<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Stoke Newington Chambers &#187; Public law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/category/public-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk</link>
	<description>Real law, for real people</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:18:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Geeklawyer, Article 8 &amp; The Bar Standards Board: What The BSB Can Learn From Ken Livingstone</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/geeklawyer-article-8-the-bar-standards-board-what-the-bsb-can-learn-from-ken-livingstone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/geeklawyer-article-8-the-bar-standards-board-what-the-bsb-can-learn-from-ken-livingstone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:54:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 10]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Code of Conduct]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=1269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In case you haven&#8217;t read it, Charon QC kicked off an interesting discussion about the Bar Standards Board&#8217;s censure of David Harris for some things he published as @geeklawyer by way of his protected Twitter account. The BSB called it, &#8220;engaging in conduct which was likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession, administration [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/geeklawyer-article-8-the-bar-standards-board-what-the-bsb-can-learn-from-ken-livingstone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Convention Belongs To You</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/the-convention-belongs-to-you/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/the-convention-belongs-to-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 08:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 10]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill of Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECHR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=655</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This video is an easy Monday morning way of thinking about and remembering the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/the-convention-belongs-to-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hung Parliaments &amp; Queen Activation</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/hung-parliaments-queen-activation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/hung-parliaments-queen-activation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 06:46:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hung Parliament]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conservatives win more seats than any of the other Parties, but don&#8217;t have a majority. Have you turned to the unwritten section of the British Constitution to see what happens next? Confused? Professor Peter Hennessey explains hung Parliament procedure here and the BBC has a very helpful graphic here. The draft Cabinet Office guidance Professor [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/hung-parliaments-queen-activation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Case for a UK Bill of Rights?</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/the-case-for-a-uk-bill-of-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/the-case-for-a-uk-bill-of-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:05:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Criminal law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill of Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Separation of Powers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=587</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am usually the first one to defend the UK&#8217;s unwritten Constitution. Then I read stories like the following and wonder if it really will take a single, codified document for the Executive to get the message. &#8220;Police are removing valuables from unlocked cars to shock motorists into being more careful. Officers are taking everything [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/the-case-for-a-uk-bill-of-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scrap the HRA for a British Bill of Rights?</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/scrap-the-hra-for-a-british-bill-of-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/scrap-the-hra-for-a-british-bill-of-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:52:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill of Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gray's Inn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HRA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you&#8217;re a Public law student who&#8217;s going to be in London on 20 April, I highly recommend getting a ticket to the Times/Matrix Chambers debate: &#8220;This House believes that the Human Rights Act should be scrapped and replaced by a British Bill of Rights&#8221; Student tickets are available &#8211; but you&#8217;ll have to get [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/scrap-the-hra-for-a-british-bill-of-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Constitutional Law for the Perplexed: Equal Protection and Marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/constitutional-law-for-the-perplexed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/constitutional-law-for-the-perplexed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:37:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=510</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I like to deal with common misunderstandings on Day One of Public law, and, being a bit of a pedant, I like to clarify that the UK is a constitutional monarchy and the US is not a &#8220;democracy&#8221;: It&#8217;s a constitutional republic. Democracies, as far as I&#8217;m concerned, are mob rule. The United States’ Declaration [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/constitutional-law-for-the-perplexed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ireland&#8217;s Equal Opportunity Blasphemy Law</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/irelands-equal-opportunity-blasphemy-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/irelands-equal-opportunity-blasphemy-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 10]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blasphemy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECHR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=440</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ahhh, the memories.  Blasphemy used to be a English law exam and essay topic favourite.  It had everything. Blasphemy was especially fun to research and write about as you could chart English legal history from canon to common law, all the way down and through to Mary Whitehouse&#8217;s private prosecution of Denis Lemon for his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/irelands-equal-opportunity-blasphemy-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Constitution: Originalism v Stare decisis</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/us-constitution-originalism-v-stare-decisis/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/us-constitution-originalism-v-stare-decisis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miranda Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Originalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stare decisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As an Anglo-American lecturer in English Criminal and Public (constitutional and administrative) law, I am bemused by the myriad of approaches to US Constitutional interpretation. So here&#8217;s a question: Is Miranda v Arizona &#8220;unconstitutional&#8221;?  How do you approach the Sixth Amendment right &#8220;to have the assistance of counsel&#8221;? The Sixth Amendment states: &#8220;In all criminal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/us-constitution-originalism-v-stare-decisis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Partnerships &amp; Marriage: Sauce For The Goose?</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/civil-partnerships-marriage-sauce-for-the-goose/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/civil-partnerships-marriage-sauce-for-the-goose/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=331</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s all happening in Islington (our neighbouring borough) these days. First, there was the case of the Christian registrar, Lillian Ladele, who refused to conduct [gay] civil ceremonies against her beliefs. Then came the long expected, but hitherto never tested, corker. Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle decided they wanted their relationship to be recognised in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/civil-partnerships-marriage-sauce-for-the-goose/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trafigura: Parliamentary Supremacy and Freedom of the Press</title>
		<link>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/trafigura-parliamentary-supremacy-and-freedom-of-the-press/</link>
		<comments>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/trafigura-parliamentary-supremacy-and-freedom-of-the-press/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:08:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kris</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Carter-Ruck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minton report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parliamentary Supremacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Super injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trafigura]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/?p=275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Trafigura takes my breath away. I can understand a company reaching a settlement wanting to keep it, and their privileged (Minton) report, private – and I can understand instructing lawyers to get an injunction to try to do so. But what I don’t understand is how the High Court would order no reporting of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.stokenewingtonchambers.co.uk/trafigura-parliamentary-supremacy-and-freedom-of-the-press/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

