The Law Commission (of England and Wales) and the Scottish Law Commission were both established in 1965 to promote the reform of the laws of their respective jurisdictions. Since then, they have each produced hundreds of reports across many areas of law. They are independent of government yet rely on governmental funding and governmental approval of their proposed projects. They also rely on both government and Parliament (and, occasionally, the courts or other bodies) to implement their proposals. This book examines the tension between independence and implementation and recommends how a balance can best be struck. It proposes how the Commissions should choose their projects given that their duties outweigh their resources, and how we should assess the success, or otherwise, of their output. Countries around the world have created law reform bodies in the Commissions' image. They may wish to reflect on the GB Commissions' responses to the changes and challenges they have faced to reappraise their own law reform machinery. Equally, the GB Commissions may seek inspiration from other commissions' experiences. The world the GB Commissions inhabit now is very different from when they were established. They have evolved to remain relevant in the face of devolution, the UK's changing relationship with the European Union, increasing pressure for accountability and decreasing funding. Further changes to secure the future of independent law reform are advanced in this book.

The Law Commission (of England and Wales) and the Scottish Law Commission were both established in 1965 to promote the reform of the laws of their respective jurisdictions. Since then, they have each produced hundreds of reports across many areas of law. They are independent of government yet rely on governmental funding and governmental approval of their proposed projects. They also rely on both government and Parliament (and, occasionally, the courts or other bodies) to implement their proposals. This book examines the tension between independence and implementation and recommends how a balance can best be struck. It proposes how the Commissions should choose their projects given that their duties outweigh their resources, and how we should assess the success, or otherwise, of their output. Countries around the world have created law reform bodies in the Commissions' image. They may wish to reflect on the GB Commissions' responses to the changes and challenges they have faced to reappraise their own law reform machinery. Equally, the GB Commissions may seek inspiration from other commissions' experiences. The world the GB Commissions inhabit now is very different from when they were established. They have evolved to remain relevant in the face of devolution, the UK's changing relationship with the European Union, increasing pressure for accountability and decreasing funding. Further changes to secure the future of independent law reform are advanced in this book.

This book brings together past and present law commissioners, judges, practitioners, academics and law reformers to analyse the past, present and future of the Law Commissions in the United Kingdom and beyond. Its internationally recognised authors bring a wealth of experience and insight into how and why law reform does and should take place, covering statutory and non-statutory reform from national and international perspectives. The chapters of the book developed from papers given at a conference to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Law Commissions Act 1965.

A TSO version of a title previously published by HM Government.

The Eleventh programme of law reform includes: charity law, conservation covenants, contempt, data sharing between public bodies, electoral law, electronic communications code, European contract law, family financial orders, misconduct in public office, offences against the person, rights to light, taxis and private hire vehicles - regulation, trade mark and design litigation - unjustified threats, wildlife

This project addressed the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Currently, too much expert opinion evidence is admitted without adequate scrutiny because no clear test is being applied to determine whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted. Juries may therefore be reaching conclusions on the basis of unreliable evidence, as confirmed by a number of miscarriages of justice in recent years. Following consultation on a discussion paper (LCCP 190, 2009, ISDBN 9780118404655) the Commission recommends that there should be a new reliability-based admissibility test for expert evidence in criminal proceedings. The test would not need to be applied routinely or unnecessarily, but it would be applied in appropriate cases and it would result in the exclusion of unreliable expert opinion evidence. Under the test, expert opinion evidence would not be admitted unless it was adjudged to be sufficiently reliable to go before a jury. The draft Criminal Evidence (Experts) Bill published with the report (as Appendix A) sets out the admissibility test and also provides the guidance judges would need when applying the test, setting out the key reasons why an expert's opinion evidence might be unreliable. The Bill also codifies (with slight modifications) the uncontroversial aspects of the present law, so that all the admissibility requirements for expert evidence would be set out in a single Act of Parliament and carry equal authority.