Court

Criminal justice administration is not a position that should be taken lightly given that it involves an enormous responsibility and occasionally very stressful environment. As such, people in administrative positions are expected to be ethically upright and boast fitting behavior in view of the fact that they serve as examples to their co-workers and the community.

The administrators are often confronted with challenges in criminal justice management as well as challenges that are very well associated with the modern government (University of South Florida, n.d.).

Today’s society is continually in transition; and as a result, fundamental and major changes are equally taking place in the social and economic field. In order for the criminal justice administration to be successful, it must necessarily keep pace with the changing times. It is important therefore that administrators must have an advanced analytical skill, as well as the capacity to use the aforementioned attribute in designing and evaluating solutions to the ever evolving challenges.

Challenges of the Criminal Justice Administration

Basic is the rule in criminal justice that serious inadequacy in the administration of justice is considered denial of justice. More often than not, breakdowns take place in the administration of criminal justice. Delay and incompetence in apprehending, deciding court cases and in providing appropriate correctional programs have become recognizable and unending to the system.

This observable fact is not restricted to the United States alone, but it is rather worldwide and historical; it is inherent in every judicial system, which in reality should be guarding against any injustice made to a person. The causes of delays and inefficiencies in the administration of criminal justice are profound and diverse, arising as a result of factors equally inside and outside the system (Asian Legal Information Institute).

Nevertheless, it has always been the primary concern of every civilized society to deal with the challenge of incompetence in the system with a view to find ways of eliminating substandard and insufficiencies in the administration.

Court Administrator

Generally, every court employs a court administrator who is placed to administer court operations including the management of finances and appointment of personnel. However, other than managing employees, there is more to being a court administrator.

Court administrators’ responsibilities involves personnel management, signing of judgments and orders, fiscal responsibilities, case flow management, records management, issuing summons, and statistical analysis, in addition to designing and putting into practice within the pre-existing court guidelines a number of significant procedures.

Aside from managing their department and the court system’s financial expenses, court administrators are also expected to make forecasts as to the future needs of the system.

The court administrators’ responsibility is one that cannot be taken without due consideration, since they are in charge for numerous responsibilities within the department. As such, they must be competent enough to think on their feet without delay.

Court administrators must be capable of evaluating and interpreting the necessities of the organization, and must constantly assess the latter’s development in order to properly determine indispensable changes. The satisfying part of being a court administrator is that the position often builds encouraging relationships with the community, co-workers and employees.

In addition, the position is satisfying in view of the fact that administrators are granted with the authority to execute courses of action that they believe to be advantageous to court employees as well as to the public.

However, despite the fact that the role of court administrator generates numerous rewards, there are evidently several aspects which can and will complicate the role. Like any other profession, there are issues that would make the court administrator’s work multifaceted and obviously exhausting.

Issues in the areas of public relations, budgeting, meeting deadlines and on the whole encouraging people, are continually being encountered by the justice system. Consequently, because of the unremitting traditional direction of justice, many observers suggest that court administrators are becoming inefficient and ineffective in the performance their duties.

Experts believe that in order to become an efficient and effective court administrator, one must have: (1) proper support systems, together with case flow systems and administration information systems; (2) sufficient resources, together with adequate resources for the adjustment process; (3) effective procedures, tactics and strategies, as well as an operational plan; (4) an appropriate management and organizational structure; (6) a set of objectives and collective vision; and (6) strong management skills (Fraser, n.d., p.6).

Unfortunately, some observers believe that there are still a few court administrators these days that are deficient with some of the abovementioned requirements.

Outcome of the Course

In addition to the fact that the course enhanced my researching skills, I learned a number of additional useful knowledge, particularly on the administration and administrators of criminal justice. The course has provided me information on some challenges affecting the aforesaid administrators, aside from the issues and satisfaction associated with the position.

Taken as a whole, the criminal justice administration class has helped improve my awareness of what the specific duties of the justice administrators really are.

The class has enlightened me on the large number of new opportunities as well as several long-established career opportunities in criminal justice. For that reason, I am now taking into consideration careers in the criminal justice system, especially in court administration.

References

Asian Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Criminal Justice System. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from  http://www.asianlii.org/pk/other/PKLJC/reports/22.html

Fraser, C. (n.d.). Modernizing Models of Court Administration: A Time for Change. Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.ciaj-icaj.ca/english/publications/2004/684Fraser.pdf

University of South Florida. (n.d.). Criminal Justice Administration. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://criminology.usf.edu/faculty/data/certificate_brochure.pdf

The American judiciary system was found on the adversarial model. In the United State of America, the constitution founders believed that the only best form of government was one that would promote the welfare of an individual such as one social class or a director. The middle class was favored as the most likely group to promote the common welfare because they had in mind that the rich and poor would mostly be concerned with promotion of their own interests. The founders of constitution also believed that the common welfare meant having total protection to each individual’s natural rights of property, life and liberty.

They chose a form of government called the republican government (Vaughan, 2003, p. 1712-1862). Because England’s powers of government were balanced and divided among the king and the parliaments two houses (the commons and the House of Lords), this system was applicable. This is because it best exemplified republican government. Madison J. who was one of the United States Farmers had his own definition to the republic as a nation or country whose laws and policies are made and administered by some of representatives of the people.

He recommended that those representatives should be elected by a large number of people but not a small class. In addition, he figured out that such a government would fully serve the society with no special consideration to particular groups. More so, apart from their nations of republican government, natural rights and common good the constitution founders wanted written laws that would clearly show the rights of all individuals and extent of the power in government. The American constitution sets forth the fundamental laws and rules showing how their government is operated and organized.

Although most of the countries have both unwritten and written constitutions, the limited powers of the government by a constitution which must be obeyed by the government is the one that distinguishes a dictatorial government from a constitutional one. The contrast is perceived in that, the dictatorial government has unlimited powers over the government and its natural resources. It is very difficult for the citizens to force such kind of tyrannical rules to obey the law because the rules also control the nation’s defense force group like police and military.

https://www. netsafa. navy. mil/ipg/judicial-process. htm In a government governed by a constitution, the laws set should show the basic rights of its citizens to their property, liberty and life. It states that the government should have a responsibility to guard such rights. It also has the government’s power limitations shows the extent to which citizen’s lives cannot be interfered with by the government. Also it includes the ways by which the nation can be changed through the consent of its citizens.

The constitution farmers in America borrowed some ideas from the British model and came up with a series of balances and checks so as to have protection against power abuse by the government. To avoid domination of powers by one sector in the government, powers are given to quite different branches of government. The two main power branches in a constitution include; the executive branch which has the responsibility of enforcing the laws, and the legislative branch which is responsible for law making. This information centers on the judicial branch system in the United States government (Young, 54).

Although all other nations have laws and rules governing people’s relationships with each other, and other kinds of rules which govern human relationships like the custom, religion and accepted morality, the American’s judicial system appears to be a bit complex. The complexity is with the courts at different levels like in state, Federal County and Municipal bodies. It is not easy to understand the interrelationships although there are laws which clarifies jurisdiction and assigns responsibilities. According to the judicial foundation system, nobody and nothing in the country can stand outside the law or above the law.

In the United States, the penalty for running a red light in vehicles is same to the general or admiral because it is made for a season or private. The brief in the primacy of the law is basic to the citizen’s way of life. The law becomes the ultimate arbiter while the courts are its major guardians. The actions of all other government branches must have consistency with the laws. With regardless of citizens’ official status, social position, religion, wealth or political creed, they are all subject to the law. This acts as one major goal for justice in America.

The court ensures same law enforcement upon the powerless and the powerful. Due to this reason the courts and the law are said to be the fundamental guardians of equality life in United States. What is more important with American Judicial system is that, once an individual is accused of crime, he or she is regarded as to be innocent until when he is proved guilty in the courtroom. This implies that, the burden of proof is left to the prosecutor, the accused victim requires not prove his or her innocence (Young, 54). Once a person has been accused in law violation, the law insists that such an individual be tried by a jury.

These juries are made up of just ordinary citizens who are chosen to serve temporarily in court to listen to the evidences in case where by they decide whether the accused is innocent or guilty. They are not official government. In United States, judiciary is a quite separate branch of government. Besides the fact that judicial system is subject to the same types of balances and checks as for the case in legislative and executive branches, it is not controlled by either of them it implies that, courts are not in any way influenced by the executive and legislative in their duties.

Their courts are perceived to play an important role in their activities to shape the public policy. They are seen to provide judicial legal interpretations for both civil law and criminal law. More so, they shape legal policy through appeals and trials (Harper 1998). After adoption of the constitution in 1989, the federal and state courts have used the power in declaring an action at the executive branch or legislature as unconstitutional thus making them null and void. Generally, the American courts are no only important because of justice administration but also due to shaping public policy.

According to many people it is perceived that American justice is very slow. Yes it is true that the dockets of court are very full but all these aims at fairness in justice. The judicial system of America is an integral system where by the people’s rights are protected against government interferences. Due to judicial system body being set as an independent body, it is true that justice is being administered in light of the court room work groups and assembly line justice.

According to the citizens, this is a very good thing because there is no difference between poor and rich in the law administration. References Young, E. (2005). Institutional Settlement in a Globalizing Judicial System. Duke Law Journal 54. Harper J, (1998 June 7). Collections: Judicial Watch Keeps Stern Watch on Court’s System, Clinton. Religious Studies, Philosophy, History, Psychology, and Library. Vaughan, B. (2003). The Evolution of Louisiana’s Judicial System. From Chaos to Continuity. 69, 1712-1862.

The United States is the world’s largest economy; it is also one of the world’s best forms of a presidential democracy. The United States declared its independence in 1776 and defeated Great Britain with help from France in the American Revolutionary War. As Seymour Martin Lipset points out, “The United States was the first major colony successfully to revolt against colonial rule. In this sense, it was the first ‘new nation.

‘” (Lipset, The First New Nation (1979) p. 2) On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, still meeting in Philadelphia, declared the independence of a nation called “the United States of America” in the Declaration of Independence, primarily authored by Thomas Jefferson. July 4 is celebrated as the nation’s birthday. The new nation was dedicated to principles of republicanism, which emphasized civic duty and a fear of corruption and hereditary aristocracy.

Politics of the United States takes place in a framework of a presidential republic, whereby the President of the United States is head of state, head of government, and of a two-party legislative and electoral system. The federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments, with the Supreme Court balancing the rights of each. The United States federal government is comprised of three main branches (the executive branch, legislature and the judiciary). The executive branch: Executive power is exercised by the executive branch, which is headed by the President and is independent of the legislature.

The Executive branch consists of the President of the United States and his delegates. The President is the head of state and head of government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief diplomat. The President, according to the Constitution, must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed. ” The President may sign or veto legislation passed by Congress. He may be impeached by a majority in the House and removed from office by a two-thirds majority in the Senate for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

” The removal of the President has happened nine times in U. S history. Bill Clinton was the last president to be impeached after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He was impeached on December 19, 1998 by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote). Two other articles of impeachment failed—a second count of perjury in the Jones case (by a 205–229 vote), and one accusing President Clinton of abuse of power (by a 148–285 vote).

He was acquitted by the Senate The President may not dissolve Congress or call special elections, but does have the power to pardon criminals convicted of offenses against the federal government, enact executive orders, and (with the consent of the Senate) appoint Supreme Court justices and federal judges. The two main functions of the executive in many governments are: To collect taxes and customs duties and to use the money to pay the salaries of government employees and other government expenditure;

To provide the internal and external security of the state. This is mainly done by maintaining a police force and armed forces. Legislature: The congress is the legislative arm of the government. Legislative power is vested in the two chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The congress is bicameral, comprised of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives consists of 435 members, each of whom represents a congressional district and serves for a two-year term.

House seats are apportioned among the states by population; in contrast, each state has two Senators, regardless of population. There are a total of 100 senators (as there are currently 50 states), who serve six-year terms (one third of the Senate stands for election every two years). Each congressional chamber (House or Senate) has particular exclusive powers—the Senate must give “advice and consent” to many important Presidential appointments, and the House must introduce any bills for the purpose of raising revenue.

However, the consent of both chambers is required to make any law. The powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. The Congress has the responsibility to monitor and influence aspects of the executive branch. Congressional oversight prevents waste and fraud, protects civil liberties and individual rights, ensures executive compliance with the law, gathers information for making laws and educating the public, and evaluates executive performance.

It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions, and the presidency. Congress’s oversight function takes many forms including: Committee inquiries and hearings Formal consultations with and reports from the President Senate advice and consent for presidential nominations and for treaties House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trials House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment in the event that the President becomes disabled or the office of the Vice President fall vacant

Informal meetings between legislators and executive officials Congressional membership on governmental commissions Studies by congressional committees and support agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office, both of which are arms of Congress Powers of Congress: The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. These include the powers: to levy and collect taxes in order to pay debts, provide for common defense and general welfare of the U. S. ; to borrow money on the credit of the U. S.

; to regulate commerce with other nations and between the states; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment of counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of science, create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, provide for the militia, arm and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in Washington D.

C, and make laws necessary to execute the powers of Congress. Judiciary: Judicial power is exercised by the judicial branch (or judiciary), comprised of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. The function of the judiciary is to interpret the United States Constitution as well as the federal laws and regulations. This includes resolving disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The highest court is the Supreme Court of the United States.

The court deals with matters pertaining to the Federal Government, disputes between states, and interpretation of the United States Constitution, and can declare legislation or executive action made at any level of the government as unconstitutional, nullifying the law and creating precedent for future law and decisions. Below the Supreme Court are the courts of appeals, and below them in turn are the district courts, which are the general trial courts for federal law.

Separate from, but not entirely independent of, this federal court system are the individual court systems of each state, each dealing with its own laws and having its own judicial rules and procedures. The supreme court of each state is the final authority on the interpretation of that state’s laws and constitution. A case may be appealed from a state court to the U. S. Supreme Court only if there is a federal question (an issue arising under the U. S. Constitution, or laws/treaties of the United States). The relationship between federal and state laws is quite complex; together, they form the law of the United States.

The federal judiciary consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, whose justices are appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and various “lower” or “inferior courts,” among which are the United States Courts of Appeals and the United States District Courts. There are other courts, such as the bankruptcy courts and the tax court, which are specialized courts handling only certain kinds of cases. The judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, an Act of Congress, or a treaty of the United States; cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls of foreign countries in the United States.

The Constitution safeguards judicial independence by providing that federal judges shall hold office “during good behavior”. Usually they serve until they die, retire, or resign. A judge who commits an offense while in office may be impeached in the same way as the President or other officials of the federal government. The power of the federal courts extends both to civil actions for damages and other redress, and to criminal cases arising under federal law. A constitutional provision prohibits Congress from reducing the pay of any judge—Congress could enact a new lower salary applying to future judges, but not to those already serving.

Conclusion: In the united states there exist a system of separation of powers (this is a political doctrine under which the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are kept distinct, to prevent abuse of power). Through a system of separation of powers or “checks and balances,” each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches. In addition, the powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution.

This system of checks and balances is what has enabled the three branches to co-exist together. References: Seymour Martin Lipset (2003), First New Nation (Ppr): The United States in Historical and Comparative Perspective, Transaction Publishers, U. S. The official United States website, retrieved on 28th April 2007, available at: www. usa. gov/ Web article, United States history, retrieved on 28th April 2007, available at: www. wikipedia. org/wiki/U. S. _government Web article, Politics of the United States, retrieved on 28th April 2007, available at: www. wikipedia. org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States

Judiciary is in some way at a higher pedestal amongst these three organs because it is the only mechanism to keep the executive and legislature within their jurisdictions by confining them not to abuse or misuse their powers. It controls, corrects or quashes the executive, however high it is, and even sets aside acts of the legislature if it acts contra-constitutionally. Judiciary is the guardian and final interpreter of the Constitution.It is a place of utmost trust as it is last resort for the people. It is not negated that corruption is non-existent in certain judicial systems rather it would be fair to say that in some countries corruption is nominal, infrequent and the result of individual, unethical behaviour. It is also evident from the words of the former Chief Justice of India S.P. Bharucha, when he grieved over the rampant corruption in the higher judiciary and brought to notice that around 20 percent judges of the higher judiciary are corrupt.

Now the question remains:

• Can the judicial accountability be trusted upon any more?
• Does the judiciary hold the same value, as it had earlier?
• Is the judiciary abusing its freedom?
• Can judges be permitted to do anything in the guise of ‘independence’?

These are the questions which still remained unanswered. Judicial Corruption Corruption is the misuse of entrusted power for personal gain. In the context of judicial corruption, it relates to acts or omissions that constitute the use (or it is better to say ‘misuse’) of public authority for the private benefit of court personnel, and results in the improper and unfair delivery of judicial decisions.In corrupt judiciaries, citizens are not afforded their democratic right of equal access to the courts, nor do the courts treat them equally. The merits of the case and applicable law are not paramount in corrupt judiciaries, but rather the status of the parties and the benefit judges and court personnel derive from their decisions.

In corrupt judiciaries, rich and well-connected citizens triumph over ordinary citizens, and governmental entities and business enterprises prevail over citizens. No civilised society can command the people’s confidence if the judicature’s verdict is privately purchased at a competitive price.Corruption and Indian judiciary A judicial scandal has always been regarded as far more deplorable than a scandal involving either the executive or a member of the legislature. The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety in the court is a cause for great anxiety and alarm. In last one decade, there are a number of instances where a judge is found to be involved in corrupt practices. This demands a close look in these scandals because if judiciary itself gets corrupted who will judge others. Before taking these scandals we should know the current legal position on corruption as applicable on judges laid down in Veeraswami case.

Veeraswami case

This case is important in many ways. This was the first case where corruption charges were alleged against a judge of higher judiciary. This case dealt with many issues viz. whether judge of a high court or Supreme Court is a ‘public servant’ or not; who is the sanctioning authority for prosecuting a judge of a high court or Supreme Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; whether Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act) is applicable on judges or not etc. Before taking these issues in detail, let us know background of the case. The appellant had committed offence under section 5(2) read with clauses (b), (d) and (e) of section 5 (1) of the Act. On perusal of the charge sheet the special judge issued process for appearance of the appellant.

The appellant thereupon filed a petition under section 482 of Cr. P. C. before the Madras High Court for quashing the prosecution. The Full Bench of the high court by a majority view has dismissed his case. However, in the view that the constitutional question involved in the case the high court granted certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court.A five judge Bench of the Supreme Court heard the matter and four judgments were delivered.

Shetty J. authored the leading judgment, with Venkatachaliah J. , signing with him. B. C. Ray J. wrote a separate but concurring judgment.

L. M. Sharma agreed to dismiss the appeal but differ on some issues. Verma J. dissented.

Recent episodes

In the last one decade, a number of instances unveiled by media and other active organizations where judges were involved in corrupt practices, which show that how corruption has crippled Indian judiciary. Some of them are discussed hereafter;Justice Soumitra Sen’s Issue In an unprecedented move by the CJI, wrote a letter to the prime minister, recommending that the proceedings contemplated by article 217(1) read with article 124(4) of the Constitution be initiated for removal of Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court.

25 This recommendation was made on the basis of suggestions made by an In-House Committee, in a report submitted to the CJI that Justice Sen be removed from the office. The Committee has in its report accused Justice Sen of breach of trust and misappropriation of Reciever’s funds for personal gain.The in-house committee found that Soumitra Sen did not have honest intention, since he mixed the money received as Receiver and his personal money and converted the Receiver’s money to his own use. The motion for his removal is not yet initiated. It is expected that the history will not be repeated. If it is repeated it would be a dishonor upon the Indian judiciary and its accountability. Cash-for-Judge Scam CJI Balakrishnan is the first Chief Justice of India who has granted permission to an investigating agency to register of a criminal case against judges of Punjab & Haryana High Court.

This is for the first time that power conferred by Veeraswami case is exercised by any CJI. He allowed the CBI to interrogate two judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Nirmaljit Kaur and Nirmal Yadav, in connection with the cash for- judge scam. A law officer sent Rs. 15 lakh to Justice Nirmaljit Kaur’s official residence and later claimed that it was meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav and had been delivered to Justice Kaur by mistake. Apart from these episodes there are few more instances where judiciary got shammed.Like, Justice Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice Himanchal Pradesh High Court was also traced in dealing with such mal-practices when he got a plot on nominal price by a land mafia, who was one of the parties to a case before him. In all above stated instances the judges, being a public servant, were alleged to be involved in corrupt practices even though the recourse of the Act was not taken.

There is no justification as to why judiciary did not take recourse of the Act and went for process of removal under article 124, which is next to impossible.  RTI solution has not been edited in keeping with the view of other legal essays.

Adrian Mutu v Chelsea

Facts of the Case

            Adrian Mutu is known for his versatility and extraordinary talent in the field of football. On the basis of Mutu’s ability, he was transferred from Italian Club AC Parma to Chelsea in August 2003 (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). Chelsea and Adrian Mutu entered into a five-year contract, whereby the latter would play under the former (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). A drug test for players was initiated on October 2004 by the Football Association Limited (FA). A few weeks after, Adrian Mutu was found positive of cocaine. On his interview, Mutu admitted using cocaine; and as a result, the contract was terminated by Chelsea and a ban of seven months from playing soccer was imposed by FA’s Disciplinary Commission (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). However, the ban was extended for the purpose of obtaining global attention.

            As a response, Mutu appealed the termination of the employment contract to the Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL) (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). Pending the appeal, Chelsea filed a claim for compensation against Mutu. As ordered by the panel, the parties made a joint letter containing their agreement to refer the “triggering element of the dispute to the Football Association Premier League Appeals Committee (FAPLAC) (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). The issue of the dispute is whether Mutu acted in breach of the employment contract with or without just cause or sporting just cause (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). On April 2005, FAPLAC handed down its decision declaring Mutu to have breached the contract entered into between him and Chelsea.

            Before the decision was handed down by FAPLAC, Chelsea submitted a contractual claim to FIFA as a result of the breach of contract and determination as to the kind of sanction or penalty that should be imposed upon Mutu (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). Thereafter, Chelsea filed for award of compensation before FIFA and reiterated that Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) have jurisdiction to hear and decide its case (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). However, on October 2006, DRC dismissed the case of Chelsea for want of jurisdiction.

            Meanwhile, Mutu appealed to the decision of the FAPLAC finding him of breach of contract before the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). However, CAS dismissed his appeal. On the other hand, Chelsea appealed to CAS reiterating that DRC holds the jurisdiction to hear the claim of compensation case and to determine and impose the appropriate sanctions against Mutu (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). Chelsea raised Article 21 to 22 and 42(1)(b) of the 2001 FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). Article 42(1)(b) of the 2001 FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players states that FAPLAC has the jurisdiction to determine disputes with “triggering elements” (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). Mutu, on his part, responded by reiterating that he is not covered by CAS’ jurisdiction and that the appeal is inadmissible. Mutu contended that the law is applicable only when the player undermines the stability of his contract (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). In his case, Mutu reiterated that it was Chelsea who terminated the contract; hence his breach of contract is not covered by Article 20 to 21 as argued by Chelsea.

After due deliberation of the case, CAS concluded that DRC has jurisdiction over the case. In resolving the argument, CAS reasoned out that the dispute came about as a violation of a contract which is within the power of DRC to decide. Moreover, Mutu’s contention is invalid because the regulation that covers the use of cocaine was within the scope of unilateral breach of contract without any justifiable cause (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). Hence, the case was brought before FIFA DRC for further resolution of the case.

With regard to deliberation of the claim for compensation, the FIFA DRC finally handed down its decision on early 2008 imposing a fine of UEU 17, 173, 990 as compensation to Chelsea (International Herald Tribune, 2008). However, Mutu filed an appeal with CAS claiming for the annulment of the DRC decision and reiterated that no compensation is due based on Article 63 of FIFA Statutes (Court of Arbitration for Sports Online, 2008). At present, the CAS has not yet reached its decision on the case.

As for Mutu, who is currently playing under Fiorentina, insisted his unwillingness to pay the fine imposed upon him by FIFA (Pedroncelli, 2008). He further reiterated his rights while claiming support from his co-players and other organizations.

Impact of the case

            The case of Mutu has spurred different opinions and reactions. Most specifically, the fine was considered as the highest fine ever imposed upon a player. Chelsea was delighted by the decision and proclaimed its importance in the football world. In addition, Chelsea stated that the decision did not only bring monetary award but also left a lesson that drugs have damaging effect to players (Scott, 2008).  On the contrary, Mutu’s lawyer emphasized that the decision is not yet final as they are still hoping for the resolution of the case in the civil court. On the part of Mutu, he had shown that the decision has no effect on him and on his performance. Notably, despite the decision, Mutu still continued to play under Fiorentina. Besides, the Romanian Football Federation has not yet initiated step to disbar Mutu from playing on the coming European Championship.

            Additionally, some critics noticed the ruling of the CAS referring back the case to FIFA and recognizing the jurisdiction of the case. According to some critics, CAS has overturned its decision before, which restricted FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber to have jurisdiction in adjudicating disputes arising from contractual matter between a club and a player (Danton, 2008).

In addition, critics found the fine to be a large sum which cannot be possibly paid by any player based on today’s compensation of a football player. Significantly, the appeal for the nullification of the fine was supported by the worldwide representative organization for professional football players (FIFPro) on three specific grounds (IUSport, 2008). First, Juventus took a risk when it signed with Mutu a transfer free during the latter’s suspension (IUSport, 2008). Second, the fine was discriminatory because Mutu was playing under an English passport when the violation was committed. Fine for damages as a result of dismissal was not allowed by FA Premier League rules (IUSport, 2008). Finally, the decision to pay based on transfer amount is extremely strange because Mutu had no control at all on the fee (IUSport, 2008).

Similar Cases

            In the world of sports, there are also several known players who had been fined and suspended for drug use. The known goalkeeper, Mark Bosnich, was suspended by the FA and his 40,000 pounds contract with Chelsea was terminated (Ziegler, 2002). As part of his penalty, Bosnich was suspended to play until his case was decided. On the part of Bosnich, he reiterated that he never took drugs. Incidentally, drug use has also been the factor of Diego Armando Maradona, a soccer player (Williams, 2004). After being positive for ephedrine, Maradona was suspended for 15 months and was fined an amount of 10,000 pounds (Williams, 2004).

Drug Testing policy in US

In the world of sports, news related to drug abuse and drug use has been damaging the reputation of the field. Some players take in recreational drugs in order to maintain their speed and agility. In order to maintain the sports as drug- free, players have been subjected to drug tests. Significantly, US players who are positive of drugs are given the chance to voluntarily surrender themselves for treatment without fear of being subjected to disciplinary action. In addition, the penalty is lenient. In deciding drug abuse related cases, the National Football League made it illegal for any player to use, posses, sell, purchase, or participate in the distribution of drugs (Quirk, 1999). If a player is found to have violated the rule for the first time, the player is placed under medical evaluation and on treatment program (Quirk, 1999). A violation for the second time would result to the removal of the player from the roster for six games and treatment (Quirk, 1999). On the third time, a one year suspension is imposed but the player may ask for his reinstatement after that year (Quirk, 1999). Notably a disciplinary action may be imposed when the player refuses to submit himself to a reasonable test.

Analysis

The policy in United States being practiced by the players may be considered lenient as with the policy adopted by the FIFA. From the case of Mutu, his first offence has been subjected immediately to suspension and a fine of a considerable amount. As compared with other violators, the FIFA only granted suspension and a minimal fine. But, in the case of Mutu, the fine is considerably a big amount which is more than the contract price he signed with Chelsea. With this kind of inequality and partiality of fines, the FIFA should include in its rule a ceiling or a particular rate of fine which should be imposed to any violator of a crime. Moreover, the severity of the violation should be weighed and be used as a basis for penalty to be imposed. In the case of Mutu, he has admitted using cocaine, although it was his very first violation. His further revelation was influenced by his belief that the penalty be mitigated. However, Mutu was gravely penalized for his violation without considering the circumstances which may mitigate his penalties.

The case of Mutu also left a considerable impact in the field of sports. Notably, some of the known football players have ended into a pathetic fate due to drug use cases. On one hand, the sincerity of Chelsea in firmly prohibiting drug use in sports is commendable. Chelsea may be perceived as a model of drug abuse intolerance. On the other hand, many fans may conclude that Mutu’s source of extraordinary power in the field of football is drugs. They would infer that he has been performing well through the use of drug and not because of his own skill or capability. On the part of other players, Mutu can serve as a model to discourage other players from using drugs. Notably, the case of Mutu, particularly on the matter of fine can be perceived to have been influenced by politics and manipulation. This angle may be possible because of the price at stake. The loss of Mutu may be considered as a loss to Chelsea. But the fact that termination came primarily from the club, it shows that the determination of the club was to take Mutu out of their group. Hence, the fruit for termination should be shouldered alone by the club because Mutu already served his punishment, which is suspension.

Additionally, it can be deduced that the penalty is arbitrary. A $20 million fine is definitely a huge amount and a burden on the part of Mutu and even to any player. It is arbitrary because the computation not reasonable as it exceeded the actual price of the contract. In addition, Mutu have not totally enjoyed the consideration of the contract because it was terminated after a few months. The damage to the club that may have been caused by Mutu’s violation is not grave enough to justify such kind of monetary penalty. Hence, justice may have not been served well.

Conclusion

            In sports, cases of drug use have been witnessed several times. Many players who have earned their reputation have destroyed their career because of drug use. Drugs, indeed, have no good effect on players and on anyone else. The penalty, however, have become graver today. The monetary fine of Mutu is considerably big enough that could bankrupt him and ruin his career as compared to the fines imposed upon previous players with the same case. Interestingly, the strength that Mutu is showing in the football field proves that he is not affected by the decision and is still optimistic of the outcome of his appeal. On the other hand, the decision of the DRC has created a divided public opinion. While some support the club for its decision to curb drugs, others sympathize and support the battle of Mutu in relation to the imposition of the high monetary fine. However, despite public opinion and reasons that each side has, justice will be determined by CAS who has the right to decide the appeal of Mutu.

References

Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2008). Adrian Mutu files appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Retrieved November 5, 2008, from

http://www.tas-cas.org/en/infogenerales.asp/4-3-2056-1092-4-1-1/5-0-1092-15-1-1/

Court of Arbitration for Sports Online. (2008). CAS 2006/A/1192 Chelsea Football Club Limited v/ Adrian Mutu. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:MAnTuJwVSNcJ:idispute.ru/uploads/documents/Case%2520Law/Sports/Chelsea_Adrian%2520Mutu.pdf+CAS+2006/A/1192+Chelsea+Football+Club+Limited+v/+Adrian+Mutu&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ph&client=firefox-a.

Danton, P. (15 August 2008). Adrian Mutu. Istadia.com. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from  http://www.istadia.com/forumread.php?tid=237

IUSport. (2008). DRC’s decision on Adrian Mutu. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://www.iusport.co.uk/php/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=32.

Pedroncelli, P. (12 October 2008). Mutu Unwilling To Pay FIFA Fine. Goal.com. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://www.goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=908846.

Quirk, C. E. (1999). Sports and the Law: Major Legal Cases. London: Taylor & Francis.

Scott, M. (15 August 2008). Mutu ordered to pay Chelsea £13.8m in compensation. The Guardian. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/15/chelsea.premierleague1

 International Herald Tribune. (6 June 2008). Romania striker Adrian Mutu ordered to pay €12 million to Chelsea for cocaine use. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/06/sports/EU-SPT-SOC-Euro-2008-Romania-Mutu-Fined.php.

Williams, R. (20 April 2004). Falling Down. The Guardian. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/apr/20/sport.argentina

Ziegler, Martyn. (28 December 2002). Bosnich is suspended as FA issues drug charges. The Independent. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/bosnich-is-suspended-as-fa-issues-drug-charges-612202.html.

Gary Porter Construction v. Fox Construction, Inc. , 2004 Ut.

App. 354, 101 p. 3d 371 (2004). Facts: The University of Utah was in need of a women’s Gymnastics training facility so they subcontracted Fox Construction, Inc. to complete the project. For the soil and ground work Fox Construction, Inc. subcontracted with Gary Porter Construction.

Gary Porter Construction, Inc. performed their work based on specific plans as well as some work outside of the plans. The combined total from the planned project was $146,740.The additional work completed at Fox’s request cost Gary Porter construction additional costs and Fox refused to pay for the additional work done outside the subcontract. Procedure: A suit was filed by Gary Porter in the Utah State Court against Fox with alleging breech of an implied-in-fact contract. The court granted summary judgment for Porter, which Fox later appealed to a state intermediate court. Issue: If sections of a contract are left out by mistake, is the contract still valid and enforceable? Were all the requirements of an implied-in-fact contract met?Holding: Yes Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the lower courts summary judgment in favor of Porter.

Fox knew that the additional work that Porter did would be followed up with an additional charge. Fox should have known that there would have been additional costs for the work outside of the planned procedure. Porter completed the work only after Fox’s manager requested it and it was implied to be additional from the start. The additional work not planned in the subcontract was valued at $161,309. 08 as well as the $135,441. 62 contacted value.The issue of the sections being mistakenly not represented in the contract is voided because Fox did not inform Porter about what all needed to be included.

Decision and Remedy: Gary Porter Construction won against Fox Construction, Inc. Fox was ordered to pay Porter the balance of $161,309. 08 for the work done but was excluded in the original contract. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. supp. 2d 602 (2005).

Facts: In 1987 Jamil Blackmon met a promising high school basketball star, Allen Iverson. Blackmon supported Allen Iverson financially and provided other forms of support for his family as well, realizing his athletic potential.In 1994 Jamil Blackmon proposed a new nickname for the basketball star “The Answer”. The nickname would represent Mr. Iverson with clothing, sports apparel, and basketball shoes. Mr. Blackmon presented the idea to Allen and Allen agreed to give Blackmon 25 percent of profits from the nickname.

Iverson was later drafted by the Philadelphia 76ers. After many months, Iverson entered a contract with Reebok, a shoe company, to manufacture, market, and sell a line of sportswear using the same nickname, “The Answer”. Blackmon moved to Philadelphia at the request of Mr. Iverson and has requested 25 percent of the profits on many occasions.Allen Iverson continues to receive pay from Reebok from the continuing product line. Procedure: Mr. Blackmon filed a suit in Federal District Court against Mr.

Iverson for breach of an express contract to which Allen Iverson filed a motion to dismiss. Issue: Is past consideration sufficient to create a binding contract? Is continuous gracious conduct in exchange for a promise a valid consideration? Holding: No Reasoning: The court’s reasoning was fully based on past consideration. Mr. Iverson allegedly promised 25 percent of his profits because of three forms of consideration.First, Blackmon provided him with the nickname “The Answer”. Second, he helped Allen Iverson’s family, and third, he moved to Philadelphia when Iverson was drafted there. Mr.

Iverson offered to pay Mr. Blackmon 25 percent long before entering a contract with Reebok. These forms of past consideration make the contract invalid. There were no valid forms of consideration to make a valid express contract between the two men. Decision and Remedy: Allen Iverson won the case. The United States District Court, eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted Allen Iverson’s motion to dismiss.Vokes v.

Arthur Murray, Inc. , 212 So. 2d 906 (Ct. App. Fl. 1986). Facts: Audrey E.

Vokes, a widow with no family, had a passion for dancing and wanted to become a successful dancer and find a new interest in life. In 1961 Arthur Murray, Inc. , a franchise that has taught about 20 million people to dance, invited Audrey to a dance party. When she attended her instructors told her about her potential as a successful dancer due to her excellent grace and poise. After being told about her “good” potential, she bought eight half-hour dances for $14. 50 each to be used in one month.Throughout the next sixteen months she continued to buy these lessons totaling $31,090.

45. Ms. Vokes eventually began to realize that her instructors were only telling her what she wanted to hear and she was not actually good at dancing. Procedure: Vokes filed a suit against Arthur Murray, Inc. for fraudulent misrepresentation. After being dismissed in trial court, Vokes appealed her complaint to the District Court of Florida. Issue: If a party possesses expertise, can a statement of opinion be regarded as a statement of fact and be actionable? Holding: Yes.

Reasoning: Misrepresentation cannot regard opinions; they must contain facts. If one party has a statement that could be considered an opinion, it could result being a factual statement based on the amount of superior knowledge contained by that party. Using the “reasonable person” method, Vokes would potentially have reason to believe that Arthur Murray Inc. has superior knowledge of her dance potential. When her instructors Revels v. Miss America Organization, __N. C.

__, 641 S. E. 2d 721 (2007). Facts: Miss North Carolina Pageant Organization, Inc. (MNCPO) is a franchise of Miss America Organization (MAO).Under contract between these two parties, MNCPO holds a state competition to select a finalist for the national competition ran by MAO. On June 22, 2002, Rebekah Revels was selected to be Mrs.

North Carolina. On July19, 2002 an anonymous e-mail said came out stating that Mrs. Revels cohabitated with a male non-relative and that nude photos of her existed. Mrs. Revels came out and confirmed that the photos existed. MAO and MNCPO approached Revels and asked her to resign from her position as Miss North Carolina or else she would be excluded from the national competition.On July 23, 2002 Mrs.

Revels ended up resigning from her Miss North Carolina position. Procedure: Revels resulted in filing a suit in the North Carolina state court against MAO, MNCPO, and other organizations for breach of contract. The court issued a summary judgment in MAO’s favor to which Revels appealed to a state intermediate appellate court. Issue: Must a contract be executed for the direct, and not incidental, benefit of the third party in order to assert rights as a third party beneficiary? Holding: Yes.Reasoning: A person isn’t the direct beneficiary of a contract if the contract benefits that person but wasn’t intended to benefit that person. A person is the direct beneficiary of a contract only if the contracting parties intend to confer a legally enforceable benefit directly to that person. Revels was unable to prove that MAO’s contract was intended to have her be the sole beneficiary because anyone who wins can be the beneficiary under the franchise agreement.

The agreement did state that the MAO will accept the MNCPO winner but this does not show that Mrs.Revels was the intended beneficiary of this agreement. Rebekah Revels was an incidental beneficiary of the agreement because she won the pageant and does not have enforceable rights against Miss America Organization based on their agreement with MISS north Carolina Pageant Organization Inc. Decision and Remedy: Based on the agreement between the two organizations, Revels was an incidental beneficiary and therefore couldn’t maintain any actions against them. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision in favor of MAO.

Introduction

‘In British constitutional theory and practice there is a clear-cut distinction between law and convention. Law derives from common law and statute, and is enforceable by the courts. Convention derives from constitutional principle and practice and is not enforceable by the courts. Law remains in force until changed by statute. Convention may change with changing times. Law, at least if statutory, is ascertainable in precise form. Convention is often imprecise and may be nowhere formulated in categorical terms.’ (Professor H.W.R. Wade)

Is this an accurate explanation of the distinctive nature of law and convention in relation to the British constitution?

Professor H.W.R Wade produced a statement highlighting a clear-cut distinction between the nature of law and convention in relation to the British Constitution. Throughout this essay I shall critically asses the validity and accuracy of his explanation by taking an in depth look at key concepts, doctrines and comments to evaluate whether a distinction exists between the nature of law and convention.

Whilst Britain does not have a single codified document called ‘The Constitution’, it would be deceptive to assert that the constitution is unwritten. Indeed, Britain’s constitution has been cultivated from multiple key constitutional sources which make it possible to approach a description of the constitution. These sources can be found in the decisions of the courts in the form of dictum or in the interpretation of statute. With Britain being a member state of the European Union part of the constitution can emanate from EU Law, the Royal Prerogative, and a distinct part is found in historical arrangements and practices known as conventions.
I shall be focusing primarily on the nature of law and conventions, in relation to the British constitution in order to assess whether a distinctions is visible between the two constitutional sources.

Professor Wade asserts that “Law derives from common law and statute, and is enforceable by the courts. Convention derives from constitutional principle and practice is not enforceable by the courts”. Accordingly, it would be just to establish that from a precise detailed point of view, this statement can be seen to be contentious. This is primarily because Professor Wade highlights that the “Law derives from common law and statute” however what he seizes to base emphasis on is the mere fact that conventions set a key agenda in the crafting of statute and common law reasoning; in the words of Sir Ivor Jennings “conventions provide the flesh which clothes the dry bones of the law”[1] Thus, evidently the legal hierarchy of the British constitution is everywhere penetrated, transformed and inherently effected by an inevitable element of convention, and a failure to adhere to an important convention might lead Parliament to cast a disputed practice into legislative form. An example of this is The Parliament Act 1911, which was enforced after the House of Lords exceeded conventional limits on its power, rejecting, in 1909, a finance bill (Lloyd George’s ‘People’s Budget’). This consequently undermines, to some extent, the clear-cut distinction Professor Wade respectively explains, in that, if conventions are so interconnected in the cultivation of the natural form of law as mentioned above then a distinction cannot be clear-cut or even made, and this connection will always bind the natural law and conventions.

Evidently the natural form of law is enforceable by the courts. Professor Wade makes a distinction here between the nature of law and convention by stating that “Law is enforceable by the courts….Convention is not enforceable by the courts” The issue here arises with regards to the validity of this statement. Are conventions indeed distinctly dissimilar to the nature of law in that they are not enforceable by the courtsIndeed, conventions are rules and are part of the constitutional order, interrelated and interwoven to some extent, however relatively distinguishable from the natural form of law as Professor Wade asserts. The key distinction is in the nature of the enforcement and of the sanction. As mentioned above the natural form of law is inherently enforced in the courts; however it could be debated as to whether conventions are fully applied in courts (discussed further below), conventions are most certainly non-legal but nonetheless binding rules of constitutional behaviour. A good example of this is the convention of ministerial responsibility. It is a convention which holds ministers wholly and individually responsible to Parliament. If a minister knowingly misleads parliament for example he or she will be expected to resign from office. If no resignation is forthcoming the minister would be acting unconstitutionally and NOT illegally. A court of law could not compel a resignation in this situation.

Nonetheless, in the case of R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Hosenball[2] the court had relaxed the rules of natural justice “for the protection of the realm” in a case were the Secretary of State had considered information that Mr.Hosenball, while resident in the United Kingdom, had sought and obtained for publication information harmful to the security of the United Kingdom. This case proves that the courts were willing to shape up the natural form of the law and enforce a convention for public interest in order to ensure the security of the ‘realm’. A key point to address in this case was that the Secretary of State had not arguably acted fairly in that Mr.Hosenball was denied a fair trial. In today’s court this would infringe article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Therefore, it would be fair to establish that in today’s courts the judiciary would have taken a different approach to tackling the aforementioned case. So is Professor Wade accurate in explaining that a distinction between the nature of law and convention exists on the basis that law is enforceable by the courts and convention is notCertainly the above case contradicts to this to some extent; however a reluctance of the modern courts to enforce conventions has crafted this distinction, making Professor Wade’s distinction relatively accurate on this basis. However as highlighted by the convention of ministerial responsibility a distinction can be formed between a convention and the natural form of law on the basis that acting unconstitutionally differs from acting illegally as highlighted above.

Professor Wade explains that a distinction exists between the nature of law and convention on the basis that “Law remains in force until changed by statute, and convention may change with changing times”. Accordingly Professor Wade is to some extent right in this distinction, in that we have seen numerous acts of parliament being superseded and changed by more modern statutes. Furthermore, it would be fair to establish that courts accept the validity of the acts of Parliament and have validated the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty, and although the courts do not directly challenge legislation passed down by Parliament, a strong part of the constitution comprises of common law and not solely statute law, particularly in certain cases involving private law including tort and contract law. Thus to some extent it could be inaccurate and problematic to assert that “law remains in force until changed by statute”.

Furthermore, Professor Wade, establishes that “conventions may change with changing times”. He is indeed relatively accurate in making this statement, as proven by the ‘Widdicombe Convention’ which was formally recorded to resolve any conventional ambiguities with regards to the media and publicity campaigns. This convention was effectively the result of the growing media and the influence it had on society. This convention inherently proves the accuracy of Professor Wade’s explanation that ‘conventions may change with times’. However the legitimacy of this distinction is inaccurate in a sense on the grounds that even the law may change with time, after all, this is why we have a parliament and a superior court system. With changes in society comes change in the law, this is the basic foundation of any competent legal system. Alas, this asserts that Professor Wade’s distinction is relatively inaccurate as both the natural form of law and conventions change with time in order to sufficiently meet the ever changing needs of our society.

Another distinction Professor Wade explains in his statement is that the “law, at least if statutory, is ascertainable in precise form, convention is often imprecise and may be nowhere formulated in categorical forms” To some extent it can be rather contentious to assert that statutory law is precise in its form. This is merely because a broad term may be used in a statute which can give rise to confusion and uncertainty, developments in society can make the words used in a statute out of date and they may no longer cover the current situation. An example of this is in Section 53, Coroners and Justice Act 2009 c. 25[3]. However the important distinction made here is the statement asserting that “conventions are often imprecise and may be nowhere formulated in categorical form”. A good authority which validly contradicts to this inaccurate distinction is the convention of ministerial responsibility which is included in the Ministerial Code, which is issued upon appointment to all ministers by the Prime Minister. The convention clearly sets out the conventions and codes of practice as a minister.

Thus, in conclusion after critically assessing Professor Wade’s explanation of the distinctive nature of law and convention in relation to the British constitution I have established that some of the distinctions he explains are more accurate than others. Initially the Parliament Act 1911 proved that failure to adhere to an important convention might lead Parliament to cast a disputed practice into legislative form which undermined Professor Wade’s explanation, and proves that convention can indeed constitute into law. Furthermore the case of R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex p. Hosenball[4] proved that a convention could to some extent be enforceable in order to ensure the protection of the ‘realm’. I also established that Professor Wade was accurate in asserting that a “convention may change in time” as proven by the Widdicombe Convention, however his distinction could be seen as inaccurate as even the natural form of law can be changed in time to suit the needs of society. The convention of ministerial responsibility’s clarity contradicts Professor Wade’s distinction which stated that “that convention is imprecise in comparison to the precise form of law”. Therefore the aforementioned examples highlight that Professor Wade’s respective explanation although rightful in some aspects; the distinctions made can seem too broad and relatively inaccurate in some arspects in defining a convention and comparing it to the natural form of law.

Bibliography
Ward, R. (1997) Cases on Constitutional & Administrative Law 4th edition, Pitman Publishing
Horsey, K. (2009) Tort Law, Oxford University Press
Leyland, P. (2007) The Constitution of the United Kingdom, Hart Publishing
Turpin, C. (2007) British Government and the Constitution 6th edition, Cambridge University Press