<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss 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/" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Halsbury's Law Exchange</title>
	
	<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk</link>
	<description>Shaping our legal future</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:28:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/HalsburysLawExchange" /><feedburner:info xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" uri="halsburyslawexchange" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0">HalsburysLawExchange</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0">http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
		<title>Legalising gay marriage: is it time to separate church and state?</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/legalising-gay-marriage-is-it-time-to-separate-church-and-state/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/legalising-gay-marriage-is-it-time-to-separate-church-and-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=46901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By James Wilson
Last year the Scottish government began a consultation process asking if marriage in Scotland should be allowed for gay people through a civil or religious ceremony. The strength of opposing feelings on the issue is hinted at by the fact that on Valentine’s Day more than 1,000 people marched through Edinburgh in favour of the idea, whereas last year a pressure group calling itself “Scotland For Marriage” held a rally outside the Scottish Parliament to protest against it. 
&#160;
The issue has also been debated recently in Australia.  Meanwhile the ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/legalising-gay-marriage-is-it-time-to-separate-church-and-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Trial by jury: the importance of “ordinary” jurors</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/trial-by-jury-the-importance-of-ordinary-jurors/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/trial-by-jury-the-importance-of-ordinary-jurors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:27:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=46621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Felicity Gerry
You can never write too much about the importance of trial by jury, particularly since there are moves afoot to restrict it. This month is no exception as Professor Richard Dawkins advocated a scientific resolution for criminal proceedings in The New Statesman, and The Times published an article by David Pannick QC effectively supporting the removal of jury trial in less serious cases.
Mr Pannick QC&#8217;s article (Trial by jury but you don’t trust jurors?, Times Law, 2 February 2012) suggested that jury trial &#8220;with all its imperfections&#8221; is ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/trial-by-jury-the-importance-of-ordinary-jurors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shared parenting after divorce: lessons from Australia</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/shared-parenting-after-divorce-lessons-from-australia/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/shared-parenting-after-divorce-lessons-from-australia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:22:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=46661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Guy Skelton,
The recent Government Response to the Family Justice Review has at its centre an entitlement to a legally binding presumption of shared parenting. Legislation in favour of shared parenting would represent the greatest change to the Children Act since its creation in 1989. Arguably, the proposal represents a levelling of the playing field, addressing a perceived imbalance in the treatment of parents post-separation, to others it is a legislative minefield detracting from the primary consideration – the child.
Prior to the government’s response, David Norgrove, author of the independent ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/shared-parenting-after-divorce-lessons-from-australia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Speak no evil: the limits of freedom of speech</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/speak-no-evil-the-limits-of-freedom-of-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/speak-no-evil-the-limits-of-freedom-of-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:16:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=46321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By James Wilson

The limits of free speech and freedom of religion are presently on trial once again with the reported prosecution of a Christian street preacher, Michael Overd, in the Magistrates’ Court.  The case arises out of threatening remarks Mr Overd allegedly made in public to a homosexual couple.
The trial brings to mind a similar prosecution from earlier this century, of the street preacher Harry Hammond.  I wrote about the trial for Criminal Law &#38; Justice Weekly and this blog is substantially based on that article. 
I am insufficiently familiar with ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/speak-no-evil-the-limits-of-freedom-of-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Financial privilege – no case to answer</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/financial-privilege-no-case-to-answer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/financial-privilege-no-case-to-answer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:03:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=46171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Will Macgregor

The recent rejection by the House of Commons of various amendments made to the Welfare Reform Bill by the House of Lords has thrown light on the relatively obscure Parliamentary convention of financial privilege. This is the convention that, in simple terms, asserts the primacy of the House of Commons in relation to financial legislation, principally the raising of tax and the appropriation of funds for government spending.
By declaring that financial privilege was involved in certain amendments to the Bill – including the modification of the proposed £26,000 ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/financial-privilege-no-case-to-answer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The legislation gap: does slow and steady really win the race?</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/the-legislation-gap-does-slow-and-steady-really-win-the-race/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/the-legislation-gap-does-slow-and-steady-really-win-the-race/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:27:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=45941</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Craig Rose
An analysis by the Times (“Legislation gap makes light work for MPs”, 27 January) has revealed that MPs have spent a mere 24% of their time in the last four months considering government legislation. During the same period in the previous year, the figure was 62%
The reduction in the time spent by MPs scrutinising legislation may in part reflect the decline in legislative activity since the government took office. During the 13 years of the last Government, Parliament enacted an average of 34-35 statutes a year. In contrast, ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/the-legislation-gap-does-slow-and-steady-really-win-the-race/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The solar panel challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/the-solar-panel-challenge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/the-solar-panel-challenge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=45761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Stephen Hockman
The government’s attempt to move forward the date for a reduction in subsidies for households with solar panel installations is concerning, both in legal terms and for the future of renewable energy. The Court of Appeal’s judgment on 25 January 2012 reassuringly blocked the government’s endeavours, but with the intention of the government to appeal to the Supreme Court, the legal battle continues.
The most concerning factors relevant to this appeal are its lawfulness and the lasting effects a successful outcome for the government would have had, and may ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/the-solar-panel-challenge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fred Goodwin’s knighthood – the Royal Prerogative</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/fred-goodwins-knighthood-the-royal-prerogative/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/fred-goodwins-knighthood-the-royal-prerogative/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=45621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Simon Hetherington
Stripping (Sir) Fred Goodwin of his knighthood is such a big story that it immediately aroused my suspicion. If it were possible to turn to the inside pages of a newspaper on an iPad then that&#8217;s what I began to do, wondering what more important, but possibly less palatable, story had been quietly tucked away in the shadow of this headline. Because it is certainly tempting to regard this as a lot of fuss about something that doesn&#8217;t matter very much. (The next thought was to wonder why ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/fred-goodwins-knighthood-the-royal-prerogative/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guidelines for drugs offences: an overview</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/guidelines-for-drugs-offences-an-overview/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/guidelines-for-drugs-offences-an-overview/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:56:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=45471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Sarah Lewis

Last week, the Sentencing Council  issued new definitive guidelines on drug offences that signify a more pragmatic and reasonable approach towards drug sentencing.
There are three main areas of reform: supply, drugs mules and the medicinal use of drugs. 
Supplying drugs is broken down into four broad categories, with sentencing being determined primarily by whether the offender played a leading, significant or lesser role.  Whilst those who sell drugs on the street for profit or are in any other way involved in the organising or buying and selling of drugs ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/guidelines-for-drugs-offences-an-overview/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dr Jeffrey John: homosexuality and religious employment</title>
		<link>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/dr-jeffrey-john-homosexuality-and-religious-employment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/dr-jeffrey-john-homosexuality-and-religious-employment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Administrator 1</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Headline]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/?p=45251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By James Wilson
Religion, equality and the law has formed the subject of many blogs on this site in the past year or so.  Once again the media have found a dispute which requires balancing the competing rights.  It concerns Canon Jeffrey John, who has allegedly been passed over for promotion in the Church of England because of his homosexuality.  According to the Guardian:
&#8220;Dr Jeffrey John &#8230; a celibate priest who is in a longstanding civil partnership with another cleric – was prevented from becoming the bishop of Southwark after the ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk/dr-jeffrey-john-homosexuality-and-religious-employment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

