Prof. Lakshman's Legal Odyssey

THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

noreply@blogger.com (Prof.Dr Lakshman Madurasinghe ) — Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:25:00 +0530

Brothers Karamazov written by Dostoevsky in 1879 became an all time best seller which also provides us even today many useful insights into the field of "Therapeutic Jurisprudence". Until recently there has been no general theory concerning the impact of legal processes upon participant wellbeing and its implications for attaining justice system objectives. This gap has been filled by Therapeutic Jurisprudence.

Admirers of the book include scientists such as Albert Einstein, philosophers Ludwig Wittgenstein^] and Martin Heidegger, as well as many other famous writers.

Sigmund Freud called it "the most magnificent novel ever written" and was fascinated with what he saw as its Oedipal themes. In 1928 Freud published a paper titled "Dostoevsky and Parricide" in which he investigated Dostoevsky's own neuroses.

Dostoevsky considered the introduction of the European Jury trial and its adversarial justice and alleged discovery of truth would supplant Russia's pure, Christian attitude to truth.

The Brothers Karamazov is a message for Russians and also all of us not to accept the court as the most civil and equitable means of achieving justice. Looking into the attorney's statements, the lay and expert witnesses, the introduction of dubious expert witnesses on both sides of the trial, the judge and public response to trial, all capture well author's disillusionment with Western Judicial reforms of the nineteenth century.

The experts contradict one another, and the doctor from Moscow and Doctor Herzenstube take the case to pursue their personal vendettas against each other, overall making "the expert testimony appear ludicrous."

It is here that the value of Therapeutic jurisprudence becomes useful. TJ says that the processes used by courts, judicial officers, lawyers and other justice system personnel can impede, promote or be neutral in relation to outcomes connected with participant wellbeing such as respect for the justice system and the law, offender rehabilitation and addressing issues underlying legal disputes.

The fact that evidence can be misconstrued to deny the truth and the fact that evidence is essential to proving the truth indicates Dostoevsky's belief that "evidence…is a two edged sword that can cut either way.

At the AUGP TJ Centre, It is our desire, to be a strong proponents worldwide in adapting the use of more comprehensive, psychologically optimal, and emotionally intelligent means of dealing with conflicts.

It is also our goal to propose new processes to be added to the range of existing processes—such as in the use of mediation in civil, criminal, and family law cases and the establishment of special intervention courts or lists to address broader issues underlying legal problems where such an intervention is consistent with other justice system principles.

Prof. Lakshman Madurasinghe

The Development of Jurisprudence: A Historical Overview

noreply@blogger.com (Prof.Dr Lakshman Madurasinghe ) — Wed, 6 Aug 2025 11:28:00 +0530

Jurisprudence, derived from the Latin jurisprudentia (knowledge of law), is the study of the nature, sources, and purpose of law. Its development spans centuries, reflecting humanity’s evolving understanding of justice, authority, and societal order. From ancient legal codes to modern legal theories, jurisprudence has been shaped by philosophical, religious, and political influences. This summary explores its progression through key historical periods and schools of thought, culminating in contemporary trends as of 2025.Ancient Jurisprudence: Foundations of Legal ThoughtThe earliest forms of jurisprudence emerged in ancient civilizations, where law was intertwined with religion, custom, and morality. In Mesopotamia, the Code of Hammurabi (circa 1754 BCE) established one of the first written legal codes, emphasizing retributive justice ("an eye for an eye"). These laws reflected a divine mandate, with rulers acting as intermediaries between gods and people. In ancient Egypt, the concept of Ma’at—representing truth, balance, and cosmic order—guided legal principles, blending moral and legal authority.
In ancient Greece, philosophers laid the groundwork for Western legal thought. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle explored the relationship between law, justice, and the state. Plato’s Republic envisioned an ideal state governed by philosopher-kings, where laws served the common good. Aristotle distinguished between natural law (universal moral principles) and positive law (human-made laws), a distinction that would influence later jurisprudence. His emphasis on reason and ethics introduced a philosophical lens to law, moving beyond divine command.
Roman law, particularly the Corpus Juris Civilis under Emperor Justinian (6th century CE), was a landmark in legal systematization. Roman jurists like Gaius and Ulpian developed concepts of property, contracts, and legal personality, which remain foundational in civil law systems. Roman law’s emphasis on codification and legal reasoning influenced medieval and modern legal traditions.Medieval Jurisprudence: Religion and Natural LawThe fall of the Roman Empire shifted legal thought toward religious frameworks. In Europe, the Catholic Church dominated medieval jurisprudence, with canon law governing ecclesiastical matters and influencing secular law. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas (13th century) synthesized Christian doctrine with Aristotelian philosophy, developing a robust theory of natural law. Aquinas argued that human laws must align with divine law, derived from God’s eternal reason, and that unjust laws lacked moral legitimacy. This natural law tradition emphasized universal moral principles, shaping legal thought for centuries.
In the Islamic world, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) emerged from the Quran and Hadith, interpreted through schools of thought like Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali. Jurists used ijtihad (independent reasoning) to apply divine law to new contexts, balancing scripture with practical governance. Similarly, Jewish law (Halakha), rooted in the Torah and Talmud, developed sophisticated legal reasoning, influencing religious and communal life.Early Modern Jurisprudence: Sovereignty and RationalismThe Renaissance and Enlightenment ushered in a shift toward secular and rational approaches to law. The rise of nation-states prompted questions about legal authority and sovereignty. Hugo Grotius (17th century), often called the father of international law, argued for a secular natural law based on human reason rather than divine will. His work On the Law of War and Peace (1625) laid foundations for international legal norms, emphasizing mutual consent among nations.
Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), introduced a positivist view, arguing that law derives its authority from the sovereign’s command, not divine or moral principles. This marked a departure from natural law, prioritizing political stability over ethical considerations. John Locke, conversely, emphasized individual rights and consent, influencing modern liberal jurisprudence. His ideas about natural rights to life, liberty, and property became cornerstones of constitutional law.
The Enlightenment also saw the codification of laws in Europe, notably through the Prussian Allgemeines Landrecht (1794) and the Napoleonic Code (1804). These codes reflected rationalist ideals, aiming for clarity, universality, and accessibility in law, shaping civil law traditions.19th Century: Legal Positivism and Historical JurisprudenceThe 19th century marked the rise of legal positivism, which separated law from morality. John Austin’s The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) defined law as the command of a sovereign backed by sanctions, rejecting natural law’s moral underpinnings. Positivism emphasized law as a human construct, focusing on its formal sources (legislation, precedent) rather than its content. This approach suited the growing complexity of industrialized societies and colonial legal systems.
Simultaneously, the Historical School, led by Friedrich Carl von Savigny, argued that law evolves organically from a society’s customs and traditions. Savigny’s emphasis on the Volksgeist (spirit of the people) countered positivism’s universalism, highlighting law’s cultural and historical context. This school influenced German legal scholarship and the development of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB, 1900).20th Century: Diverse Schools of JurisprudenceThe 20th century saw a proliferation of jurisprudential schools, reflecting diverse ideological and philosophical currents. Legal realism, prominent in the United States, challenged positivism’s formalism. Realists like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Karl Llewellyn argued that law is shaped by social, economic, and psychological factors, not just rules. They emphasized judicial discretion and the practical effects of legal decisions, influencing modern judicial pragmatism.
In Europe, Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law (1934) refined positivism by proposing a hierarchical system of norms, with a “grundnorm” (basic norm) as the foundation of legal validity. Kelsen’s work aimed to make jurisprudence a science, free from moral or political bias, and influenced international and constitutional law.
The revival of natural law came through thinkers like Lon Fuller, who emphasized law’s moral purpose and procedural fairness. H.L.A. Hart’s The Concept of Law (1961) bridged positivism and natural law, introducing the “rule of recognition” to explain how legal systems gain authority while acknowledging law’s moral dimensions.
Critical legal studies (CLS), emerging in the 1970s, challenged traditional legal doctrines, arguing that law perpetuates power imbalances. CLS scholars like Roberto Unger viewed law as a tool of social domination, advocating for transformative change. Feminist jurisprudence, led by figures like Catharine MacKinnon, critiqued law’s patriarchal biases, pushing for gender-equitable reforms.Contemporary Jurisprudence: Pluralism and Global ChallengesAs of 2025, jurisprudence is characterized by pluralism, integrating insights from multiple schools. Legal positivism remains influential, particularly in analytical jurisprudence, with scholars like Joseph Raz refining Hart’s theories. Natural law continues to inform debates on human rights and ethics, especially in international law. Postmodern and critical theories, including critical race theory and postcolonial jurisprudence, challenge Eurocentric legal frameworks, emphasizing marginalized perspectives.
Globalization has reshaped jurisprudence, with international law addressing issues like human rights, environmental law, and global trade. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and subsequent treaties reflect a global consensus on universal norms, though tensions persist between state sovereignty and international obligations. Jurisprudence now grapples with technology’s impact, including AI, data privacy, and cyberlaw, raising questions about legal personhood and accountability.
Therapeutic jurisprudence, focusing on law’s psychological and social effects, and environmental jurisprudence, addressing ecological crises, are gaining traction. These approaches reflect a broader trend toward interdisciplinary legal thought, incorporating economics, sociology, and psychology.ConclusionThe development of jurisprudence reflects humanity’s quest to define justice and order. From ancient divine laws to modern pluralistic theories, it has evolved through philosophical, cultural, and political shifts. Ancient and medieval periods rooted law in religion and morality, while the Enlightenment introduced rationalism and sovereignty. The 19th and 20th centuries saw positivism, realism, and critical theories diversify legal thought. Today, jurisprudence navigates global and technological challenges, balancing universal principles with cultural diversity. As societies evolve, jurisprudence remains a dynamic field, adapting to new ethical, social, and technological realities.

Summary of Key Findings in Liyanage v. The Queen (1965)

noreply@blogger.com (Prof.Dr Lakshman Madurasinghe ) — Sat, 2 Aug 2025 11:21:00 +0530

The case of Liyanage and Others v. The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259, also known as The Queen v. Liyanage in its initial proceedings, is a landmark Privy Council decision originating from Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). Decided on December 2, 1965, it addressed the constitutional validity of emergency legislation enacted in response to the failed military coup attempt of January 27, 1962. The appellants, including Douglas Liyanage, a senior civil servant accused of masterminding the plot, and 23 other military and police officers, challenged their convictions under laws that were retrospectively criminalizing their actions. The Privy Council's judgment quashed the convictions, declaring key provisions of the impugned Acts ultra vires the Ceylon Constitution. This ruling established enduring principles on judicial independence, the separation of powers, and the limits of legislative authority in written constitutions, particularly regarding ex post facto and ad hominem laws. Below is a detailed summary of the key findings, structured around the factual background, legal issues, and doctrinal contributions, aiming for a comprehensive 1000-word analysis (word count: approximately 1050).Factual Background and Procedural HistoryThe 1962 coup attempt in Ceylon involved a group of disaffected military personnel, police officers, and civilians who sought to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike shortly after her election. The plot, allegedly led by figures like Liyanage, aimed to arrest key political leaders and install a new administration amid grievances over perceived corruption and policy failures. The coup was thwarted on the night of January 27, 1962, leading to the arrest of 24 suspects, including high-ranking officers such as the Inspector-General of Police and army commanders.
In the immediate aftermath, the government, facing a political crisis, enacted the Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act No. 1 of 1962 (the "Special Provisions Act") on February 1, 1962, just days after the arrests. This Act, followed by the Criminal Law Act No. 31 of 1962, introduced retrospective criminal offenses, altered procedural rules for the trial, and prescribed severe penalties, including death and property confiscation, specifically tailored to the coup participants. Notably, the legislation created new crimes like "conspiracy to overthrow the government by unconstitutional means," which did not exist prior to the event, and applied them retroactively.
The trial was conducted by a specially nominated "Trial-at-Bar" under Section 440A of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by the Special Provisions Act. Three Supreme Court judges were handpicked by the Minister of Justice to hear the case without a jury, bypassing standard judicial processes. The accused were charged with offenses against the state, including sedition and conspiracy. In 1963, the Trial-at-Bar convicted 11 of the 24 accused, sentencing them to terms ranging from 3 to 10 years' imprisonment, with Liyanage receiving the longest sentence. No death penalties were imposed, but the threat loomed large.The appellants appealed to the Ceylon Court of Criminal Appeal, which upheld the convictions in 1964, but granted leave to appeal to the Privy Council in London, the final appellate body under Ceylon's Constitution at the time. The Privy Council, comprising Lords Reid, Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Guest, Pearce, and Upjohn, heard the case in 1965. The core challenge was whether the Acts violated constitutional norms by usurping judicial functions and denying fair trial rights.Key Legal Issues and the Privy Council's AnalysisThe Privy Council identified two primary grounds of invalidity: (1) the retrospective and ad hominem nature of the legislation, which offended fundamental principles of justice, and (2) the interference with the judicial power vested in the judiciary, breaching the separation of powers under the Ceylon (Constitution) Order in Council of 1946 (as amended by the Ceylon Independence Act 1947). These issues were examined against the backdrop of Ceylon's status as a sovereign state with a written constitution, distinguishing it from the unwritten British model.
First, on retrospectivity and specificity: The Acts were explicitly designed to target the coup plotters, creating offenses post-facto and limiting their application to this specific incident. Section 9 of the Special Provisions Act, for instance, retroactively criminalized acts committed before its enactment, while Section 21 confined its operation to proceedings against the named accused, ceasing to have effect after the trial concluded. The Privy Council, per Lord Pearce, held that while legislatures in sovereign states like Ceylon possess plenary powers under Section 29(1) of the Constitution—empowering Parliament to make laws for the "peace, order, and good government" of the country—these powers are not absolute. They must align with the constitutional framework, which implicitly incorporates fundamental principles of natural justice.
Drawing on historical precedents like Phillips v. Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1, the Council acknowledged that retrospective civil laws are permissible in certain contexts, but criminal laws creating new offenses ex post facto are presumptively invalid unless justified by overriding public interest. Here, the legislation's ad hominem character—tailored to punish specific individuals without general applicability—crossed into unconstitutional territory. It was not a broad emergency measure but a "grave and deliberate" attempt to predetermine guilt, violating the rule of law. The finding emphasized that such laws undermine predictability and fairness, core tenets of justice, even in post-independence Commonwealth jurisdictions liberated from the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865.
Second, and more profoundly, the separation of powers doctrine: The Constitution did not expressly vest powers in three branches, but Part IV (on the Judicature) and historical context implied a deliberate allocation. Legislative power was vested in Parliament (Section 29), executive in the Crown (Section 45), and judicial power inhered in the established judiciary under the Courts Ordinance of 1889, free from political interference. The Privy Council rejected the Crown's argument that no separation existed, noting that pre-independence judicial independence was preserved and enhanced post-1947.
The impugned Acts interfered with judicial functions in multiple ways. Section 4 allowed ministerial nomination of judges, effectively stacking the bench against the accused—a direct executive intrusion into judicial appointments. Sections 15 and 17 prescribed mandatory minimum sentences and property forfeiture, removing judicial discretion on punishment. Section 6 altered evidentiary rules retroactively, such as deeming certain acts as prima facie evidence of conspiracy, and Section 11 prohibited bail, fettering the court's liberty to grant it. Collectively, these provisions directed the judiciary's "discretion or judgment in specific proceedings," constituting an usurpation of judicial power.
The Council clarified that not all ad hominem or retrospective laws infringe judicial power; the test is contextual, considering the legislation's purpose, design, and impact. In this case, the common thread of targeting the coup trial evidenced an intent to subvert impartiality. Lord Pearce observed: "Their Lordships are not prepared to hold that every enactment... which can be described as ad hominem and ex post facto must inevitably usurp or infringe the judicial power." However, where laws "affect, by way of direction or restriction, the discretion or judgment of the judiciary," they are invalid. This nuanced approach avoided a rigid binary, allowing flexibility for genuine emergencies while safeguarding core judicial autonomy.Doctrinal Contributions and Broader ImplicationsThe Privy Council's findings have far-reaching significance. It affirmed that Ceylon's Parliament, despite sovereignty, operates within constitutional bounds, influencing judicial review in Commonwealth nations with written constitutions. The ruling bolstered the judiciary's role as a check against legislative overreach, particularly in politically charged contexts like coups or emergencies. It distinguished Ceylon's system from the UK's fused powers, emphasizing that written constitutions demand explicit protection for judicial independence.In terms of fair trial rights, the decision invalidated procedural manipulations that denied due process, aligning with Article 29(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits laws inconsistent with fundamental rights. The quashing of convictions on ultra vires grounds set a precedent against "trial by legislature," influencing cases like Bribery Commissioner v. Ranasinghe [1965] AC 172, another Privy Council ruling on Ceylon's constitutional limits.
Critically, the judgment critiqued the government's motives, noting the Acts' timing and specificity as evidence of vengeance rather than public safety. This underscored the rule of law's supremacy, even amid national security threats. Post-judgment, the appellants were released, and the case prompted constitutional reforms, including the 1972 Republican Constitution, which explicitly addressed separation of powers.
In Sri Lankan jurisprudence, Liyanage remains a cornerstone for challenging retrospective laws, as seen in later Supreme Court decisions on emergency regulations. Globally, it informs debates on judicial independence in post-colonial states, warning against legislative encroachments. The findings thus protect democratic institutions by ensuring that justice remains blind to political expediency.
In conclusion, the Privy Council's key holdings—that retrospective, ad hominem criminal laws can violate constitutional justice principles, and that inter-branch interferences undermine judicial power—reaffirm the judiciary's sanctity. This 1965 decision not only resolved a pivotal political trial but also fortified constitutionalism in Sri Lanka and beyond

An Assesment of Lord Denning's Contribution to Law

noreply@blogger.com (Prof.Dr Lakshman Madurasinghe ) — Fri, 18 Jul 2025 11:12:00 +0530

Denning's judicial career began in 1944 when he was appointed to the High Court at the remarkably young age of 45, initially in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division before transferring to the King's Bench Division. By 1948, he had risen to the Court of Appeal as a Lord Justice of Appeal. In 1957, he became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in the House of Lords, but after five years, he returned to the Court of Appeal in 1962 as Master of the Rolls—a position he held for two decades until his retirement in 1982 at age 83. This longevity, spanning nearly 38 years on the bench, allowed him to deliver around 2,000 reported judgments, many of which reshaped English common law. Margaret Thatcher described him as "probably the greatest English judge of modern times," while Lord Bingham called him "the best known and best loved judge in our history." His influence extended across the Commonwealth, where his decisions were cited as persuasive authority.
What set Denning apart was his judicial style and philosophy. Unlike the formal, precedent-bound approach of many contemporaries, Denning wrote judgments in simple, vivid English, often beginning with storytelling or evocative imagery to humanize the law. In Miller v Jackson [1977] QB 966, he famously opened with a poetic description of an English village cricket match: "Broadchalke is one of the most pleasing villages in England. Old world, and yet alive. Around it the fields sweep up the hills to the sky-line... In summer time, on fine afternoons, the men of the village gather in the cricket field to play the age-old game." This not only engaged readers but underscored his belief that law should serve societal needs, not rigid doctrine. Denning was an early judicial activist, willing to "cut a new channel from the main stream," as Lord Devlin put it, prioritizing justice and fairness over strict adherence to precedent. He famously declared in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] CA: "Be ye never so high, the law is above you," emphasizing the rule of law's supremacy.
Denning's contributions spanned multiple legal fields, but his most enduring impact was in contract law, where he modernized outdated principles to reflect contemporary realities. In Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd [1947] KB 130, as a High Court judge, he revived the doctrine of promissory estoppel, long dormant since Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co (1872). During World War II, a landlord had promised tenants reduced rent due to lower occupancy; when conditions improved, the landlord sought full arrears. Denning ruled that the promise, relied upon by the tenants, estopped the landlord from reneging entirely, though only prospectively. This "shield not sword" principle—elaborated in Combe v Combe [1951]—prevented injustice from broken promises without consideration, influencing later cases like Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher in Australia. Critics like Professor Atiyah argued it introduced uncertainty, but it humanized contract law, paving the way for statutory reforms like the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
In offer and acceptance, Denning challenged the traditional "mirror image" rule. In Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 965, a "battle of the forms" arose from conflicting standard terms in buyer-seller documents. Denning rejected rigid analysis, advocating a holistic view: "The better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them... whether they have reached agreement on all material points." Though overruled by the House of Lords in Gibson v Manchester City Council [1979] 1 WLR 294, his pragmatic approach influenced judicial practice, emphasizing intention over formality and reducing commercial disputes.
Denning also advanced equity in contract through concepts like misrepresentation and economic loss. In Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon [1976] QB 801, he held that expert representations in negotiations could become contractual warranties, protecting less knowledgeable parties. His dissent in Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 critiqued privity of contract, arguing third parties should enforce benefits—ideas later adopted in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. In tort law, Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 All ER 581 established that learner drivers owe the standard of a competent driver, eliminating "want of skill" as a defense and promoting road safety. Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co [1973] 1 WQB 27 limited recovery for pure economic loss in negligence, balancing floodgates concerns with justice.
In family and property law, Denning was a pioneer for women's rights. He established the "deserted wife's equity" in National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175, granting a wife an equitable interest in the matrimonial home to prevent eviction, influencing the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. In Fuller v Fuller [1973] 1 WLR 730, he redefined cohabitation for divorce purposes, requiring couples to live "as husband and wife." His use of constructive trusts protected vulnerable partners, as in cases allowing unmarried contributors to claim shares in property.
Procedurally, Denning innovated remedies like the Mareva injunction (now freezing order), first in Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA [1975] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509, to prevent asset dissipation abroad. In constitutional law, his report on the Profumo Affair (1963) exposed political scandals, though criticized as an "establishment whitewash." He supported individual rights in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball [1977] 1 WLR 766, balancing national security with natural justice.
Denning's influence extended to public law and beyond. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, he ruled that exclusion clauses in automated car parks were not incorporated if not reasonably notified, protecting consumers and inspiring the Unfair Contract Terms Act. His decision in Laker Airways v Department of Trade [1977] QB 643 allowed competition against monopolies, enabling cheap transatlantic flights. In employment, W J Alan & Co v El Nasr Export & Import Co [1972] 2 QB 189 applied estoppel to waive rights, aiding international trade.
However, Denning's legacy is not without controversy. His flexible approach to precedent often led to inconsistency; Lord Hailsham lamented, "The trouble with Tom Denning is he's always re-making the law and we never know where we are." In later years, his views hardened. In R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118, he opposed gambling liberalization, reflecting Edwardian morality. His comments on race, such as doubting black jurors' impartiality in What Next in the Law (1982), sparked outrage and his resignation as Master of the Rolls. Most notoriously, in the Birmingham Six case (1980), he dismissed their appeal against false convictions for IRA bombings, warning of an "appalling vista" if police perjury were acknowledged—views overturned in 1991, with each receiving £1 million compensation. Similarly, his Guildford Four remarks drew criticism for prioritizing institutional stability over justice.
Academically, Denning's contributions are debated. Supporters like Lord Neuberger praise his "eminently readable style" and "percipient approach to the continuing development of the common law." Critics, including in Lord Denning: Life, Law and Legacy by James Wilson (2019), argue his "palm tree justice"—deciding on personal conscience—created unpredictability, as in his overruled dissents. Yet, Parliament often validated his innovations, as with promissory estoppel and third-party rights.
Denning retired amid controversy but remained active, writing books like The Due Process of Law (1980), which explored judicial integrity and family law reforms. He died on March 5, 1999, at 100, leaving a corpus of work that personalised the law. As Lord Diplock noted in 1983, his judgments were a "stimulating... contribution" to common law evolution. Denning's enduring legacy is as the "people's judge," who made law accessible, equitable, and responsive, even if his methods occasionally veered into maverick territory. His influence persists in modern judgments, statutes, and legal education, reminding us that law must adapt to serve humanity.

Here Is Exactly Why Israel’s War Against Hamas Is Legal — and Required — By International Law

noreply@blogger.com (Prof.Dr Lakshman Madurasinghe ) — Thu, 5 Jun 2025 18:06:00 +0530

Israel has always had to navigate “new waves.” Today, however, separate but force-multiplying “seas” of jihadi terrorism and Iranian nuclearization define an existential threat. To confront this, Jerusalem’s strategic decision-makers will need to offer assessments in legal and strategic terms.

On these matters, geography remains specific. Gaza is often center stage, and Gazan Palestinians are portrayed as victims of incessant harms. Though the death and victimization of so many Gaza noncombatants seems difficult to reconcile with humanitarian international law, there exists a clarifying distinction between jihadist-inflicted terror violence and Israeli-inflicted defensive measures — measures needed by Israel to survive as a state.

This distinction centers on “criminal intent” or mens rea. For Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, the Houthis and assorted other Islamist foes, mens rea is conspicuous and indisputable. These groups aim to kill civilians.

Prof. Lakshman's Legal Odyssey

THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE

The Development of Jurisprudence: A Historical Overview

Summary of Key Findings in Liyanage v. The Queen (1965)

An Assesment of Lord Denning's Contribution to Law

Here Is Exactly Why Israel’s War Against Hamas Is Legal — and Required — By International Law

80 Years On, We Must Continue to Keep the Memories of Holocaust Survivors Alive

What is Law?

Not all is well inside the Taliban

The Proposed Constitutional Court for Sri Lanka

An ‘embarrassment’: Experts explain what could happen as Switzerland rejects landmark climate ruling

What was in the ruling and how did Switzerland respond?

SIXTH SOUTH ASIAN PEOPLES SUMMIT DECLARATION 2007

Breaking: International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Russia's Shoigu, Gerasimov

Putin’s designs on a Baltic island are leading Sweden to prepare for war

The legal profession in 2024: AI

Leaked State Department Memo: Israeli Assurances 'Neither Credible Nor Reliable'

The Supreme Court's 'Immunity Club' And The Advent Of Fascist Jurisprudence

Israel Is Terrified the World Court Will Decide It’s Committing Genocide

Henry Kissinger, War Criminal Beloved by America’s Ruling Class, Finally Dies

‘Truly a David and Goliath case’: Six young people take 32 countries to court in unprecedented case

India’s supreme court issues handbook against use of archaic terms for women

Illinois Supreme Court upholds state’s ban on semi-automatic weapons

In a 4-3 decision Friday, the high court found that the Protect Our Communities Act does not violate the federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the law nor the state constitution's bar on special legislation.

Israel does not have a right to self-defense for its occupation

Harvard negotiator explains how to argue

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending 50 years of federal abortion rights

Britain has a decision to make: the rule of Boris Johnson – or the rule of law?