Law

Supervisors / contacts: Dr David J. Cox, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society

The creation of the Bow Street Police Office in 1749 as the first professional police force in the UK has recently been ably documented by historical criminologists, along with its role and activities. However, the same cannot be said for the seven Police Offices created by the Government following the passing of the Middlesex Justices Act 1792. These offices were formed along the same lines as Bow Street Police Office in order to replicate the perceived success of Bow Street, but virtually no academic research has ever been carried out into their role and activities from 1792 to the date of their abolition in 1839, when they were replaced by the newly created Metropolitan Police.

This project would rectify this lacuna, with detailed investigation into the various ways in which these seven Police Offices operated both as separate entities and as part of a co-ordinated and increasingly professionalised police force for the whole of the metropolis of London and beyond. It has always been assumed that Bow Street Police Office (whose senior officers operated both throughout Britain and on the European continent) played the role of primus inter pares (first among equals) as it was formed half a century before the other seven offices, but was that in fact always the case? Did the other Police Offices specialise or differ in their approach to preventing and detecting crime, and to what extent did they influence the formation of the Metropolitan Police in 1829? This research would provide answers to this and other important questions to the development of professional policing in the early nineteenth century before the creation of the Metropolitan Police.

Supervisors / contacts: Dr David J. Cox, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society

With such a large prison estate, it is perhaps not too surprising that the British media occasionally report the odd case of corrupt behaviour by prison staff. The most high-profile and recent of this concerned an inappropriate relationship between a female prison officer and a male inmate of HMP Berwyn, one of Britain’s largest and newest prisons. The accused pleaded guilty to a charge of misconduct in public office and was herself jailed for 8 months.

However, such bad behaviour by those trusted by the public to maintain the safety of the British penal system and its inmates is nothing new; it has been present since the very start of the modern British prison system in the mid-1850s.

This PhD research project would therefore investigate what happened when prison officials in the British prison system themselves fell foul of the criminal law. Using a selection of case studies and a wide range of historical sources, it would investigate some of the numerous cases of criminal activity reported in the provincial and metropolitan newspapers from 1853 until the present day. Prison officials were and are obviously meant to be above reproach, but this project would provide a machine-readable dataset of all known examples of criminal behaviour by prison staff between 1853 and 2023 (from prison guards to prison governors) ranging from petty offences of fraud through serious sexual assault up to charges of both manslaughter and murder. The project would investigate how the offences first came to light, how the suspects were dealt with by the courts and what happened to them post-trial The research would shine a light into a somewhat dark and previously under-researched corner of the British penal system.

Supervisors / contacts: Various

The Model on Cross Border Insolvency has been lauded as a significant step forward in creating a version of modified universalism in cases of insolvent debtors where their assets and liabilities are subject to different legal jurisdictions. There are a number of issues which arise from countries adopting the Model Law. In recent years with more countries adopting the Model Law it is becoming apparent that as well as convergence in general approaches to cross border issues, there have been a number of matters upon which the varying ways in which the Model Law has been adopted has led to divergence. Some of these divergences may seem relatively minor, eg whether a provision is contrary to public policy or manifestly contrary to public policy, or are more significant eg, whether the effect of the Model Law is merely procedural or substantive.

Many books and articles have been written on the Model Law and a number of online UN resources are available including a digest of case law, a legislative guide, a practice guide, judicial perspective as well as reports from various colloquia. The way in which the Model Law has been adopted has not been consistent (as is the case for example under the EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings). There is no single appeal court to opine on the interpretation of the Model Law. Divergences suggest a lack of uniformity and inconsistency.

The purpose of the project will be to isolate different provisions of the Model Law where i) there has been convergence, where case law will be considered to see if there is in fact divergence in interpretation; and ii) where the provisions have not been adopted in terms identical to the Model Law and again the interpretation of such provisions will be considered to assess the level of divergence. Ultimately, it is hoped that the analysis of the Model Law adoptions and case law will lead to a clear understanding of the problems of any divergence (if any) and will result in clear recommendations which may lead, for example, to potential updates to the Model Law or the introduction of an international court to deal solely with issues of interpretation