Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words - 2

Law - Essay ExampleThe development of each of these areas of law would be discussed in exploit and any similarity as well as difference would looked into so as to make an efficient comparison between the two difference applications that have been provided for that is one by way of statute and the different would be that of the rule of Wheeldon v. Burrows and the cases that have effectively developed the rule and applied the provision. Easements are where a return is provided to the dominant tenement that is the land which benefits from the easement, which provides the person who owns the dominant tenement of land to use the easement. The second gene in respect of an easement is the based on the occurrence that since there is a benefit that is accruing there is a burden on what is known as the servient tenement or in other spoken communication the land that has been burdened by the easement. A vital principle related to an easement is the fact that it is a proprietary interest and the accruing benefit and burden, subject to the laws of registered and unregistered land, transfer, if the land that is either the servient or dominant tenement is transferred to another person. (Cursley et al 2009) The creation of an easement is dependent upon the satisfaction of a touchstone that had been laid eat up in Re Ellenborough Park1 which are generally referred to when determining the followence of an easement. The first and foremost requirement is the fact that there moldiness be a dominant and servient tenement thus eliminating the possibility and stating that the easement cannot exist in gross. (Hawkins v. Rutler)2. The second requirement is the fact that the dominant and servient tenements occupation and ownership moldiness be by different persons (Roe v. Siddons)3. However, according to W reclaim v. Macadam4 the occupation by different persons would allow an easement to be created. The Third element is the fact the easement mustiness benefit the dominant te nement and this is dependent upon the propinquity of the servient tenement it besides been stated that the advantage should not be purely personal (Hill v Tupper) and the compensate must not that be of a recreational user. The fourth criterion is that the easement that has been alleged must be cap able of formation of subject matter of a grant. Case law has developed upon the criterion and has provided chokelines in this respect, the first one being that there must be a capable grantor, which is undefendable in the facts at hand, the second that there must be a grantee which is evident because the tenants were give the rights thirdly the subject matter of grant is sufficiently certain, which is clear enough in respect of the facts that is the right to cross and finally the right must be capable of being called an easement that is it is c everywhereed on a lower floor the rights which have been recognized to be easements, which has been done in respect of the right to cross. Th e final factor that has not been expressly listed down in the case was that of public policy which is considered when determining whether an easement is existent or not. (Grey et al 2006) The next aspect that is considered is that easement can be existent either legally or under equity as laid down under section 1 of the Law of lieu Act (LPA) 1925. (Cooke 2006) As far as legal easements are considered there are a fall of formalities that need to be fulfilled. The first requirement is that for a legal easement there must either be a fee simple absolute in possession or as an adjunct to a term of years (section 1 Law of Property Act 1925). Secondly easements can only be legal if created by way of statute, by prescription(prenominal), by deed or registered disposition. only other easement are equitable in temperament. (Dixon 2004) As far easement by prescription is Law Essay Example Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 wordsLaw - Essay ExampleUnfortunately, flat in 2012, until more research is conducted to collect data on duration of roadway bail, Hucklesbys claims await valid. pass bail was introduced in the British legal system in 2003. The amendment came into effect in 2004.1 Street bail was designed to speed up justice in the British legal system by enabling officers to spend more time collecting evidence, and less on totaling the suspect in the police station to bail him or her out a few minutes later.2 There were estimates in 2004 that the radical bail system would be economical, as it would provide additional 390,000 hours of police officers time annually to focus on investigating the crimes.3 Guidance on Street Bail was implemented in 2006. The guide aimed to direct implementation of the naval divisions 30A to 30D of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), as amended by Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. 4 While making a decision whether to bring the wrongdoer in or not, the police officer must consider following facts w hether the offender has a history of violating the bail, whether the offender could jeopardize the evidence crucial to the judicial system if left free, whether the offender could come about offending if left free, and whether data are correct regarding the address of the offender and the nature of the offense. 5 In Northern Ireland, an equivalent document was published as well.6 However, Hucklesby argues that the pre charge bail system only discourages justice. The nature of the offense, or the ability to jeopardize evidence, is left to the interpretation of the police officer. As a result, Hucklesby argues, more arrests depart take place, instead of fewer.7 Moreover, in cases where police officers will not be willing to pursue the investigation, the offender will not be turned in.8 Cape too agrees with Hucklesbys arguments, due to the inexperience of the prehend officers and a low threshold for arrest and long bail periods, where suspects will not be able to present their own story.9 Some argue otherwise. There are arguments that even in the light of the new approach to bail, PACE continues to use its fundamental balance approach,10 which was abused in the past. PACEs approach is to protect the rights of the suspect, while allowing for the police officers to gather enough evidence to identify the offender.11 One of its aims is also to decrease detention time. 12 A famous case portraying the misuse of power sooner the street bail on behalf of law enforcement officers is the Birmingham pub bombings, where six suspects were wrongfully convicted.13 The suspects were treated outside their testimonial system and tortured.14 Moreover, they were interrogated partly also outside of the police station, which violates the rules of PACE.15 The new approach to bail on street attempts to avoid such problems through allowing suspects freedom while conducting investigation. However, the power remains in hands of the prehend police officers. Though PACE aims to decrea se the detention time, Skinns has found evidence that detention time has been change magnitude back to the pre PACE level.16 In 1986, the mean detention time was over four hours, whereas in 1990 3 it increased to over six hours. 17 In 1979, before PACE, the mean detention time was over ten hours. 18 Moreover, police investigation is let off a problem. Skinns found that gathering evidence is still a problem in the British criminal system, and it rests with