Whose prerogative is it anyway? Britain’s referendum to withdraw from EU draws constitutional legal challenges*

1. Introduction

On June 23, 2016 the British people voted to exit the European Union, or simply “Brexit”. The
United Kingdom’s EU Referendum, in which a record 72.2% of the electorate voted, resulted in 48.1% choosing to “remain” and a surprising 51.9% opting to “leave”.

Immediately after the plebiscite’s unexpected outcome, a snowball reaction began that caused turmoil in Britain’s political leadership , a weakened pound-sterling, havoc within financial markets , and challenges to the royal prerogative power . Following the vote, solicitors at Michcon de Reya, acting on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, sought assurances the government would not act without parliament.

2. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU

In October 2016, the High Court of Justice’s three most senior judges – Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sale – heard oral arguments in London addressing whether the Crown, acting through the government, is entitled to use royal prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)?  The issue central to this debate is whether the Prime Minister is entitled to use powers of the royal prerogative to commence the two year exiting process, without a vote in Parliament.

This case is the biggest British Constitutional question of the century and pits the royal prerogative powers of the executive branch against the sovereign powers of parliament. The government lost in the high court and is currently appealing to the UK Supreme Court.  Prime Minister Theresa May, through a spokesperson, said, “[T]he government’s planned timetable for triggering Article 50 is unchanged after the court ruling.”

a. Royal Prerogative

The royal prerogative powers were historically exercised by Britain’s monarch acting on his or her own initiative. Today, by constitutional convention, the monarch exercises the prerogative on the advice of the prime minister and the cabinet. It is under the royal prerogative that money is minted, assets allocated for war, pardons granted, and foreign affairs conducted.

b. Parliamentary Sovereignty

In the British Constitutional system, the doctrine of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’  implies the Parliament of Westminster is the supreme legal authority for the entire United Kingdom. Contrast this principle with the United States’ system of government, where a codified constitution is the highest law and the Supreme Court has the power to judicially review acts of Congress and the executive. In the UK, courts cannot generally overrule legislation and no parliament can pass laws binding a future parliament.

2. EU Referendum Act

The legal authority for the EU Referendum came from legislation passed by Parliament in December 2015.  The act said nothing whatsoever about the effect of the vote’s outcome, and the referendum was persuasive and not binding on the government. In practice, the UK government will, most likely, have to respect the vote’s results.


3. Article 50 TEU: Withdrawing from EU

Under Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union (TEU), the framework is laid for withdrawing from the EU. A two-part process is required for invoking Article 50. First, a Member State must “decide” to withdraw, and second, that member state “shall notify” the European Council of their desire to withdraw.

A “decision,” for the purposes of Article 50(1) TEU, must be in accordance with the given member state’s own constitutional requirements. This means a “decision” is made by either the exercise of the prerogative powers (i.e. Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown) or through a piece of primary legislation (i.e. Parliament acting in its role as sovereign).

4. Looking forward

The British government announced they planned to “notify” the EU Council of the withdrawal decision by the end of March 2017. The Queen’s 2017 Speech to Parliament will be used to introduce the Great Repeal Bill, which will nullify the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute books. The anticipated date for Brexit to be official would be the end of March 2019, which would be in time for the 2020 General Election.

The government’s timetable could be complicated by the Supreme Court upholding the High Court’s decision, Scotland pressing for a second Independence Referendum, or the Prime Minister asking the Queen to dissolve parliament, triggering a shotgun election.

Even if the Supreme Court upholds the claimant’s position that parliament, as supreme constitutional law, must vote to “decide” to withdraw, more likely than not, Members of Parliament will uphold the people’s determination to leave the EU.

___________________________________
*ABA Year-in-Review 2016, Section on International Law, Europe Committee (summer 2017)

Brexit, International law & the UK Constitution

On June 23, 2016, the “shot heard round the world” was the British people voting to exit the European Union (EU), or simply “Brexit”. The United Kingdom’s (UK) EU Referendum, in which a record 72.2% of the electorate voted, resulted in 48.1% choosing to “remain” and a surprising 51.9% opting to “leave”. Immediately after the referendum’s unexpected outcome, a snowball reaction began that affected the UK’s political landscape and international financial markets.

The political casualties and financial impacts of the Brexit vote have been monumental and historic to say the least. As financial markets opened on Friday, June 24, 2016, the Pound Sterling had its worst trading day since the 1967 devaluation, losing 8% by 18:00 BST. The FTSE 250 index took a 7.2% hit, the worst since the October 1987 crash. The Stoxx Europe 600 index fell by 7%, the steepest one day drop since the Financial Crisis of 2008. British banks also took major hits, as Barclays PLC lost 30% at one point on the 24th and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group closed the trading day down 18%.

The UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, who campaigned to remain in the EU, became the first casualty of the EU Referendum when he announced he would stand-down at the Conservative Party’s meeting in October 2016. The presumptive replacement, the former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, a Member of Parliament (MP), became the second casualty when fellow Brexit leader, William Gove MP, withdrew his support of Mr. Johnson before launching his own campaign to become the Party’s leader and Mr. Cameron’s replacement. Two weeks after the Brexit vote, a runoff leadership ballot was cast on July 8, 2016, in which Mr. Gove was eliminated. Andrea Leadsom MP, a finalist, pulled-out of the Conservative Party leadership battle on July 11, 2016, leaving a clear path for Home Secretary Theresa May to become Britain’s Prime Minister two-days later.

Amongst the political and financial roller-coaster that ensued, the legal aspects of withdrawing the UK’s membership from the EU are an unchartered and complicated legal web. For starters, the EU Referendum was only advisory to Parliament and not binding on the Government. The UK Constitutional and Public International law legal battles, which are currently underway, are of great interest to lawyers and scholars since they have never been applied in practice.

Under the foundational pillar of the British Constitutional system, the doctrine of “parliamentary sovereignty” implies that the Parliament of Westminster is the supreme legal authority of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Contrast this principle with the United States’ system of government, where a codified constitution is the highest law and the Supreme Court has the power to judicially review acts of Congress and the executive. In the UK, courts cannot generally overrule legislation and no parliament can pass laws binding a future parliament.

Some refer to the British Constitution as “unwritten,” though this is not entirely accurate. Parliament has passed laws which, politically speaking, limit the scope of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws include: the European Community Act 1972, the Acts creating the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 that established the UK Supreme Court (on October 1, 2009), separate from the House of Lords, to serve as the nation’s highest appellate court. Other acts have received higher standing in the British constitutional hierarchy too. Fundamentally, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty remains in place as, at least theoretically, a future parliament could repeal any of these acts.

Perhaps the most significant British constitutional development has been the UK’s participation as a Member State of the European Community (now European Union) since January 1, 1973. The effect of joining the EU was that the UK had its “Constitution” subjected, for the first time, to the exercise of powers by and processes of an entirely non-domestic set of institutions.

EU law, the body of law developed by the EU and its institutions, is superior to laws of the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until the UK officially withdraws. When the UK joined the European Community, some scholars and pundits claimed that the UK Parliament had given away aspects of its own sovereignty in exchange for access to the Common Market – a constitutional question that has remained contentious ever since is whether the United Kingdom can withdraw from the EU.

The legal authority for the referendum came from legislation passed by Parliament in December 2015.

University of Cambridge Law Professor Mark Elliott commented that:

“The legislation that provided for a referendum to be held said nothing whatsoever about the effect of the outcome of the referendum, and the result does not place the Government under any legal obligation to secure Brexit.”

While the Government is not legally obligated to trigger an exit from the EU, the political reality is that the electorate is expecting the Cabinet to respect the will of the populace and perform according to the outcome of the referendum.

Prior to the vote, Dr. Alan Renwick of University College London’s (UCL) Constitutional Unit wrote:

“In purely legal terms, a referendum vote to leave places no obligation on the Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 [TEU]. Indeed, it places no obligation on him to do anything: the referendum is, formally, advisory only. In practice, of course, he will have to respect the result.  But does that mean invoking Article 50?”

The legal point that is currently being debated is whether the Prime Minister has the prerogative to act on the vote’s result without Parliament taking any prior action. University of Glasgow’s Regius Professor of Law, James Chalmers, has expressed the view that this was a matter of dispute:

“There may be litigation seeking a declaration that an Act of Parliament is required. My expectation is that there will be an Act of Parliament, because there is no clear gain in proceeding without one.”

Further, British diplomat David Riley, during a June 29, 2016 Brookings Institution event stated that:

“While the legislation is not binding on the Government, nor does the legislation say Parliament has a role in the making of Article 50 [TEU]. It is for the Prime Minister to decide when to invoke Article 50 and the extent to which he or she wishes to involve Parliament.”

On June 29, 2016, an Informal meeting of the 27 heads of state or government (UK excluded) of the EU Member States indicated the European Council is expecting Article 50 TEU (Treaty of Lisbon) to be the legal basis for withdrawal and that official notice to withdraw must come from the UK Government. Since the Prime Minister is the head of the UK Government, it will be for Mr. Cameron’s replacement to send an Article 50 notice to the EC in Brussels.

Under the Treaty of Lisbon 2007 (which consolidated and amended the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)), which came into force December 2009, there are two possible routes for a Member State to leave the EU. The logical route is to proceed under Article 50 TEU, as it is the treaty provision which governs what happens when a Member State decides to withdraw from the Union; the alternative, unlikely method is under Article 48 TEU, which governs the process for amending of the treaties of the EU.

Article 48 TEU, governs the rules for its revision and amendment. Implementing Brexit via Article 48 TEU would be to revise the Union’s membership list to exclude the United Kingdom as a Member State from the EU treaties. In theory, this option sounds easy, but would be challenging from both a procedural and political aspect, as two layers of veto powers are involved. Under Article 48 TEU, there must first be unanimous agreement among all Member States to trigger it. Thus, each Member State would have a veto power. The second layer of veto power occurs when each national government must ratify, according to the Member State’s method for amending its own national constitution, the revisions to the TEU.

Under Article 50 TEU, once an EU Member State has decided to withdraw from the EU, the Member State “shall notify,” in other words, legally communicate that intent to the European Council, thus triggering a two-year negotiations period. The negotiation period exists to ensure the conclusion of a withdrawal agreement concerning trade provisions, EU treaty arrangements, etc. The EU Council is granted the authority to conclude such withdrawal agreement on behalf of the Union by a qualified majority of Member States (after obtaining consent from the EU Parliament). The UK exit date would be either the date of the withdrawal agreement or two years from the date of, “notification of decision”.

If after two years no agreement is reached, the UK, under Article 50(3) TEU, would simply cease to be an EU Member State without any transitional provisions or trade deals. A negotiated withdrawal is adventitious for achieving transitional and post-exit trade, tax, and citizenship arrangements. The prospect of negotiating an agreement is one of the UK’s, the EU’s, and individual Member States’ strongest bargaining chips in the Article 50 process. However, an automatic withdrawal, two years after commencement of Article 50, does not necessarily mean non-use of the power to negotiate a withdrawal agreement is a horrible outcome. The UK and EU would be free to make treaties post-withdrawal in the same way that the EU can make treaties with other non-Member States.

A “decision,” for the purposes of Article 50(1) TEU, must be in accordance with the given Member State’s own constitutional requirements. This means a “decision” is made either by the exercise of the prerogative powers (i.e. Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown) or through a piece of primary legislation (i.e. Parliament acting in its sovereign role). The EU Referendum vote was merely advisory, and to comply with the “constitutional” element in Article 50, either the prerogative power or the parliamentary powers, depending on the point of view, must be used to formally “notify” the European Council in order to trigger Article 50(3) TEU’s two year clock.

Assuming a “decision,” for Article 50 TEU purposes is to be made by Parliament, a few scenarios might playout:  

(a) Scottish National Party (SNP), Labour, and a few Conservatives could lead a revolt and refuse to take action; or

(b) The same could vote down any measure upholding the results of the EU Referendum.

In Addition, Parliament might also pass a bill which would restrict the exercise of the prerogative power by the Prime Minister, thus preventing him or her from acting on the results of the EU Referendum. If the next Prime Minister, who will take office in October 2016, decides that both the ‘decision to withdraw’ and ‘notice to the European Council of the decision’ are prerogative powers, then there may occur a scenario in which ‘statute beats prerogative’.

Alternatively, UK Constitutional Law Association fellows Nick Barber, Tom Hickman, and Jeff King argue any prerogative power that would otherwise be available to the Government in order to make an Article 50 TEU withdrawal decision is displaced by the European Communities Act of 1972. The argument is based on the holding in the Fire Brigades Union case, in which Lord Browne-Wilkinson said, “‘It would be most surprising if prerogative powers could be validly exercised by the Executive so as to frustrate the will of Parliament expressed in the statute.” The difficulty of challenging the prerogative in this way is that the EC Act of 1972 does not confer any particular rights on anyone. The Act does, however, show Parliament’s will to give effect to the UK’s obligations under EU treaty law within the country. Since foreign relations are usually perceived as a part of the prerogative powers, triggering Article 50 TEU may be both the exercise of a common prerogative authority through the usage of a treaty provision and going against the implied will of Parliament through nullifying its 1972 Act. This question will further be debated as the Michcon de Reya law firm seeks a definitive answer.

On July 3, 2016, solicitors at Michcon de Reya, acting on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, contacted government lawyers to seek assurances that Article 50 will not be triggered without an act of Parliament. The solicitors at the law firm, who are not advocates, retained the services of renowned constitutional advocates who were bestowed the distinguished title of Queen’s Counsel (QC), The Lord David Pannick QC of Blackstone Chambers and Rhodri Thompson QC of Matrix Chambers, as barristers who have standing to appear in court for Michcon de Reya’s clients. The Lord Pannick QC sits on the Constitution Committee in the UK House of Lords.

After the Brexit vote, the Petitions Committee, which is made up of 11 backbench Members of Parliament, received an e-petition with over  4 million signatures asking the Government for a 2nd EU Referendum. Under a convention of Parliament, any e-petition with over 100,000 signatures will be debated in the House of Commons. This petition is scheduled for debate on September 5, 2016. However, the Government responded by saying:

“The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once in a generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.”

Even though the majority of the British electorate may have voted in favor of exiting from the EU, the UK will continue to remain a Member State until key constitutional questions are resolved in order to begin the withdrawal process. The first order of business is deciding if a decision has been made which meets the UK’s Constitutional process. The New Government has intimated it will honor the outcome of the Referendum and withdraw from the Union using Article 50 TEU. The New Prime Minister, Ms. May, has indicated how the withdrawal process should take place, but this is only one opinion, and more importantly, just the beginning of the process. It is quite clear, that even if the New Government were to not follow the advice of the electorate, the financial and political damage is already irrecoverable. The world has already reacted to Brexit, as though the vote’s outcome were contractually binding. The snowball effect in terms of political shifting and financial and business turbulence will continue for the next several years. The legal issues of how national constitutional law interacts with international treaty law will test unprecedented waters. The legal debate on how to leave, and then, how to unravel a union that has existed since 1973, will be a daunting challenge to say the least.  It is speculated Brexit will prompt changes in formal rules and conventions within the EU and will serve as a case study to other nations contemplating what would happen if they were to follow the UK. The legal path of leaving the EU is a watershed moment in the history of UK Constitutional and Public International law.

---

*Special thank you to Emory University J.D. (Class of 2017) candidate Anton Stewart, BA, LL.B. for assistance in various aspects on this article.

Soper, Matthew. "Brexit, International law &; the UK Constitution." ABA Section of International law; Europe Update Issue 13 (July 2016) (Brexit Special Edition) Web. 2016.

Tyranny of the majority: Is secession a justified response?

From Colorado counties proposing secession to Crimea voting to break-away from Ukraine; and from Venice adopting unofficial independence status to Scotland wanting to dissolve the 307 year-old marriage with England – Who’d have thought we are living in an age of social contract renewal?

Over the past four months – majorities in 5 out of 11 counties voted to become the 51st US State; an

unbelievable 96% of Crimeans voted to join Russia; 89% of Venetians voted to create independent city-state within Italy; and in September Scottish voters will take to the polls to decide whether to become a free and independent country.

Opponents of these secessionist movements have quickly taken to the bully pulpit to point out the unconstitutionality of these votes. What if it’s illegal to vote for smaller regions, such as a county, to secede from lager entities, such as states or nations? Does a law make separatists feelings “go-away”?

Secessionist ideas do not begin at the ballot box or in a parliamentary chamber. The ideas of dissolving the bands that tie one region to another begin with disaccord and minority dissatisfaction – tyranny of the majority. Where one political party dominates and punishes the opposition or one geo-cultural group forces its views onto another.

Under the US Constitution, no mention is made of an acceptable dissolution of the union. The Civil War and the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. White (1869) arguably established the Constitution ordained a perpetual and indissoluble union.

In 1776, when the founders declared independence from the United Kingdom, that act was in violation of the British Constitution’s supremacy of parliament. If there had been any doubt of Parliament’s authority, The Declaratory Act of 1766, which asserted the right of Parliament to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever," would have settled the question.

To consider our founders revolutionaries seems abhorrent. The situation was an impasse, Parliament told the colonists to ‘go pound sand’ and the colonists responded by crafting a legal justification based on social contract theory, tyranny of the majority, and natural law.

Colorado counties which proposed secession; orange is where measure passed. 

As for the Colorado counties wanting to follow the West Virginia Model, that dream ended when the 69^th Colorado General Assembly adjourned on May 7^th.

Under Article 4 §3 of the US Constitution, no new state can be created from within an existing state without the consent of both the state’s general assembly and Congress.

Without the Colorado legislature taking action, our state will remain intact. Remaining united is not to say the dissatisfaction with the Democrats who control the governor’s office and legislature has gone away.

Similar to Colorado, the Crimea and Venice referendums were a protest to majority tyrannizing the minority. Unlike Colorado, Crimea’s vote was unconstitutional. Venice’s ballot was unofficial.

The Ukrainian Constitution specifically states in Article 73: “Alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum.”

Many have argued the Crimea referendum was illegal according to Public International Law.

Firstly, under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), four requires must be satisfied to be considered an independent nation: permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations.

Secondly, a country must be recognised by another country.

Crimea, a peninsula region in the Black Sea. 

The Crimean referendum asked voters whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject or restore the 1992 Crimean Constitution which granted greater authority to the regional parliament. With 83% voter turn-out, 96% voted in-favor of joining Russia. This act was certainly illegal under the Ukrainian Constitution, but as for International law, the jury is still out.

The Venice ballot asked voter whether they wanted to secede from Italy and become and independent city-state. With 65% of the region voting, a whopping 89% or 2.1 million people voted in-favor of breaking away from Rome! The Italian Government had no fear of Venice actually breaking away, as the referendum had been unofficial.

Much like rural Colorado having difficult with Denver listening; Crimea has a Kiev problem; Venice a Rome problem; and Scotland, an English problem.

On September 18^th, Scots will take to the polls to decide their fate. Legally, Scotland has the same problem the American Colonists had with the British Constitution, namely the supremacy of parliament.

The UK Parliament in London has the ability to enact or resend any legislation, including the grant of independence. The Edinburgh Agreement, merely a gentleman’s handshake, is where the UK Parliament has pre-agreed to acquiesce to the outcome of the referendum.

While the votes remain to be cast, one thing is certain, laws banning secession don’t make secessionist ideas go away. Revolution and civil war should be avoided. Elections, whether official or unofficial; lawful or unlawful should be a wake-up call to majority-leaders who are unwilling to respect the ideologies, customs, or traditions of minority constituencies.

Legal implications: Did J.K. Rowling misrepresent her nationality to U.S. Copyright Office?

Dame J.K. Rowling accepts an award from The University of Edinburgh
Chancellor, HRH The Princess Royal

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling misrepresented her nationality and/or domicile status when she registered her book, Harry Potter and the sorceror’s stone (Reg. No. TX0004879549, Sup. TX0005164406), with the U.S. Copyright Office on 1 October 1998. Ms. Rowling indicated that her nationality or domicile status was the United States. The Business Insider (quoting The Times) quotes J.K. Rowling as saying:

 “I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.
 A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. (sic) When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism.”

A simple Google search also gives prima facie evidence that Ms. Rowling has not been granted American citizenship, nor was she domiciled in the United States in 1998. It seems bizarre that Ms. Rowling, a former French-English teacher would commit fraud on her copyright registration form. Any reasons, ranging from intent to negligence, would be merely speculative.

What is the legal effect of an error on a copyright registration? More specifically, how would such an error, whether intentional or not, impact an action for copyright infringement in the U.S. federal courts?

The general rule is found in § 411(a) of the U.S. Copyright Act (1976), which took effect on 1 January 1978:

 “[N]o civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title. In any case, however, where the deposit, application, and fee required for registration have been delivered to the Copyright Office in proper form and registration has been refused, the applicant is entitled to institute a civil action for infringement if notice thereof, with a copy of the complaint, is served on the Register of Copyrights.”

An “immaterial, inadvertent errors in an application for copyright registration do not jeopardize the validity of the registration.” Data General Corporation v. Grumman Systems Support Corporation, 36 F.3d 1147, 1161 (1st Cir.1994); see Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Systems, Inc., No. 1:05 CV 1519, 2008 WL 2404972 (N.D.Ohio June 11, 2008).

U.S. federal courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over actions arising under the federal copyright laws. 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). An action “arises under” copyright laws, “if the complaint is for a remedy expressly granted by the [U.S. Copyright] Act [(1976)], . . . or asserts a claim requiring construction of the Act . . . or, at the very least and perhaps more doubtfully, presents a case where a distinctive policy of the Act requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim.” T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir.1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 915, 85 S.Ct. 1534, 14 L.Ed.2d 435(1965).

JK Rowland's US Copyright registration which indicates

 her citizenship is: USA. (click picture to enlarge)

For example, “[m]istakes such as an incorrect date of creation or failure to list all co-authors easily qualify as immaterial because the Copyright Office's decision to issue a certificate would not be affected by them.” Torres–Negron v. J & N Records, LLC, 504 F.3d 151, 158 (1st Cir.2007) (citing Data Gen. Corp., 36 F.3d at 1163). “[W]here a plaintiff's registration was procured through fraud . . . the registration becomes invalid and the courts lack jurisdiction over the case.” Id. at 162.

This means that registration, involving material errors, fraud, or an incomplete application, nullifies the U.S. federal court's subject matter jurisdiction. 17 U.S.C.A. § 411(a).

Does the fact that Ms. Rowling’s copyright registration contains an error as to her nationality affect her ability to claim remedies expressly granted by the U.S. Copyright Act? The answer is no, as that is an error in the application which did not affect the Copyright Office’s decision to issue a certificate of copyright. A material error would be fraud, in which J.K. Rowling had asserted ownership over a work in which she was not the author, owner, agent, or exclusive licensee. This was certainly not the case with Harry Potter and the sorceror’s stone. Copyright registration is a presumption of ownership. A presumption is subject to rebuttal. The main premise of the formality of registration is the presumption of ownership.

Whilst Ms. Rowling’s nationality and/or domicile is factually inaccurate on the copyright registration, that error does not affect the presumption for which copyright registration is sought.  

Solidarity in the face of adversity

As disaster strikes it becomes easy for public officials to drift towards being overly cautious. Public officials are both overly interested in being perceived to do the right thing as they are in being conscious of actually pursing wise policies.

During World War II, London suffered tremendously at the hands of a merciless Nazi Luftwaffe, blitzing the city with incendiary bombs which light up the night sky as if Guy Fawkes’ plot had been a success. Later in 1941 the English suffered a horrendous defeat during their first offensive onto the European Continent, when Dunkirk resulted in a catastrophic loss of 235 boats sunk in the English Channel and 11,000 British soldiers killed. The miracle of Dunkirk was the successful evacuation of 338,000 British and French troops on private and commercial vessels across the Channel. The term, “Spirit of Dunkirk” describes the solidarity of the British people in times of adversity.

Today, Coloradoans face their generation’s adversity with the greatest wildfire damage in history. Over 170,000 acres of forests have been burnt, claiming the lives of at least 5 civilians and destroying 600-plus homes.

These fires, coupled with a local economy still in recession, staggeringly high unemployment, and the worst drought conditions since 2002 pits hope against despair. As we are living in a time of austerity, the traditional expenditures become justified redundancies in the budget. The unthinkable expenses from the public purse seem to be reasoned line items of our government. The world seems a shady haze of blue.

Our generation has much to learn from history. During the darkest days of the blitz the British people did not cower in their bunkers, cancelling national celebratory events and fading into total despair. Instead, during the height of the Battle of Britain, the British people found a reprieve from the horrors of war to enjoy the bank holidays with public concerts in the park. Public celebratory events, even in the worst of times give the citizenry a belief in a better tomorrow.

It is too bad that the City of Delta, with three days until the celebration of America’s Independence has opted to cancel the traditional firework display at Confluence Park’s lake. It is respectable to show solace towards the victims of this grave and horrible fire season. None the less, a community needs a rallying event to show that there is a brighter tomorrow. Banning fireworks after a fire is like banning guns after a shooting – it doesn’t solve the problem. Our leaders need wisdom and not a “finger in the wind”. Today we need our rallying cry for independence and an identity of who we are as a peoples and not an oppressive government desiring to protect us from all the “what ifs” that exist in our time. 

UK Academic Tour: Edinburgh, Cambridge, Oxford & Stratford-Upon-Avon

Today I just got back from an academic tour of southern England with my friend and LL.B. colleague, Jonathan Price. Prior to leaving for England on Monday, 13 June, I met up with my former Third Grade teacher, Carol (Beck) Martinson, and her husband, Lee Martinson, in Edinburgh. They were on a cruise ship tour of the North Sea countries and one port of call was Rosyth, which is about 30 minutes from the city centre of Edinburgh. It was pretty cool showing them around Edinburgh and catching up over a traditional Scottish pub lunch.

After leaving the Martinsons at Waverly Train Station I walked up the Royal Mile and noticed a plethora of classic Bentleys. One Bentley from the 1920s was displaying a Colorado and Swiss flag and I had to inquire about the owner. The man was half-English and Swiss, but lived in Colorado. His attire and demeanour seem very much reminiscent of someone from the autocracy and I didn’t suppose collecting classic Bentleys and having multiple residences around the world were characteristics of an average middle aged man. He was very kind and allowed me to photograph him with his prize car, which carried a top speed of 120 mph (193 km/h).

I was delighted to receive a text from a friend, Nayha Sethi, whom I studied with during the LL.M. programme that another friend, Myggan Hagenfeldt, was going to be in town. I met with the two of them plus all of the others who were in the LL.M. together and are still hanging about in Edinburgh at the Advocate pub. It was great to also meet Myggan’s fiancé.

At 22h00 I arrived at the bus station to take the night bus down to London, where I would rendezvous with Jonathan. To my surprise, another friend and colleague, Pippa Robertson, from the LL.B. programme was also riding the same bus to London. Even more surprising we were going to be in Oxford on the same day and taking the same bus back to Edinburgh on Thursday (16 June) night. For the majority of the ride we talked about our travels around the world, the LL.B. and post degree plans and dreams. I discovered the two of us could not be more opposite, yet we have always gotten along – perhaps a tribute to a diplomatic personality my characteristics inherited from my grandpa Howard of not knowing a stranger.

From London, Jonathan and I rode the train to Cambridge. Once in Cambridge, we checked into our hostel, which was inexpensive, but not very nice, and headed for the university buildings. Cambridge and Oxford are both colligate institutions, meaning they are a collection of colleges, each with their own student living space, dining halls, libraries, chapels, quadrangles and cloisters. Wealthier colleges would also have sports halls, gardens, deer parks, orchards, docks for punts, and such amenities as lawn for tennis, croquet, and bowling. Each college looks after their own students; however the university’s function is to regulate the curriculum, examinations, lecture and tutorial time tables and facilities. Each college will have students from a variety of backgrounds, each reading varying topics. For example, we met up with a friend of mine, Liz Campbell, who is doing her LL.B. at Cambridge and she explained that only five students in her college are reading law, out of two or three hundred students in total. There are 31 colleges in Cambridge and 42 (9 of which are private) at Oxford.

The colligate structure seems to extract the greatest learning potential out of students, however the inequality of the colleges and the elitist attitude of the entire university mean that there is aura of self confidence and entitlement to being the leaders in their career fields, which is both commendable and irritating if you are not from the Ivy League / OxBridge.

Jonathan and I engaged in the traditional Cambridge activity of punting on the River Cam and drinking Pimms and Lemonade. After punting we joined my friend Liz for the opening night of Cambridge Footlight’s Edinburgh Fringe 2011 comedy show. Footlights is the British comedy club of Cambridge University, founding in 1883 and has amongst its alumni the likes of John Cleese, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, and Douglas Adams to name a few. After the performance we took a drink at the Cambridge Union.

The next day we rode the three hour bus to from Cambridge to Oxford and joined two of Jonathan’s friends for lunch a Oriel College, Oxford, which is the fifth oldest (founded 1326) amongst the colleges of Oxford and was funded by a foundation charter from the monarch, King Edward II. Oriel would be equivalent to King’s College, Cambridge, since it was originally funded by the Crown. Because of this, Oriel’s dining hall features the largest portrait of HM Queen Elizabeth II.

We toured several Oxford colleges, including Christ Church, Trinity, Lincoln, Jesus, Magdalen, Merton, Pembroke, University College. At Jesus College we watch students douse a fellow student who had just completed her final exam. Apparently this is a fairly old Oxford tradition. I did not realize before visiting Oxford, that student wear academic dress to each and every exam and must also carry (but never wear) their mortar board hat. Only upon commencement and award of degree is the student permitted to don the hat. Also at graduation, a academic hood is worn to denote the degree and college. A few years ago Cambridge voted to get rid of the tradition of wearing the academic robs to exams and in response Oxford liberalized the tradition by permitting student to wear cotton, in addition to silk socks, to exams.

During the evening we attended Choral Evensong at Christ Church College Cathedral, which is the seat of the Oxford Archbishop. The music of the choir was Heavenly and it was very nice to be able to partake in such a vivid and living tradition of the university. After Evensong we had a traditional pub dinner at the Eagle and Child pub, which was a famous hang out of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien and their literary friends known as the Inklings. On the way back to our hostel we pasted by Black Friars, which my friend and former flatmate, Kyle Bixenmann, from the U.S. studied. The next day we had breakfast at Oriel College and then caught the train for William Shakespeare’s birthplace, Stratford-Upon-Avon.

Stratford-Upon-Avon is a town which survives solely on William Shakespeare’s legacy and has been a tourist destination for over three hundred years. Some of the first entries in the visitor registry of the birthplace house were Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, both of whom went on to serve as presidents of the American Republic. The home Shakespeare actually built no long exists, however the adjacent home and the home of his daughter, who married a wealthy medical doctor, are preserved as museums for the nation and public. Had we had more time it would have been great fun to attend a performance of the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), which operates in Stratford-Upon-Avon, London, and New York City. The town is very Elizabethan, with the iconic black and white framed homes with the thatched roofs. A few building have been built to match the vintage ones, but a careful eye will note that the ancient buildings lean and sag from the weight and passage of time. It was a pilgrimage to finally see where William Shakespeare was born and lived and to have the connection with one of the world’s most well known playwrights.

From Stratford-Upon-Avon, Jonathan and I rode the bus to London where we met Pippa at Victoria Train Station for a cuppa tea and a recap of our exciting week. From Victoria, London, we headed back for Scottish Capitol of Edinburgh. I am always amazed and impressed that I have had the opportunity to study and live in Great Britain and be able to see sights which I had previously only read about, I am truly a blessed individual. 

Climbing Ben Nevis, hiking the Highlands & touring Isle of Skye

Summit of Ben Nevis with friends Marco & Brett

Last weekend I went with some English and Italian friends to climb Ben Nevis, the tallest mountain in the British Isles and then to see the Scottish Highlands and the Isle of Skye. The climb was amazing, as we started at sea level, as the mountain is next to a tidal loch and climbed (walked) to the top. The weather changed rapidly and went from sunny to pouring rain to hail and finally snow. The mountain (4,409 ft tall) is barely a hill for Colorado standards, yet it has claimed more lives than Mount Everest. As a matter of fact, one person died on the top the day after we summited. Our group was seven and we had planned to encounter the elements so we took winter and waterproof gear. The wind along the way was up to 57 mph, which at times made me feel quite cold, but the views were amazing during the walk up to the top. 

Eilean Donan Castle

After summiting Ben Nevis we drove to Eilean Donan Castle, which is located in another tidal loch (at the intersection of Loch Alsh and Loch Duich) with links to the Sea of Hebrides and The Minch. The castle was built in the mid-1200s to prevent Viking attacks and to safeguard trade routes. The castle was partially destroyed during the Jacobite uprising in 1719. The castle may have been rebuilt earlier, however the nobleman who owned the land had volunteered to teach the American rebels a lesson and was subsequently captured and died in an American POW camp after being captured in October 1780 at the Battle of King's Mountain (South Carolina). In 1911, MacRae's grandson, Lt Col MacRae-Gilstrap, acquired the property and had the castle rebuilt as the headquarters for the Clan McRae. MacRae-Gilstrap placed the property into a charitable trust (Conchra Charitable Trust) to avoid death taxes and capital gains on his heirs and for the benefit of the public and preservation of history and heritage. The castle is reserved for a two week period during the year for the exclusive use as a summer cottage for Baroness Miranda van Lynden and Maj Gen Alistair Stewart. Eilean Donan is idyllic Scotland, as it is situated in a loch, with rising highlands and moors surrounding the magical castle with heather and gorse on the bonnie banks of the brae.

view of Scottish Highlands from Plockton

From Eilean Donan we continued driving the A87 to Plockton, a small fishing and holidaying village which is in the situated with vistas of both Scotland's Highland mountains and the Isle of Skye. It has tidal or sea lochs on one side and the Hibernian Sea on the other. I included a photo from this village (it is the one with the fishing boat and houses and highlands). One of the girls suggested we do a ceilidh (traditional Scottish dance), being that I knew a few steps I was persuaded to led out. Some neighbours watching us out their window came running to join and pretty soon we were doing multiple dances and more and more people joined till our original seven had grown to 14! It was unbelievable - I have never seen such a thing, but in the movies - Plockton is definitely a special place and for the few hours we were there felt like a little Heaven on Earth. 

Red Cuillins on the Isle of Skye

On the Isle of Skye we hiked in the Cuillin hills toured the Talisker whiskey distillery - the weather was brilliant and did not produce any rain! Talisker was a lot of fun and was the only tour I've been on where they gave you samples before and after and the locals asked you to describe Colorado. I should be getting paid for the marketing and publicity I give my home state while travelling ;-) The whiskey was very good, as it had both a hint of peat and the smoky arromas and smell of sea mist. The Cuillins are divided into the reds and blacks, based on the minerals in the rocks. The odd thing is that only a glen separates the reds from the blacks (the photo of me hiking is from the Cuillins). Skye was also very beautiful and in classic Scottish tradition, there are not many trees and what trees there are were imported from the United States over the last 150 years. The Scots like to say there were trees on all the hills, but the English burned them or cut them down to build the Royal Navy of the British Empire. This is not accurate, as much of the lands are too acidic for trees and bog land is good for peat, but does not produce a stable environment for forests. That said, it is speculated that the result of baron hills is from making range land for cattle and especially sheep and that just like the rain forests in Brazil, when the forests are cut down, they are never able to be replaced due to the acidity of the soil. I don't know if I believe this, but it is a theory. None the less, the treeless Highlands have become a trademark of Scotland if forests could be re-grown, they would defeat the image Scotland has sold for the world for the last 300+ years. 

hill walking in the Highlands

Upon arriving back in Edinburgh I have kept busy by researching about the law of Maritime Piracy, as I am looking to publish and article on the topic and played several games of tennis, along with playing tourist by climbing the Admiral Lord Nelson Monument which was built in Edinburgh to commemorate the victory of the French Navy at the Battle of Trafalgar. I went with an American-French friend who pointed out that the story was completely different than what his mother had taught him. I have also been trying to plan gaps in my summer and catch up on unreturned emails and possibilities for post-bar internships. 

Soper in London for Royal Wedding

On  Friday, 29 April 2011, I will be amongst the well wishers gathered outside Westminster Abbey in London to celebrate the wedding of HRH Prince William of Wales and Miss Kate Middleton. I will be travelling from Edinburgh to London with a former classmate of Prince William’s from St. Andrew’s University and staying with another good friend of mine in London! It should be very exciting to be part of such a monumental event!

Keith Drake, a family friend who has since passed away, reminisced about standing outside Westminster during the Coronation of HM Queen Elizabeth II on a sunny Thursday, 2 June 1953. Drake was in the military, stationed in Germany and had been granted leave to attend the historic event. Mr. Drake always said that if I was in Great Britain for a Coronation or a Royal wedding to not miss the opportunity to witness the fanfare, as it is a historical occasion and an overall exciting celebratory event.

It is expected up to 600,000 well wishers will be gathered along the route from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Abbey and an estimated two billion people will be viewing the wedding live via Internet, radio, or television broadcasts. The Royal wedding is slated to be the most-watched event in television history, topping the 1963 funeral of President John F. Kennedy, the Apollo 11 Moon landing in 1969, and the marriage of HRH Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer in 1981, along with the funeral of Princess Diana in 1997, the 2006 World Cup finals between Italy and France, and the opening of the 2008 summer Olympic Games in Beijing.

There will be 2,000 guests inside the Westminster Abbey, with only a couple hundred having a direct view of the nave, where the nuptials are to be exchanged. As the marriage is likely to produce an heir to the Throne, delegates from the 54 Commonwealth Countries who recognize the Monarch will be in attendance. Legally, according to §2 of the Union with England Act 1707, only heirs of Princess Sophia Electoress, who are protestant, may succeed to the Throne, thus the marriage is very appropriate in being a public event and witnessed by many.

England and Scotland have shared the same monarch since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, when King James VI of Scotland inherited the English Throne from his cousin Queen Elizabeth I, who produced no heir. Thus King James VI of Scotland became known as King James I of the United Kingdom. Politically the governments of England and Scotland did not merge until 1707, when the two parliaments dissolved and re-emerged as the Parliament of Great Britain.[1]
___________________________________________________
[1] Mayfield, J. 'Former local to attend Royal Wedding' Colorado Radio 25 April 2011 <http://coloradoradio.com/2011/04/25/former-local-to-attend-royal-wedding/> accessed 25 April 2011

The American mantra for Revolution: No taxation without representation

The American Revolution began in the hearts and minds of many Americans long before any shots were fired at Lexington or Concord. King George III’s Government triggered the rebellion when Westminster passed the Sugar Act of 1764 (4 Geo. III c. 15), which was the first attempt to collect a tax from the colonists and send the revenue back to London. The Act was motivated by a desire to pay off a large looming national debt caused by the Seven Years War, otherwise known as the French and Indian Wars (1754–1763), which was primarily waged in the American Colonies. Prime Minister George Grenville viewed the tax as a simple solution for a debt problem, as the Act revised the Sugar & Molasses Act of 1733, which protected plantation owners in the British West Indies from being under priced by French, Dutch & Spanish West Indie growers, who had developed a successful trade for sugar and molasses with New England and Middle Colonies. If the Sugar Tax had been successful it would have largely paid for the war and effectively destroyed the rum industry with non-British suppliers. Customs officials were empowered to have all violations tried in vice admiralty courts rather than jury trials in local colonial courts where the juries generally looked favourably on smuggling as a profession.

In 1765, Parliament, led by Grenville, levied the Stamp Act (Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 Geo. III, c. 12) on the colonists, which taxed most legal and business related documents, including newspapers, playing cards, pamphlets and other printed material. That same year colonial leaders in New England organized the Stamp Act Congress, which adopted resolutions stating colonists paid equal taxes as those in Great Britain, but had no representation in Westminster. The colonists also expressed their disdain for being treated as second class British citizens. The Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress focused on the major concepts embraced by the Magna Carta (1215) – rights to trial by jury, ability to petition the government for readdress of grievances, and no taxation without equal representation. The final resolution called for the boycotting of all English made goods and products.

Westminster, under the leadership of Prime Minster Rockingham, who had invited Benjamin Franklin to London to address the House of Commons regarding colonial policy and taxation, responded to the resolutions by passing the Declaratory Act of 1766 (American Colonies Act 1766; 6 Geo. III, c. 12). The Act repealed the Stamp Act and declared all colonial laws null and void. This was an attempt by the government to re-assert its power and supremacy over the colonies. The Act included a wide variety of import duties on goods shipped to North America, including tea. Parliament then passed the Townshend Revenue Act of 1767, which was to have the colonists pay their fair share of maintaining the British Empire, placed a tax on such items as glass, paint, oil, lead, paper & tea. The Act was designed to correct objections raised by the hostilities encountered after the Stamp Act.

The Boston Tea Party took place in December 1773, when member of the Sons of Liberty dressed as Mohawk Indians, and cheered on by a large group of spectators, dumped 342 chests of East India Co. tea into the Boston Harbour. The Boston rebels destroyed £10,000 worth of cargo ($1 million in 2010 USD). This event sparked an American boycott of all English tea and many English products. In April 1774, Edmond Burke, a Whig member in the House of Commons, asked his fellow MPs not to levy a tax against the colonies just because they had a right to do so. Burke was labelled an American sympathizer in London.

The First Continental Congress met for the initial time in 1774 to petition His Majesty’s Government for a redress of grievances, which included a list of American values, such as the right to representation, idea of the rule of law, the right to trials by jury, rights to peaceably assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances, separate and independent branches of government, along with a stance against a strong standing army during peace time.

Shots heard around the world – in April 1775, General Gage sent 700 British troops to stop the illegal meetings of the Continental Congress in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. Three riders, including Paul Revere, rode out of Boston to warn the colonists of the British advancement. Minutemen began firing shots at the British troops and backup was called for from Boston. Revere rowed a small boat across the Charles River to Charlestown and then barrowed a horse to warn the colonial leaders in Lexington.

Enough was enough, on 4 July 1776, members of the Continental Congress met in Philadelphia to attach their names to a letter bound for King George III and Westminster, outlining the list of grievances against their Government with no alternatives offered, but a declaration of independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence ignited Westminster to proclaim the colonies in a state of insurrection and King George III ordered the military to take all appropriate action to suppress the revolt. The colonists had send ambassadors to France and The Netherlands to conjure up support for the American cause. Benjamin Franklin, dispatched to France in December 1776, was welcomed to Paris with great enthusiasm, many Frenchmen volunteered to support the American war against Britain and King Louis XVI of France dedicated much needed financial, naval and military resources needed to take on the English. A revolution had begun and the British were fighting an American genius, General George Washington, who loved intelligence, counter espionage and leading from the front lines. The British subsequently declared war on the French and the Dutch for aiding in the rebellion. By the end of the war, the Austrians and Spanish were also giving support to the American cause for independence and freedom.

Iain McGill for Edinburgh North & Leith

Few candidates have dedicated their lives to more noble and worthwhile causes than my friend Iain McGill, who is running for the UK Parliament as a Conservative candidate from Edinburgh North and Leith. From a young age, Iain identified two social aspects of his home community of Edinburgh North and Leith which needed to be tackled – at-risk youth and homelessness. Iain has promoted sports as a way for keeping kids out of trouble and focused on their education, while helping those who are homeless find jobs, shelter and sustenance to assist them in getting back on their feet.

It is because of Iain’s day-to-day work that I whole-heartily give my endorsement for his candidacy. Many in Westminster come from elite Oxford or Cambridge backgrounds, having grown up with a silver spoon in their mouth, but not Iain. Between leaving education and setting up his own business in 2005, McGill served as an aid worker overseas, working in Albania, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique & Malawi. Even Iain’s business, Harmony Employment Agency, is about helping others, as it is helps provide people jobs in the social sector across Scotland.

McGill knows firsthand that governments do not always get it right and that there is an appropriate place for the private sector within our society. Iain has demonstrated just what can good can be accomplished with people come together to help their fellow humankind. This was evident when Iain refereed the 2006 Homeless World Cup Final in Cape Town, South Africa which brought together many individuals to support a great cause – ending homelessness. One of Iain’s favourite activities (aside from politics) is working as director of The Yard, which is an Edinburgh charity that provides adventure play opportunities for children and young people with special needs.

Like all good Scotsmen, Iain enjoys playing/referring on an amateur football team and competing in decathlons and marathons, along with serving as an active member of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society.

Roman law principles being used in modern case law

I have been writing a paper on how Roman law is still incorporated into the case law of Great Britain, if an issue at first instant has no precedent or statute on which to stand. It is rare that it does happen, but once and a while and issue will arise which hasn't been legislated on or made law through the courts (I was shocked to discover that in the hundreds of thousands of laws, this could happen).

The case which we were assigned to study was the Sloans Dairy Case, which concerns the principle of periculum rei venditae nondum traditae est emptoris and whether or not it applies to the sale of heritable (real estate) property. The case essentially boils down to a question of when the contract became valid. As Sloans Dairy had sold, but not physically received payment for some property with developments to the Glasgow Corp. Part of the developments burned after the missives were notarized. The defendants refused full payment, claiming the valued had diminished due to the damage caused by the fire. The pursuers raised an action for a decree ordaining the defenders to make good the negotiated sale price and cough up the cash. The question for the court was when does 'risk' transfer from the seller to the buyer? According to Roman law, risk transfers when the contract is made perfect.

The question then must be asked, what are the essentials which make the contract perfect? Roman law and that of Scotland state that subject matter, price, and agreement on the essential terms. As luck would have a date was not mentioned in the contract, correspondence between the parties and thus no clear cut line could be drawn for when the contract was perfect. Roman law states that when the price and subject matter is agreed the contract is perfect. Britain has tended to accept this logic, though this means risk can transfer ahead of possession. This was the position held by the Court of Session in Sloans Dairy and the defenders were ordered to pay the purchase price (which had been agreed). While I agree with the logic, it seems a date should be considered an essential element of a contract required to be in writing.

It is amazing how much risk a buyer assumes when concluding a contract prior to the delivery of the possession. I love the quote from one judge who said the buyer accepts the risk and reaps the benefits of consequences. Another analogy which I liked was what if you commission a painting for $10,000 and you arrange to have the painting shipped to you, but in transit the artist dies, causing the value to appreciate to $20,000. The point being risk isn't always a negative.

Devolution and Northern Ireland: To be or not to be more independent

Many newspaper articles recently have featured stories which are directly connected to the UK Constitution. One such article was from today’s Financial Times, published on 25 January 2010, in which it talked of a stalemate in the power sharing scheme between the UK Parliament and the Northern Irish Assembly (Stormont, which is the devolved legislature of Northern Ireland). The two major Northern Irish political parties are Democratic Unionists (DUP) and Sinn Féin. According to the article, “[The] Parties differ on a timetable for Northern Ireland politicians to assume responsibility for policing and the criminal justice system – the courts, probation and prison services.” Sinn Féin wants devolution to happen as soon as possible, whereas DUP wants “community confidence” before policing powers are put in the hands of local politicians. After the last elections, March 2007, DUP claimed 36 members in Stormont and Sinn Féin with 28 members. There are 108 members in total from eight political parties.

All bills passed by the Northern Irish Assembly must receive Royal Assent to become law. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland believes a bill violates the constitutional limitations on the powers of the Northern Irish Assembly, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the duty to refuse to submit the bill to the monarch for Royal Assent. If submitted by the Secretary of State, the monarch will, by convention, sign a bill into law.

The problem is raised because the Northern Irish Assembly follows the d'Hondt system, meaning ministerial portfolios are divided among the parties in proportion to their strength in the Assembly. Sinn Féin is threatening to withdraw all of its members from the government. “[I]f Sinn Féin quits the executive, Shaun Woodward, Northern Ireland secretary, would have seven days before he had to call fresh assembly elections. Commentators fear an election could exacerbate community divisions.”

Q & A with Matt Soper - students ask about castles, books, and ghosts

What types of castles are in Scotland?

There are many types of castes in Scotland. The majority were built along the coast as protection from Jackobite invasions and civil uprisings. In the last 300 years castles have continued to be built, however they tend to be more like large homes or estates, rather than a fortress for defence. Glamis Castle was the home to the Queen Mother before her death a couple years ago; Balmoral Castle is the official hunting retreat of HRH The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (consort to the Queen), the Palace of Holyroodhouse is the Royal family's official residence in Scotland. A castle is merely a fortified residence to protect a noble or a noble domain. Most castles have apartments to house the noble when he / she is in residence, but the far larger function is to protect the king, queen, prince, royal duke (children of the monarch), duke, marquis, earl, or baron. Kings ruled a kingdom, Dukes ruled a Duchy, Marquis a Marquisette, Earls an Earldom, Counts a county and Barons ruled a barony. The Royal Duchy is the fund that pays the monarch and it is comprised mainly of land and stock holdings. Lords and Knights have titles in name only, which comes with no land or seat in the House of Lords on the Privy Council (advisors to the monarch – they must be part of the aristocracy and will be holders of heraldry titles, means those passed on from generation to generation). Judges carry the title lord, but that title is only for life and will not transfer to their heirs. HRH Queen Elizabeth II is the richest woman in the world, as her personal collection of assets makes her a billionaire. I love visiting castles and they are full of mystery, intrigue, history, and romance (in a classical sense).

What books are you currently reading?

I am reading a lot of books at the moment. Because I am studying law the majority of the books I read are related to law. I have been reading Gaius' Institutes which was originally written by the jurist named Gaius in ancient Rome, circa 170 A.D. I have also been reading Justinian's Institutes which was the first book ever written for law students. Emperor Justinian was the last great leader of Rome and tried to recreate greatness by codifying law (that means taking decisions of judges and opinions of jurists and making those concepts and ideas into statute). I have also been reading a book called Contract Law in Scotland by Hector MacQueen, who is considered one of the greatest living legal minds in all of Scotland (he is also one of my professors). I am also reading a book on Scottish family law by Elaine Sutherland and then a book on the Scottish legal system. I am working on learning French and for fun I have been trying to read some books in French, though these tend to be geared for little kids, I still find them challenging. The other book I have been reading is the Andre Agassi autobiography called Open, it is a good read and easy to read at night when your mind is tired and focusing on Law or French is not possible.

Have you ever been in a haunted house?

I have never been in a haunted house, or at least I did not know if I was in a haunted house or not. I have taken a ghost tour along Edinburgh’s Royal Mile and while I wasn’t scared, there definitely were places we were taken on the tour where I would not want to go alone. One such place was the chambers underneath the Royal Mile and South Bridge, where many poor people lived and worked during the medieval period. When the Black Plague hit Edinburgh and the bodies were piling up, the city built on top of the old city, fearing that it was a curse – we all know it was the bubonic bacteria. The worst example of the bubonic plague was in Mary King's Close, believed to be the last badly infected location of the Old Town. In a desperate measure to reduce contamination over 300 plague victims were entombed alive when the close was bricked up until the plague had passed. All perished. Knowing the history, made visiting the city under the city quite scary to say the least – the tour guides helped ensure the history was very vivid in our minds. There are numerous reports of haunting in the closes along the Royal Mile – are they really haunted? Who knows?