I only have immediate knowledge of UK law, but lawyers will generally have a duty to the court to act with independence in the interests of justice. This tends to mean that in situations where one side are self-represented or using the services of ChatGPT, etc. the opposing side is under a duty not to take unfair advantage of the fact that one side is not legally trained.
They don't have to help them, but they can't act abusively by, for example, exploiting lack of procedural knowledge.
If they deliberately took advantage of one side using ChatGPT and getting it wrong because the legal foundation of knowledge isn't there for that person, that could be a breach of their duty to the court and result in professional censure or other regulatory consequences.
It’s layering, a money laundering term. You “clean” the money by hiding its origins and then returning it from a legitimate source.
In my example, Uncle Jimmy ain’t doing this as a favour for his nephew. Uncle Jimmy’s nephew appears to have a legitimate job so his salary is clean money, which he then gives to Uncle Jimmy. Uncle Jimmy can’t hire him directly because the money trail would be much more obvious. By making a donation from company A to the open source group (and probably through multiple other misdirections) the money trail is almost impossible to follow.
It is possible to get a freezing order through the courts to freeze assets like land, property, bank accounts, etc.
It operates similarly to the European Account Preservation Order, and under the right circumstances it is possible to apply for a freezing order on a _without notice_ basis meaning that the employer would not be aware of the order until it is issued.
Yes, King Charles III will pay the same taxes as Queen Elizabeth II did - he agreed to it during the Accession Council meeting. Only the Monarch and income from the Duchy of Cornwall (paid to the Prince of Wales) are exempt from income, capital gains, and inheritance tax.
Every other member of the Royal Family are liable to tax, the same as us. They can offset the cost of their official duties against their taxes though.
> Indeed, given they swear an oath to the monarch, they're probably not even able to bring about that vote.
The oath itself wouldn't stop the British Parliament passing an Act of Parliament to abolish the Crown and replace it with some other system. In theory, the monarch could refuse to give their assent to the proposed law but given that would cause a constitutional crisis, in reality the chances are the monarch would assent and the system could be changed.
It seems it would take a republican government in power _or_ huge public demand that the monarchy to be abolished for that to happen which seems unlikely any time soon assuming King Charles III and his successors don't err massively.
Don't know what your background is/what you're looking for - but your story both resonated with me and pissed me off at how you were treated. Happy to refer you to my current company/help you get a much better paying job if you're interested, just email hn@matthewheath.dev.
In England, the losing side usually pays at least a large portion (if not all) of the costs of the winning side. 100% cost awards are rare, but generally the costs burden is placed on whoever loses.
This seems to reduce frivolous lawsuits (depending on who is suing/being sued) but you can ask for a cost capping order to limit the amount you have to pay out if you lose, which partially helps address the issue of "they're too big/expensive to sue".
An important detail: it shouldn't be (and as far as I know isn't) the loser who pays but the party who behaved unreasonably. For example, if you damage someone's property, offer to pay £100, but they refuse your offer and instead sue you and win .... £100, then you won't be paying their legal costs. In fact, they may have to pay your costs because they were being unreasonable in bringing the case to court after you had made a reasonable offer out of court.
Unreasonableness will have an impact as to whether costs are awarded and/or how much will be awarded but the general principle is still that the losing side pays. Obviously, that will vary depending on the circumstances of the case but most cases don't encounter costs objections on reasonableness grounds.
I trhink it's more complicated than that (IANAL). Isn't it most common to make such a settlement offer "without prejudice"? Then the fact that offer was made can't be brought up in court, so it can't affect the costs ruling.
I’m not sure about England, but in the US how it works is:
The party making the offer can make a part 36 offer (or state equivalent if it exists), which grants automatic presumptions of cost sharing if rejected and the case ends with a more favorable (to the offering party) settlement or reward.
They can do a less formal without prejudice save as to costs offer, which is one the courts can use to decide cost charging, but does not get automatic presumptions of how the sharing should work.
Lastly they can make just plain without prejudice settlement offers. Which won’t factor into costs at all.
Which type of offer to make depends on who (claimant or defendant) is making the offer, and how certain they are about the amount that will be awarded at trial.
For example if a defendant is making an offer that they are absolutely convinced is more than will be awarded at trial (with the idea being that it would cost less than doing the trial without any offer, and having the normal each party pays own costs rule apply), it makes sense to make it a part 36 offer.
However when making a lowball offer, or a reasonable one but that could well be less than what gets awarded at trial, a without prejudice offer is probably better.
On the claimants side, when making a offer that they are convinced is below what they will actually win it may make sense to make it a Part 36 offer. If making an offer closer to or above what they will probably actually win, a without prejudice offer could be more sensible.
A term often used is actually "Without prejudice, save as to costs".
The meaning they're going for is "by making this offer I'm not admitting guilt, but when we come to awarding costs the fact that I tried to end this without going to court should count in my favour".
> Would it be illegal to make a law whose punishment was an oubliette?
No, it would not be illegal to make a law whose punishment was an oubliette. The British Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and can make any law it wishes.
The devolved legislatures are limited by the Act(s) establishing them. Such a law passed by the Scottish Parliament would probably be challenged under S29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 which prohibits breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In this case, such a law in Scotland could potentially breach Article 3 of the Convention which prohibits inhuman or degrading punishment. The British Parliament can simply choose to ignore it, but the Scottish Parliament can't (unless the British Parliament chose to give it such powers).
> Can the queen be detained at her own pleasure, at least for anything other than the detonation of a nuclear device in her personal capacity?
No, she cannot be prosecuted for anything while she is the monarch. She would need to abdicate or otherwise be legally removed (e.g. an Act of Parliament abolishing the Crown) from her position.
Even if she were able to be prosecuted, the Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 is not currently in force, and even if the Act were in force, Her Majesty would be exempt under S14(4):
"Nothing in this section affects Her Majesty in her private capacity; and this subsection shall be construed as if section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (meaning of Her Majesty in her private capacity) were contained in this Act."
> No, it would not be illegal to make a law whose punishment was an oubliette. The British Parliament is sovereign and supreme, and can make any law it wishes.
Sure, but this is the same argument that comes around whenever previously signed treaties become 'inconvenient'.
Parliament can, of course, choose to ignore EHCR/Geneva/pick-any-other-ratified-treaty. But there are both predictable and unpredictable consequences for doing so, so in practice it's prudent for parliament to not just wield their unlimited power to just start murdering whoever they fancy.
I think prudence really depends on the whim of the executive, since generally the executive is Parliament given the majority it normally possesses. A number of British governments have historically shown little regard for the unpredictable consequences of violating international law.
For example, Iraq, the Chagos Islands, the Brexit trade deal concerning customs checks in Northern Ireland, etc.
I suppose it's all really just one big political matter: do they want to chance it? Probably not, but they could, legally. We just haven't had the government who's willing to do that yet, but given the current government's willingness to flout international law, prudence seems like it might have vanished some time ago...
> In this case, such a law in Scotland could potentially breach Article 3 of the Convention which prohibits inhuman or degrading punishment. The British Parliament can simply choose to ignore it, but the Scottish Parliament can't (unless the British Parliament chose to give it such powers).
Well, if Westminster choose to ignore the convention, I don't see why Holyrood would not choose to ignore Westminster?
This whole politics thing only works if we DON'T ignore stuff we all signed.
Holyrood derives its power from Westminster and Westminster can remove it. The UK Parliament is still supreme, but it refrains from making laws in areas that are devolved to local Parliaments (the Sewell convention). It could overturn the Scotland Act that created the Scottish Parliament. In theory, Scotland could ignore Parliament, but that would be akin to unilaterally declaring independence, which is unlikely to go well.
I think this is the point. All of these arrangements are ultimately by consent. Holyrood agrees to recognise Westminster's power, just as the UK agrees to recognise the ECHR.
This idea of 'power' is a complicated one. What 'power' does England have over Scotland other than the power that Scotland has agreed to accept (see Northern Ireland for what happens when one of the devolved nations is conflicted over whether to accept that power)? What 'power' does the ECHR have over any of its signatories other than that which they've chosen to accept?
There's a well-written and detailed exploration of the negative consequences of withdrawing from the ECHR here, and what is power except the ability to impose negative consequences for not following instructions?
> what is power except the ability to impose negative consequences for not following instructions?
Yes, I think power is exactly this.
> What 'power' does England have over Scotland other than the power that Scotland has agreed to accept
A monopoly on violence to enforce its territorial integrity as the United Kingdom. Withdrawing from international treaties is generally accepted to be within a state's general powers. Seceding from an existing state? Generally recognised by the current international order as unlawful and solely a matter for the state to resolve internally.
Would there be international condemnation if Scotland seceded and England tried to take it back by force? Yes, but doing so would embolden existing secessionist movements in, e.g. Spain or the United States, so those states (plus the ones who promote non-interference in domestic affairs) aren't going to intervene in any meaningful sense.
I think power must go beyond consent and incorporate the expectations and realities of the nature of sovereign state power on the international stage. The UK has the right to insure its territorial integrity, while the principle of self-determination is limited within that framework.
On point 2, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, the court of the Council of Europe) blocked such deportations, etc. under the European Convention on Human Rights -- nothing to do with the EU.
The ECtHR is tasked with upholding fundamental freedoms like the Convention, the UN Charter of Rights, etc. and is completely separate from the EU.
"In May 2016, shortly before the EU referendum in the UK, the EU advocate general stated that the court was considering whether the European Court of Justice should adopt powers to rule on all cases of extradition of terrorists, a move described by analysts as ‘European Union power grab’ and rejected by most member States (Slack, 2016). The plan played into the hands of Brexit campaigners who used it to campaign against UK remaining in the EU with the former shadow home secretary David Davis (Now BREXIT minister) stating ‘The argument that Europe is somehow improving our security is falling apart in the Government’s hands’ (Slack, 2016). Thus, exit of the UK from the EU will make it easier for the country to deport foreign nationals, both EU and non-EU citizens, that could be of potential threats to the country."
They don't have to help them, but they can't act abusively by, for example, exploiting lack of procedural knowledge.
If they deliberately took advantage of one side using ChatGPT and getting it wrong because the legal foundation of knowledge isn't there for that person, that could be a breach of their duty to the court and result in professional censure or other regulatory consequences.