protection agencies, professionals and the public.This is an entirely new chapter for Blackstones Criminal Practice, and explains the statutory provisions and case law governing (1) special measures for child and vulnerable witnesses, including defendants (2) best practice in questioning child and vulnerable witnesses and (3) witness anonymity orders.ISBN: 9780199694389ISBN: 1039-3285This article maps (through diagrams) and analyses the changes made by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to existing Special Measures Directions for child witnesses, child defendants and complainants of sexual assault under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Adult defendants suffering from some form of significant mental impairment are for the first time made eligible to apply for leave to testify using the live link and with the assistance of an intermediary. In addition, the 2009 Act deems witnesses to violent offences against the person involving the use of firearms or knives to be intimidated and hence automatically eligible for Special Measures. The article concludes that the measures for defendants do not go far enough and are susceptible to challenge under ECHR Article 6, and perhaps go too far in introducing anomalies in the treatment of different categories of intimidated witnesses.ISBN: 0011-135XThis book examines the whole process of child protection from complaint investigation to prosecution in the criminal and civil courts. It provides a coherent analysis of current law and procedure across the legal and geographical boundaries within which legal discussion of child abuse is usually confined, analysing criminal, family, tort, human rights and evidence law as they bear on child abuse cases. Comparative material is drawn from over 75 jurisdictionsusing the adversarial trial model. The book was awarded the first Inner Temple Book Prize (2008). The paperback edition is updated in English law, including the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enacted on 12 November 2009.ISBN: 978-0-19-957156-7This book examines the whole process of child protection from complaint investigation to prosecution in the criminal and civil courts. It provides a coherent analysis of current law and procedure across the legal and geographical boundaries within which legal discussion of child abuse is usually confined, analysing criminal, family, tort, human rights and evidence law as they bear on child abuse cases. Comparative material is drawn from over 75 jurisdictionsusing the adversarial trial model. The book was awarded the first Inner Temple Book Prize (2008). The paperback edition is updated in English law, including the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enacted on 12 November 2009.ISBN: 978-0-19-829946-2In December 2004 the Government announced a review of child evidence with a remit to consider whether section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, providing for video taped pre-trial cross-examination, should be retained in some form, to review the performance of Special Measures for child witnesses, and to consider measures for vulnerable defendants. The Review Group's Consultation Paper, Improving the Criminal Trial Process of Young Witnesses, was published only in June 2007. This article critically evaluates the most significant recommendations. As of October 2008, the Government had yet to publish its position regarding the responses to the Consultation Paper, notwithstanding that the consultation period had closed in October 2007.ISBN: 0011 135Xevaluates the decision of the House of Lords in Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte D  UKHL 4,  1 WLR 393, which held that mandatory Special Measures Directions for child witnessesunder the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in principle comply with ECHR Article 6.DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.00414A critical analysis of the British cases considering the recoverability in tort of the cost of maintaining a child born following a failed sterilisation procedure, beginning with McFarlane v Tayside Health Authority  2 AC 59, and culminating in the Court of Appeal decision in Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust  2 All ER 177.ISBN: 1468-2230The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 enables courts to issue Special Measures Directions to protect children and other vulnerable witnesses. This article reviewed the compatibility of these measures with the fair trial guarantee contained in article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Subject to a few doubtful cases, including the withholding of Special Measures from child defendants, the great majority of Special Measures Directions were concluded to be likely to be ECHR-compatible. It was cited with approval by the House of Lords in R v Camberwell Green Youth Court ex parte D  UKHL 4,  1 WLR 393, in holding that the 'primary rule' regime for child witnesses was compatible with article 6, but expressing doubt about the exclusion of child defendants from Special Measures.ISBN: 0011 135XAudience of senior and trial judiciary and criminal barristers at the annual spring conference in Bristol. I addressed the recent case law interpreting the testimonial competence of child witnesses and critiqued to the amendments to the Special Measures Directions regime introduced by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I urged a human rights challenge to the differential access to special measures for defendants and prosecution witnesses.I was interviewed by a team of investigative journalists in October 2011 for a programme comparing how children are protected from physical violence and homicide at the hands of their family in England and South Korea, with particular focus on the policy and pragmatic implications of the 'Baby P' case.I have provided advice to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary which is in the course of preparing a report on the fallout from the Jimmy Savile paedophilia scandal, on the advisability of statutory mandatory reporting requirements. The report was published on 12 March 2013 and my child abuse book is cited in footnote 74I was contacted by the former Solicitor General of India, Gopal Subramanium and a member of the Verma committee, to advise them on the following issues: (a) Rewriting the definitions of sexual offences against adults (b) Decriminalising consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex (c) Creating specific sexual offences relating to children and vulnerable adults (d) Addressing the way that sexual offence cases are tried, such as setting up special sexual assault courts (e) Videotaping interviews with complainants, and protocols for questioning them (f) The way in which the child and adult complainants of sexual offences testify, such as the UK's Special Measures Directions. As a result of further exchanges of correspondence I also advised them on training programmes for the judiciary and lawyers to sensitise them to issues involving vulnerable witnesses and sexual abuse prosecutions. My contributions were the first in the list of those acknowledged in the Report itself (page 18) and were verbally acknowledged in a national press conference by Chief Justice Verma [http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/shocked-that-delhi-police-chief-got-pat-on-the-back-justice-verma/262802?hp&video-featured].I have been asked to advise David Tucker, Associate Head, Policy Hub, NSPCC regarding recent recommendations in the controversy surrounding the Savile and Cheatham Music School investigations, in particular those by the HMIC (see earlier entry) that a legal requirement for reporting of child abuse allegations to the police and social servicesI have been appointed as the Chair of an independent group of experts drawn from child psychiatry and neuroscience and other experts in child health and development, legal practitioners of criminal and family law, professional bodies for social work and the police (including ACPO), policymakers including CAFCASS, and voluntary sector organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust, to advise Action for Children on their campaign to reform the criminal law of neglect. I was chosen for this position due to my book Hoyano & Keenan, Child Abuse Law and Policy across Boundaries (OUP 2007, 2010), and my research has been cited in the policy paper developed by Action for Children for presentation to MPs and Peers and government ministers and advisers. I am also chairing a subgroup of lawyers and a child psychiatrist to draft an amendment to a Bill currently before Parliament to replace the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Section 1, whichwill be debated before the Summer Recess of Parliament in July 2012. I am assisting Action for Children in identifying and soliciting experts for this advisory group and in garnering political support from MPs and Peers for the amendment.A four stage seminar series seeking to engage neuroscientists with criminal lawyers and policymakers, held in London. I am involved in three of the four seminars and made a presentation at the second one.Lecture in Middle Temple Hall, London to around 75 criminal and and civil law barristers about how to identify vulnerable witnesses, third party disclosure, and cross-examination techniques, including putting the case and challenging previous allegedly false allegations.I have drafted an amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill to repeal section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and replace it with a new child maltreatment offence, which I have also drafted. The amendment, sponsored by a significant number of MPs from across parties, will be debated on 13/03/2013 in the House of Commons. I met with 8 officials from the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Education and CPS on 01/03/13, justice Minister Damien Green MP, Jessica Lee MP (PPS to AG), Baroness Butler-Sloss and his officials on 04/03/13, and gave a presentation to MPs in Parliament on 06/03/13. Briefing papers for MPs include my Crim LR article on Child Maltreatment (with Rachel Taylor).I was interviewed for this article and prepared a background briefing for the journalist. I was quoted and my book Hoyano & Keenan Child Abuse Law and Policy across Boundaries was cited. As a consequence of the article I was contacted by the NSPCC and asked to be available to assist them in their response to the Jimmy Savile investigations.My research into children as witnesses (Child Abuse Law and Policy across Boundaries 2007 Edition) was cited in an Issues Paper, Alternative Pre-Trial and Trial Processes for Child Witnesses in New Zealand's Criminal Justice System (page 13), which was provided to the Cabinet Domestic Policy Committee as background material for a decision on reforming court procedures for child witnesses which was taken on 6 July 2011 (DOM Min (11) 10/1), available on the same website.Contributed diagrams for government guidance on Special Measures Directions, Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses, Including Children. London, Home Office et al., 3rd ed. 2010]Lord Judge CJ quoted with approval two passages regarding the appropriate use of intermediaries for vulnerable witnesses including defendants from para D14.39 of Blackstones Criminal Practice 2012; I was the sole author of that chapter.The Crown Court Bench Book Directing the Jury, which is official guidance endorsed by the senior judiciary, states on page 366 under the heading "The Evidence of Child Witnesses" in section (3)para 5 "For discussion of issues of competence and intelligibility of the evidence of child witnesses see 'Testing the Credibility of Children's Evidence', Laura Hoyano, July 2008, JSB [Judicial Studies Board] Website, Criminal/Library/Evidence. This refers to a lecture I delivered to the Judicial Studies Board in July 2008. I have received requests from practitioners for this handout, derived from this citation.2009-currentPresentation together with my co-author Dr Caroline Keenan at the annual conference of the FLBA in Oxford. My own lecture addressed "Litigating Child Abuse in the Criminal and Family Courts: Visible Versus Invisible Justice", and explored the implications of opening the family courts to the media in light of recent alleged miscarriages of the family justice system, including nondisclosure of the fallibility of expert evidence diagnosing physical abuse.meeting at CPS headquarters chaired by Kier Starmer QC, DPP jointly with Chief Constable David Whatton. The meeting identified a number of ideas to improve how the criminal justice system responds to child sexual abuse cases, especially in terms of the experience of the victim. The ideas included the introduction of pre-recorded cross examination of victims, the greater use of intermediaries, the scope for a specialist court, dispelling and challenging myths and stereotypes around the behaviour of victims if they arise in court, ensuring court cases go ahead on time, and that victims giving evidence in the witness box are not doing so for an unnecessarily long period of time, especially in cases where there are multiple defendants. I was the only law academic invited to attend the session, and I were subsequently contacted by the DPP requesting further information about Canadian prosecution protocols and judicial directions on delayed complaint and complainant credibility, and I am continuing to work with the DPP on these issues. The roundtable discussions resulted in the issuance on 11/06/2013 of Interim Guidelines on the Prosecution of Child Sexual Abuse, and I am involved in the consultation process.Report of the Independent Advisory Committee to Action for Children on Child Neglect and the Criminal Law. Forward by Baroness Butler-Sloss. The proposed amendment drafted by Laura Hoyano will be introduced to the Crime and Courts Bill in March 2013 as a private member's amendment at second reading.A letter signed by 33 forensic psychiatrists, neuroscientists and other medical researchers, policymakers, barristers and academics (including myself) urging the government to raise the age of criminal responsibility in line with most other countries due to research findings by neuroscientists on the immature development of the normal adolescent brain.Audience of judges, barristers and solicitors, academics, policymakers, students and members of the public. The lecture explored the anomalies between child protection proceedings and criminal proceedings where they proceed in parallel in adjudicating the same allegation of child abuse. Pursuing the themes of 'inquisitorial' versus 'adversarial' enquiries, free proof versus filtered proof, and visible justice versus invisible justice, I considered pretrial disclosure of evidence, legal professional privilege, in camera hearings and expert evidence. The discussion took account the human rights dimensions of these issuesI was asked to advise her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies on the issue of mandatory reporting as a potential recommendation as part of their inspection of the handling of allegations against Jimmy Savile by two police forces. page 61 of the report 'Mistakes Were Made' cites my research on the issue in Hoyano & Keenan, Child Abuse Law and Policy across Boundaries (2007) p 445.2010-currentI have been invited to give a presentation entitled "Child Defendants: Can They Defend Themselves?" at a seminar organised by the Parliamentary Adviser on Biological Sciences & Health at the Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology, which arises out of a talk I gave at an ESRC funded seminar series DevelopmentalSocial Neuroscience, Ethics and the Law. The invitation arose out of a mass of publications over the years and vulnerable witnesses and vulnerable defendants which I have published in the Criminal Law Review and my book Hoyano & Keenan Child Abuse Law and Policy across Boundaries (OUP 2007, 2010). The Seminar will be attended by around 60 MPs, Peers and their advisers as well as invited representatives of key external organisations involved in neuroscience, psychiatry, law and policy.The Rt. Hon. the Lord Dholakia PC, OBE, DL, Deputy Leader, Liberal Democrats, House of Lords has invited me and Dr Eileen Vizard to meet with him on 14 May 2013 to discuss his private member's bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility. I assume I have been invited because of a lecture I delivered in the HL on this topic in 2012 as part of a seminar on neuroscience and the law.Meeting with Lord Dholakia and Dr Eileen Vizard in Parliament to discuss the legal and neuroscientific research supporting his private member's bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility from age 10 to 12. I have undertaken to write a briefing for peers on the issue when the bill is debated in the next session of Parliament in the autumn of 2013, and to enlist children's charities in support of his campaign, which work is ongoing.I was the keynote speaker at a Parliamentary Briefing organised by Action for Children on the proposed reform of the criminal law and child neglect, attended by peers, MPs, officials from the Ministry of Justice and representatives of criminal justice charities.Lecture to the Services Prosecuting Authority at CPA headquarters at RAF Northolt at the invitation of Bruce Houlder QC, Director of Services Prosecutions. I have since advised the SPA on training materials on vulnerable witnesses, hearsay, character evidence and other evidential issues for their prosecutors.Part of a week-long training sessions for trial and appellate judges, required for them to try cases involving serious sexual offences. I addressed testimonial competence, and and cross-examining child complainants on previous sexual experience under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s. 41 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s. 100.I was invited to attend and speak as an expert commentator on the issue "Should old cases come to court?", my particular remit being whether historic allegations of child abuse can be fairly tried. I was requesed to and provided substantial background research for the presenter. I also addressed the issue of immigration.This article maps and analyses the Special Measures Directions introduced for child and other vulnerable and intimidated witnesses by the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Simplified versions of the diagrams in this article are reproduced in the several editions of the official government guidance to Special Measures Directions, Achieving Best Evidence (Home Office et al).This reports the findings of a qualitative empirical research study commissioned by the Home Office in 1997, to investigate the extent to which cases of alleged sexual, physical and emotional abuse or neglect are not prosecuted because the evidence gathered during the investigation are deemed insufficient or inadmissible. The study examined how that evidence is collected and evaluated in each of the three phases of a criminal prosecution: the interagency investigation, the assessment by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the trial.The study also provides a comparative survey of measures to facilitate the taking of children's evidence in other jurisdictions, in particular in Canada, United States, New Zealand and Australia.ISBN: 1-84082-357-7This article critically evaluates judicial arguments against the imposition of tort liability on police forces for negligent investigations of crime. The article analyses and defends the much-criticised decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v UK.In the new era of concurrent liability, Commonwealth appellate courts have called for the rationalisation of the law of remedies across causes of action. Yet the formalistic logic of the current remedial rules applicable to misrepresentations actionable in tort and contract can yield widely discrepant results on the same matrix of facts. Anomalies are exposed where the contract was induced by fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, but the victim discovered the truth only after fully performing the contract. The tort damages will usually equal the contract award where the misrepresentation was relatively minor, such that the court concludes that had the plaintiff known the truth, it would have been negotiated the contract price to reflect the actual circumstances, increasing the profit margin. However, where the misrepresentation was so serious that the fully informed victim would have refused to contract with the defendant under any terms, the award is calculated on the basis of the plaintiff's cost of performance, without any compensation for loss of profit. To circumvent this paradox, the courts have devised several stratagems to award the plaintiff damages for lost profit. This article shows these devices to be flawed, and that under the current orthodoxy, the law still leaves the defendant to enjoy the fruits of its tort. The author proposes an alternate rule which redefines loss of profits in this context as reliance loss, submitting that this measure best achieves tort's remedial objectives of full compensation and deterrence.Reports on the results of an empirical research study commissioned by the Crown Prosecution Service on how Crown prosecutors use the Code for Crown Prosecutors to make decisions regarding a range of offences, using the evidential and public interest criteria.This chapter explores the invasion of part of the territory of common law obligations by the fiduciary phenomenon, considering in particular Canadian and Australian jurisprudence. The encroachment of fiduciary concepts into Hedley Byrne advisory relationships and fiduciary liability for sexual exploitation is considered in some depth.ISBN: 0-19-876488-XDespite expressions of judicial distaste for the "current fashion" of alleging civil fraud, there continue to be significant of damages to pleading the tort of deceit as alternate or concurrent liability to negligent mistatement. This article explores the evidentiary difficulties in proving the requisite mental intent in the tort of deceit, with particular focus on pronouncements from the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada requiring that a plaintiff prove that the defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff in making the false statement. The author contends that this view was mistaken, and that both precedent and policy dictate that the requisite mental intent be merely that of inducing reliance upon the mistatement. To impose an additional requirement of proof of intent to deceive would extinguish recklessness as a separate avenue to establishing the dishonesty which is the essence of the tort, and might well result in making the tort of fraud more difficult to prove than the criminal offence of fraud.Critically evaluates the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hill v Church of Scientology  2 S.C.R. 1130 holding that the common law tort of defamation generally complies with the guarantee of freedom of expression in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.