The LSE Law Review Blog

– Thomas Yeon , LLM (Human Rights Law) (LSE) ‘19 and Claudia Tam , LLB (HKU) ‘19 [1]  Commentary on Kyung Yip Kim v Ministry of Justice of New Zealand and another [2019] NZCA 209 and insights on the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 As a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China (“ PRC ”), the relationship between Hong Kong and the PRC in terms of legal systems can be reflected in the “one-country, two systems” arrangement: the PRC legal system is a civil law system, while the Hong Kong legal system is a common law system. The recent proposal by the Hong Kong Government regarding the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (“ the Bill ”) has generated extensive controversy over the Bill both in terms of principle and practice.[2] The issue of extradition to the PRC for a criminal trial is further elaborated by the recent New Ze...

–  Thomas Yeon , Notes Editor (Public Law)  Case Note: In re Siobhan McLaughlin [2018] UKSC 48 [1]     The thorny nature of a declaration of incompatibility (“ DoI ”) under section 4 Human Rights Act 1998 (“ HRA ”), and its role vis-a-vis the Parliament in alerting the latter to Convention-incompatible legislations, has been of topical interest for understanding the role of the courts in the context of protection of human rights in the UK, and its role vis-a-vis Parliament in alerting the latter to Convention-incompatible legislation. It is therefore pertinent that courts adopt a principled and accessible approach in determining whether a DoI should be granted. Following that, as the courts are expected to assess the Convention compatibility of the piece(s) of legislation before them alleged to be incompatible with the Convention, it is also important that the courts adopt a consistent and principled approach under s.2 HRA 1998. This case note analyses th...

– William Wong , Notes Editor (Private Law) Case Note: Darnley v Croydon Health Service NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50, [2018] 3 WLR 1153 A. Introduction [1] Darnley v Croydon Health Service NHS Trust [2] (‘ Darnley ’) deals with the deceptively simple trio of negligence – duty of care, breach, and causation. In recent years, some judges have conflated them in a composite assessment by over-specifying the content of duty of care. In this refreshingly succinct judgment, the Supreme Court (‘ UKSC ’) gave a principled analysis of the nature of these components and preferred a more systematic and compartmentalised approach. B. Brief Facts The Appellant attended the Accident and Emergency Department at Mayday Hospital, Croydon.[3]  Despite having indicated to the receptionist that he had a head injury required urgent attention, he was told of a waiting time of 4 to 5 hours. In fact, the hospital’s policy would require a nurse to attend to the Appellant within 30 minutes. [4]...