Law Exercises<br />Regulations and Directives<br />For each of the new stories below read the news story then answer the questions below it:-<br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13215010 <br />New EU regulations on herbal medicines come into force <br />New European Union rules have come into force banning hundreds of traditional herbal remedies. The EU law aims to protect consumers from possible damaging side-effects of over-the-counter herbal medicines.<br />For the first time, new regulations will allow only long-established and quality-controlled medicines to be sold. But both herbal remedy practitioners and manufacturers fear they could be forced out of business.<br />To date, the industry has been covered by the 1968 Medicines Act, drawn up when only a handful of herbal remedies were available and the number of herbal practitioners was very small. But surveys show that about a quarter of all adults in the UK have used a herbal medicine in the past two years, mostly bought over the counter in health food shops and pharmacies. The regulations will cover widely used products such as echinacea, St John's Wort and valerian, as well as traditional Chinese and Indian medicines.<br /> Herbal remedies that have been approved for sale under the new regulations will come with this logo. Safety concerns have focused on the powerful effects of some herbal remedies, as well as the way they interact with conventional drugs. For example, St John's Wort can interfere with the contraceptive pill, while ginkgo and ginseng are known to have a similar effect to the blood-thinning drug Warfarin.<br />From now on only products that have been assessed by the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will be allowed to go on sale. Manufacturers will have to prove that their products have been made to strict standards and contain a consistent and clearly marked dose. And to count as a traditional medicine, products must have been in use for the past 30 years, including 15 years within the EU. They will also only be approved for minor ailments like coughs and colds, muscular aches and pains, or sleep problems. Remedies already on sale will be allowed to stay on the shelves until they reach their expiry date. <br /><ul><li>What kind of law is this?
The UK already has legislation to cover this area. Does this EU Regulation over rule our legislation and why?</li></ul>http://www.cedr.com/?location=/library/articles/20110601_293.htm <br />The EU Directive now implemented – the latest news<br />The May 2011 date for implementing the EU Mediation Directive (EUMD) is nearly upon us, and the Ministry of Justice has just published its latest account of the steps it proposes, together with draft Statutory Instrument (yet to be finalised by Parliamentary Draftsman) and CPR amendments. As expected, the machinery for implementation is to be the European Communities Act 1972, by which European legislation can be imported by SI into UK law without its own separate statute.<br />Ministry of Justice has declared itself satisfied that England & Wales are compliant with the EUMD in respect of the majority of its requirements, so no proposals are made<br /><ul><li>Why was a ‘draft statutory instrument’ (line 3) needed to implement this EU law?
How are the UK bringing in this legislation without having to create a ‘separate statute’? (see lines 4 and 5)</li></ul>Criminal and Civil Law<br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214219/I-want-fair-divorce-deal-says-3m-banker-left-450-000.html <br />19050181610Ex-banker left with £450,000 from £3m in divorce deal wins bigger share of fortune at Appeal Court A former banker has been granted an extra £370,000 in his divorce settlement after challenging the initial verdict. The Court of Appeal said the judge was wrong to include William Murphy's company deferred compensation fund in its calculations. The fund, from his former employer Merrill Lynch, was notionally valued at £550,000 <br />The appeal judge also found that Mrs Justice Parker was not justified in ruling that Mr Murphy had wasted £2million of the family assets after separating from his wife, Helene, in 2006. Lord Justice Thorpe, who headed the panel of three appeal judges, said the accusation was 'unfair to the husband'. <br />Mr Murphy, who worked for Salomon Brothers in New York and Merrill Lynch in London, will now get nearly £820,000. His wife's share was cut from £1.9million to £1.5million. He can also claim the substantial legal costs of the case. The assets of the couple, who were married in 1996 and have no children, have been split 65/35 in favour of Mrs Murphy. Lord Justice Thorpe said this was justified as Mr Murphy had greater future earning potential. <br />The case came in the week a leading family lawyer called for an end to court rulings which left wives living in comfort on the back of their husbands' money. Baroness Deech said handing a husband's wealth to the wife after a short childless marriage was demeaning to women who were fully capable of finding work. She said such over-generosity to women had made London the divorce capital of the world. At the time of Mr Murphy's settlement, the former banker was earning nothing, his lawyer Martin Pointer QC, had told the court. But his wife Helene had a handsome income as a director of a London art gallery, he added.<br />Which court (and which division of that court) would initially have heard this case before the appeal?<br />Which court heard the appeal and why was it heard in that court?<br />What change did the court make to the original hearing?<br />Why do you think the appeal was allowed?<br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011152/Emergency-legislation-reverse-police-bail-ruling-rushed-Commons.html <br />Emergency legislation to reverse police bail ruling to be rushed through the CommonsThe initial ruling, made by a district judge and backed by a judicial review at the High Court, means officers can no longer bail suspects for more than four days without either charging or releasing them.<br />His announcement came as three Supreme Court justices were considering an application from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to stay the judgement pending a full appeal at the same court on July 25.<br />The row started when district judge Jonathan Finestein, sitting at Salford Magistrates' Court, refused a routine application from GMP for a warrant of further detention of murder suspect Paul Hookway on April 5. High Court judge Mr Justice McCombe confirmed the ruling in a judicial review on May 19, which meant time spent on police bail counted towards the maximum 96-hour limit of pre-charge detention, after which Home Office officials were told about the problems.<br />A legal bid by Greater Manchester Police to stay the judgement, effectively putting it on hold, has been submitted to the Supreme Court.<br />Emergency legislation to reverse a controversial legal ruling on police bail will go through all stages in the Commons on Thursday, the leader of the House said. Sir George Young said peers would then consider the police detention and bail Bill early next week.<br />1. What court made the initial ruling? (see line 1)<br />Why was it reviewed at the High Court?<br />What court is considering the appeal? Why is this court handling the appeal?<br />Which court is handling the ‘stay of judgement’ request? Why is this court handling it?<br />‘Emergency Legislation’ is being rushed through parliament going through ‘all stages in the Commons on Thursday’ before going to the Peers ‘next week’. What are the stages it will go through? Why does it go to the Peers?<br />