Contempt

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report Law of contempt recommends 'that the submissions received to this inquiry be referred to any future Senate inquiry into contempt'.

The Committee was tasked in August 2017 with reporting by 25 November on

(a) the recommendations of the 1987 Australian Law Reform Commission report on contempt and, in particular, the recommendation that the common law principles of contempt be abolished and replaced by statutory provisions; 

(b) the recommendations of the 2003 New South Wales Law Reform Commission on contempt by publication and the need to achieve clarity and precision in the operation of the law on sub-judice contempt; 

(c) the development and operation of statutory provisions in Australia and overseas that codify common law principles of contempt; 

(d) the importance of balancing principles, including freedom of speech and expression, the right of fair trial by an impartial tribunal, public scrutiny of the operations of the court system and the protection of the authority, reputation and due process of the courts; and 

(e) any other related matters.

The committee received six submissions

The report states that

On 7 April 1983, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) was referred an inquiry which sought to consider the following forms of contempt:

• improper behaviour in court; 

• attempting to influence participants in proceedings; 

• failing to comply with a court order or an undertaking given to a court; and 

• contempt by publication.

In June 1987 the ALRC tabled its final report, Contempt, which made 124 recommendations. ... In essence, the ALRC recommended that the common law principles of contempt be abolished and replaced by statutory provisions which would govern all Federal Courts except the High Court of Australia. 

On 14 July 1998, the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales (NSWLRC) was asked to inquire into the law of contempt by publication. Specifically, the terms of reference were:

To inquire into, and report on, whether the law and procedures relating to contempt by publication are adequate and appropriate, including whether and in what circumstances, a person against whom a charge of contempt is found proven should be liable to pay, an addition to any criminal penalty, the costs (of the government and of the parties) of a criminal trial aborted as a result of the contempt

The report, Contempt by publication, was published in June 2003 and subsequently tabled in the NSW Parliament on 16 September 2003. The committee made 39 recommendations .... The report noted that to codify contempt by publication, while leaving the common law to regulate other forms of contempt, would not have the effect of achieving clarity over the operation of contempt laws. However, the report recommended significant legislative reform in the area of contempt by publication, 'while allowing the common law to continue to develop.'

Codification of the law of contempt 

The views of submitters relating to whether or not contempt laws should be codified were mixed. The Legal Service's Commission of South Australia (LSC) supported the codification of contempt laws arguing that this would achieve greater clarity for defendants and consistency in the manner in which sanctions were being imposed. The LSC made the following suggest[ion]s if contempt laws were to be codified:

• that a catch all provision be included in the definition of contempt so that unforeseen incidents of contempt are not excluded; 

• that contempt in the Family Courts take into account its unique role and be tailored to its unique priorities, such as the welfare of children; and 

• if contempt is to be dealt with entirely in the criminal courts, then it should not be dealt with summarily and the defendant have the right to request the matter be heard by a different judicial officer.

The Law Council of Australia (Law Council), expressed the view that contempt laws currently operate 'satisfactorily', although it was not opposed to the codification of contempt laws in line with the recommendations of the ALRC and the NSWLRC reports. However, in noting its broad support for the codification of the law of contempt, the Law Council explained the importance of retaining certain principals such as flexibility and freedom of expression: 

Despite its support for efforts to codify rules of contempt, the Law Council is conscious of the special role contempt plays in the judicial system and considers it to be critical that any measures to codify the law of contempt retain as much flexibility and discretion as possible to allow judicial officers to appropriately deal with issues arising from contempt of court on a case-by-case basis.

The nature of contempt demands a complex balancing of interests, most notably between freedom of expression on one hand and the integrity of the justice system on the other. In this regard, the Law Council emphasises the need for reform proposals to remain cognisant of the fundamental importance of the administration of justice and the contribution made by the law of contempt to preserving this. The reform proposals must also avoid unduly infringing principles of freedom of expression and open justice.  

Should reforms to the law of contempt proceed, the Law Council made the following recommendations:

• Any reform to the laws of contempt should be co-ordinated between the Commonwealth and the States to achieve uniformity; 

• The recommendations of the ALRC that common law principles of contempt be recast as criminal offences should be implemented, to the extent that they do not already overlap with the criminal law; 

• The recommendations of the ALRC that contempt in the face of the court be replaced with a series of criminal offences to be tried summarily should be implemented; 

• The recommendations of the ALRC that civil contempt be replaced with a statutory regime of non-compliance proceedings should be implemented; 

• A "substantial risk" test proposed by the NSWLRC should be uniformly implemented in relation to contempt by publication; 

• Summary trial procedures for sub-judice contempt should be retained; 

• if contempt is to be dealt with entirely in the criminal courts, then it should not be dealt with summarily and the defendant have the right to request the matter be heard by a different judicial officer. 

• The public interest defence recommended by the NSWLRC in relation to contempt by publication should be implemented; 

• The law of contempt by publication should be reviewed to ensure that it applies to circumstances where an Internet Service Provider or Internet Content Host has been made aware of the material but, thereafter, fails or refuses to remove it.

The Law Council also recommended that they be consulted prior to any reforms relating to the law of contempt being introduced. 

 The NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) did not comment on the recommendations of the ALRC's report, however, stated that it 'supports the development of uniform statutory provisions governing the law of sub judice contempt.' The ODPP noted that since the NSWLRC's report of 2003, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were launched, which have significantly changed the media landscape, including in the manner and form in which media is being reported. As such, the ODPP suggested that '[t]he proposed legislation will need to take account of the changing media environment to ensure that all manner of publications are covered by the sub judice provisions, including the new and emerging social media platforms.' 

While the International Commission of Jurists Victoria (ICJ) described the NSWLRC's report as 'an extremely useful and comprehensive tool in discerning the relevant issues with respect to contempt by publication laws…', it argued against the broad codification of contempt laws. The ICJ disagreed with criticism that the laws of contempt were difficult to determine and potentially lacking in procedural fairness. It noted that the flexibility of the current law allows the courts to appropriately tailor their responses and that courts have shown that they are able to apply their powers in a 'fair and nuanced way'. Finally, the ICJ argued that it was essential that courts are able to initiate contempt proceedings on their own motion as this is vital to the exercise of their independence. 

The NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) did not comment on the recommendations of the ALRC's report, however, stated that it 'supports the development of uniform statutory provisions governing the law of sub judice contempt.' The ODPP noted that since the NSWLRC's report of 2003, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were launched, which have significantly changed the media landscape, including in the manner and form in which media is being reported. As such, the ODPP suggested that '[t]he proposed legislation will need to take account of the changing media environment to ensure that all manner of publications are covered by the sub judice provisions, including the new and emerging social media platforms.' 

A couple of submitters did not offer a view as to whether or not the law of contempt should be codified, however made the following observations: 

• the right to freedom of expression and the right to have a fair hearing can sometimes compete with one another but freedom of expression should not be misused to prejudice the prospects of a person obtaining justice before the courts;

• that the point of view and lore of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be considered.

The committee thanks all organisations and individuals who made submissions to this inquiry, though it notes that the number of submissions received is far lower than it had anticipated. Having received such limited input, the committee does not feel that it is in a position to properly inquire into this complex issue, or to form a considered view as to whether the laws of contempt should be codified. However, having regard to the important and considered views expressed in the submissions received, the committee recommends that the submissions be referred to any future Senate inquiry into contempt.

Emojis

'Surveying the Law of Emojis' (Santa Clara University Legal Studies Research Paper, 8-17) by Eric Goldman comments

Everyone loves emojis! It’s easy to see why. Historically, most online communications have emphasized text, and emojis add much-needed emotional content to text-driven communications—and often help people express themselves more precisely. Due to the enthusiastic embrace of emojis, we are witnessing a historic change in how we communicate online. 

This article surveys three significant ways the emoji revolution will impact the law. 

First, questions about what emojis mean will arise in a wide range of legal doctrines, from criminal law to contracts. Our standard interpretative tools generally can handle new communicative technologies, but several aspects of emojis will require careful consideration. Most significantly, senders and receivers will unexpectedly see different versions of an emoji due to technological intermediation, leading them to make reasonable—but different—interpretations of the same communication, with potentially adverse consequences for one or both parties. The article will explore some steps that would reduce the risks of these misunderstandings. 

Second, emojis will often qualify for copyright and trademark protection. However, IP protection encourages platforms to differentiate their emoji implementations, which exacerbates the risks of miscommunications and misunderstandings. To mitigate this outcome, IP protections for emojis should be interpreted narrowly. 

Third, emojis create some issues for judicial operations, including if and how judges will display emojis in their opinions, if emojis in court opinions will be searchable, and how best to present emojis as evidence to fact-finders.

Leaks and Open Justice

'Leak-Driven Law' by Shu-Yi Oei and Diane Ring in (2018) 65 UCLA Law Review comments

Over the past decade, a number of well-publicized data leaks have revealed the secret offshore holdings of high-net-worth individuals and multinational taxpayers, leading to a sea change in cross-border tax enforcement. Spurred by leaked data, tax authorities have prosecuted offshore tax cheats, attempted to recoup lost revenues, enacted new laws, and signed international agreements that promote “sunshine” and exchange of financial information between countries. 

The conventional wisdom is that data leaks enable tax authorities to detect and punish offshore tax evasion more effectively, and that leaks are therefore socially and economically beneficial. This Article argues, however, that the conventional wisdom is too simplistic. In addition to its clear benefits, leak-driven lawmaking carries distinctive risks, including the risk of agenda setting by third parties with specific interests and the risk associated with leaks’ capacity to trigger non-rational responses. Even where leak-driven lawmaking is beneficial overall, it is important to appreciate its distinctive downside risks, in order to best design policy responses. 

This Article is the first to thoroughly examine both the important beneficial effects of tax leaks, and their risks. It provides suggestions and cautions for making and enforcing tax law, after a leak, in order to best tap into the benefits of leaks while managing their pitfalls. 

In P Q R v Secretary, Department of Justice and Regulation (No 1) [2017] VSC 513 the Supreme Court of Victoria has considered an application for a suppression order under s 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic).

The Court states

 In the primary proceeding under s 148(1)(b) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), the applicant has applied for leave to appeal and, if it is granted, appeals against a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. That decision was to refuse to grant him a notice under s 26B(1) of the Working with Children Act 2005 (Vic) assessing him to be a person suitable to undertake child-related work. My judgment in that proceeding is to be found in PQR v Secretary, Department of Justice and Regulation (No 2). This is my determination of the application of the applicant for a suppression order under s 17 of the Open Courts Act 2013 (Vic). 

The applicant was convicted of criminal charges, most recently in 2012 in relation to large-scale drug trafficking. In view of his plea of guilty and excellent prospects for rehabilitation, he was sentenced to imprisonment for six years with a minimum term of two years. He was a model prisoner and released on parole in 2014, which will end in 2018. Since being released, he has made very strong steps towards full rehabilitation. Among other things, he has undertaken study, and is undertaking further study, now at university, to become an exercise physiologist. To complete these studies, he will need to obtain a practical training placement, which will likely place him in contact with children. Thereafter he wishes to have the option of working with children in sporting and related fields. To undertake child-related work, he must apply for a working with children check and obtain an assessment notice under the Working with Children Act. When the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Regulation refused to accept that he was suitable, he applied to VCAT for a review of the Secretary’s decision. When VCAT refused that application, he appealed to this court on grounds of error of law. 

For the purpose of ensuring open justice and freedom of expression, there is a fundamental principle of the common law of great antiquity that, first, proceedings in courts (and now tribunals) are presumptively open to the public and news media organisations, which includes information about the names of parties, witnesses and other persons involved and, second, that information about the proceeding can be freely communicated. Only exceptionally is it ordered otherwise. By way of such exception, both VCAT and this court have made orders that the applicant is to be known in the proceeding in both jurisdictions by a pseudonym, in this court ‘PQR’. The primary basis for the making of these orders was not that the applicant himself needed anonymity. The basis was that the applicant would be reasonably deterred from accessing justice by commencing the proceeding in VCAT and the appeal in this court if his present and former partner and her and their children were to suffer distress and embarrassment by reason of him being identified. 

The Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd is legitimately interested in the applicant’s application in VCAT and appeal to this court because his is a case of a person with convictions for serious criminal offences, including drug-related offences, seeking to work with children and while on parole. It has published articles both in print and online about VCAT’s decision and the appeal in this court. 

Although Herald and Weekly Times appears to have independently ascertained the applicant’s identity, it has not yet used his real name (or photograph) in any publication relating to the proceedings. There is dispute between the parties and Herald and Weekly Times about whether, as a matter of law, the pseudonym order in this court prevents it from doing so. The applicant contends that it probably would, and the Secretary contends that it actually would, be contempt of court for Herald and Weekly Times to do so. To the contrary, Herald and Weekly Times contends that it would not be contempt of court to do so, where it has independently discovered the applicant’s real name. To remove any doubt about the scope and effect of the pseudonym order, the applicant has applied for the suppression order. 

The court’s determination of the application for the suppression order raises issues concerning the relationship between pseudonym orders and suppression orders under the Open Courts Act, the balance struck under the common law and that Act between freedom of expression and access to justice, and the obligation of news media organisations under the law of contempt not to frustrate the purpose of orders of the court that preserve the anonymity of parties, witnesses and others involved in legal proceedings. These issues are particularly important because freedom of expression and fair and public hearings before courts and tribunals are human rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

The Court referred to Re Savvas, where Hunt J ordered that certain witnesses in a criminal trial would be referred to by pseudonyms and that any matter likely to lead to their identification was not to be reported by those in court. In PQR the Court states -

In the interest of keeping justice as open as possible, his Honour preferred to adopt this course rather than allowing their real names to be used subject to a non-publication order.  He made it quite clear that subsequent publication of the real names would be a contempt:

If the two witnesses are addressed and referred to throughout the trial by pseudonyms, the media will not be entitled to publish their true identities as part of a fair report of court proceedings open to the public. There is no room for the inadvertent or careless use of their names in such a report. If the media wish to go beyond publishing such a report, they will be disclosing the identities of those witnesses only because they have deliberately set out to make such a disclosure. If an order has been made at the commencement of the trial that such identities should not be disclosed (even though not binding on the media), and if the media have already been warned of the reason why those names are being withheld, the inference will be clear that their disclosure was made with the intention of frustrating or interfering with that order. They will in those circumstances be guilty of contempt ...

His Honour went on to explain his purpose in making the order and its legal effect:

The difference between the situation where the real names of the witnesses are used in court and a non-publication order is made and the situation where pseudonyms are used and such an order is made may appear on the surface to be slight, but in practice the difference is significant. In the latter, any disclosure by the media must be very deliberate indeed on its part; there is no room for error. With very few exceptions, the media may be trusted to act with a due sense of responsibility in matters such as this. The courts, having done everything reasonably possible consistently with justice to keep the proceedings open to the public, must proceed upon the basis that deliberate acts designed to frustrate or interfere with the administration of justice will receive condign punishment as contempts.

Notice or knowledge is an element of the potential liability of a person under the law of contempt for engaging in conduct that frustrates the purpose of an order.

Postgrad Complaints

The NSW Ombudsman Discussion Paper Complaints about supervision of postgraduate students suggests steps that could be taken by universities to refine their policies and practices to specifically address conflicts that may arise in postgraduate supervisory arrangements.

The paper comments

The NSW Ombudsman has jurisdiction over all public universities in NSW – ten universities in all. We receive and investigate complaints from students about administrative actions relating to their enrolment, course progress, supervision and termination of their studies. At the Ombudsman’s office, we have worked with universities to develop tailored guidance for dealing with the unique issues that can arise in university complaints. An important stage in this work was in 2015 when we published, together with other Australian Ombudsman offices, Complaint Handling at Universities: Australasian Best Practice Guidelines. As the foreword to those guidelines observed about university complaints, ‘Mishandled complaints have a high potential cost, both financially and in damage to reputations’. For several years, we have been looking into complaints that relate to postgraduate supervision in NSW universities. We have received a steady number of these complaints and they are often complex and time consuming to examine. They are also often accentuated by career and personal concerns reflected in the breakdown of research relationships between postgraduate students and supervisors.

In January 2016, we released a draft discussion paper to university complaint handlers in NSW. There was strong interest in the topic, with submissions from universities and discussions between Ombudsman and university staff and with representatives from postgraduate student organisations.

We have now decided to take the issue a step further by publishing a revised discussion paper that will be made more widely available on our website. This revised paper builds on the consultation that has occurred to date. It includes a number of We invite submissions or comments from any interested parties by 31 January 2018 particularly examples of initiatives that have successfully resolved conflicts in postgraduate supervision. We will then decide if further action is needed to develop best practice guidelines or share practical examples and ideas among universities. ....

This project arose from the steady number of complaints the NSW Ombudsman has received over many years about postgraduate supervision in NSW universities. These complaints can be complex and take time and resources to examine. They often also have a personal aspect which makes them especially challenging to deal with.

In January 2016, we published a draft discussion paper for university complaint handlers and received many helpful submissions in reply. We also reviewed relevant university policies, surveyed all NSW universities, conducted follow-up interviews with university staff at each institution, and spoke with representatives of several postgraduate student organisations. This current discussion paper has resulted from those conversations and the strong interest that we have encountered on this topic.

Universities in NSW have told us that complaints by postgraduate students are not overall more frequent than other kinds of student complaints. Allegations of academic or non-academic misconduct in postgraduate supervision are not sustained after investigation any more often than other student allegations. However, universities generally recognise that there is a potential for postgraduate complaints to be complex and bitterly-contested and significant resources can be spent in dealing with them.

This discussion paper aims to help all those involved share what they feel to be best practice in complaint handling in this field. This will hopefully facilitate a constructive exchange of ideas and experience. There is no implicit suggestion in this project that universities have dealt poorly with these matters in the past, or that some universities have performed poorly compared to others. A number of universities have commented that the conversations leading to this discussion paper have been beneficial. For example, one university found that useful information it had published about dealing with conflicts between supervisors and students on a FAQ page on its website appeared only in the ‘for supervisors’ version of the page.

Universities have also moved of their own accord to address issues in response to the questions raised in our survey and follow-up interviews with interested parties. For example, some universities found that their policies were not as clear as they could be and have undertaken to revise them.

The paper comments that ' Difficulties and conflicts will always arise between postgraduate students and supervisors. The sensible path forward is therefore to develop a structured framework that acknowledges this possibility and implements steps to avoid or deal with it'. It accordingly suggests  ten strategies for inclusion in such a structured framework:

1. Universities should prepare accessible written guidelines for students and supervisors on dealing with conflicts and disputes – including counselling, appointing a new supervisor, and referring disputes for conciliation. These guidelines should advise students and supervisors that problems can arise in all supervisory relationships that are not the fault of either party.

2. Universities should consider developing or continuing a structured training program for supervisors on the skills of supervision. This training should contain practical advice on dealing with problems in the supervisory relationship, such as ‘having difficult conversations’.

3. Members of supervisory panels should be advised when they start their role to take note of signs of deterioration in supervisory relationships, and report these to the conflict resolution officer in postgraduate administration or the ‘mentor’ if one has been appointed to the panel.

4. Students and supervisors should be encouraged to keep a written record of their supervisory arrangements, expectations and mutual responsibilities. Both could be encouraged to co-sign any important records.

5. Universities should implement a procedure whereby a student, after their annual performance review, can submit a confidential report on perceived problems in their supervisory relationship.

6. Universities should nominate a designated officer – a ‘go-to’ person – that a student or supervisor can speak to if they are experiencing significant difficulties in a supervisory relationship. This designated officer (or panel of officers) could be located or administered by the central university office responsible for postgraduate administration. They could be given a recognisable title, such as ‘conflict resolution officer’.

7. A designated student ‘mentor’ could be appointed to the supervisory panel for each student who has changed their principal supervisor more than once – with the exception of changes arising from matters such as the death, illness, resignation or retirement of a supervisor. The mentor’s role would be to monitor the general supervisory relationship, independent of the substance of the research project. It should also be understood that the appointment of a mentor is not seen as a negative or punitive response to the changes in supervisory arrangements.  Universities could also consider, on an individual basis, whether a ‘mentor’ should be appointed to a supervisory panel in other special circumstances. For example, if the principal supervisor is undertaking supervision for the first time – or the principal supervisor was involved previously in a sustained formal grievance process or was the subject of serious allegations of bullying or harassment. Including the mentor on the supervisory panel should be seen as a safeguard measure to minimise potential problems and provide independent feedback to the supervisors – not as a performance management measure that reflects on the supervisor’s suitability.

8. Universities should consider establishing a panel of internal university mediators, conciliators or trained dispute-resolution specialists who are available – with the consent of the parties – to deal with unresolved conflicts between students and supervisors.

9. Universities should consider implementing a structured program for contacting students by email at designated stages of a research project, and inviting them to raise or discuss on a confidential basis any issues they may be experiencing with their supervision. The following is suggested text to include in the email:

The university recognises that postgraduate study can be stressful. The stress will be greater if you feel you have an unsatisfactory academic relationship with your supervisor. You may raise any concerns you have by replying to this email. Other options and procedures for dealing with problems you may be facing with your supervisor are outlined in the university’s guidance on postgraduate supervision, which is available at the following link: [a link to information on the university’s dispute–resolution or conciliation process]. If you believe your supervisor is acting improperly or unethically, you have the right to submit a formal grievance. The procedure for doing this is outlined in the university’s guidance on postgraduate supervision. The university will receive any concerns you raise on a confidential basis. However, it may be necessary to discuss an issue with your supervisor or members of the supervisory panel if we are going to further investigate your complaint. We will discuss this with you before contacting your supervisor.

10. Students should be made aware – both in their induction material and through other accessible policies or guidance material – of the independent complaint and appeal mechanisms that are available to them. This includes the right to complain to the NSW Ombudsman, the Australian Research Integrity Committee, The Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, and the Independent Commission Against Corruption – as well as professional bodies, schools or boards that regulate careers in certain occupations.

Bitcoin

'Beyond Bitcoin – Legal Impurities and Off-Chain Assets' (Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 260/2017) by Chris Reed, Umamahesh, Sathyanarayan, Shuhui Ruan and Justine Collins comments 

Blockchain technology allows the creation of distributed ledgers. These distribute control among the players rather than requiring a centralised database, and so can reduce costs and speed up transactions. However, when it is used for assets which exist outside the blockchain itself, an unmodified adoption of the technology would bypass legal and regulatory requirements which, for these kinds of assets, cannot be bypassed without fundamental change to the law.

Building those requirements into any blockchain-based system introduces features which are not necessary for performing its core functions, and we call these ‘legal impurities’. The most important legal impurities required are those relating to identification of the parties, and introducing the ability of a trusted third party to make modifications to the ledger. Not only does introducing these legal impurities make fundamental changes to the concept behind blockchain, but it is also essential that they are implemented in ways which do not threaten the integrity of the blockchain as evidence.

'Is a ‘smart contract’ really a smart idea? Insights from a legal perspective' by Mark Giancaspro in (2017) 33(6) Computer Law and Security Review 825-835 comments

Swift developments in the emerging field of blockchain technology have facilitated the birth of ‘smart contracts’: computerised transaction protocols which autonomously execute the terms of a contract. Smart contracts are disintermediated and generally transparent in nature, offering the promise of increased commercial efficiency, lower transaction and legal costs, and anonymous transacting. The business world is actively investigating the use of blockchain technology for various commercial purposes. Whilst questions surround the security and reliability of this technology, and the negative impact it may have upon traditional intermediaries, there are equally significant concerns that smart contracts will encounter considerable difficulty adapting to current legal frameworks regulating contracts across jurisdictions. This article considers the potential issues with legal and practical enforceability that arise from the use of smart contracts within both civil and common law jurisdictions.

Drones

'African Drone Stories' by Kristin Sandvik in (2015) 8(2) Behemoth A Journal on Civilization comments

The process of normalizing drones throughout Africa has received little scholarly attention. Discussions of drone proliferation tend to assume that the drone industry is a monolithic, geographically concentrated entity, and that drone use will look the same and engender the same controversies, regardless of geography. The article aims to think through African drone proliferation by analyzing how drones and Africa are being construed as solutions to each other’s problems, and by exploring the interface between images of Africa and the notion of the drone as a game changer for development and security. The article also reads the African drone in the context of the early deployment of surveillance drones in Africa in the 1970s, as well as the legacy of technological imperialism and colonial airpower. The perception of Africa as being in need of external drone intervention dovetails with the drone industry’s efforts to identify and promote good uses for drones — efforts that are central to increasing the legitimacy of drones in the eyes of the Global North. Hence, the article argues that the ‘African drone’ has become a vehicle for the production and distribution of norms, resources, and forms of legitimacy that have implications for drone proliferation, both within and outside Africa.

History of Animal Law

'The Historical Development of Animal Welfare Law in Nineteenth Century Scotland' by Daniel James Carr examines 

the development of animal welfare in Scotland. Whilst the law developed in tandem with developments across nineteenth century Britain, the paper draws attention to the distinctive Scottish situation. By examining the development from disparate common law protections to the statutory interventions of the nineteenth century the paper charts that development, and begins to place it within nascent 'humanist' movements emerging around this time. The piece examines how the Scottish doctrinal law took a distinctive direction in decisions, and in particular considers contemporary opinion. The paper is the first to take a look at the particular Scottish development and opens up new avenues of research into the nineteenth century, and also frames developments in the modern law which I will pursue in future research.

Carr argues

This paper is confined to laying some historical groundwork by starting to look at the historical development of animal welfare law in Scotland. This is not a comprehensive treatment of the history of the legal development in Scotland: much of the paper is tentative, and, it also takes account of developments in England. It is hoped that this contribution might stimulate further research. Hopefully, the chapter will come to be situated within a broader possible research project on animal law in Scotland more generally, which would concentrate particularly on animal welfare law but could also encompass other areas of law dealing with animals. Therefore, this paper considers some of the early history of animal welfare law in Scotland, particularly in the early to mid nineteenth century. The paper demonstrates, I hope, how the law in Scotland has developed by small incremental developments from the common law, or at least it was retrospectively described as such a development, which was then substantially altered by legislative intervention in the mid-nineteenth century. It is possible to trace the changing background to the rules and discern some normative movement from viewing animals as mere property to some form of recognition of the interests of the animals themselves. The explanations given for the creation of legislation to increase the protection accorded to animals qua animals varied from the ownership, divine duty, projections of humanity onto animals, before moving towards thinking about the interests of the animal themselves as some kind of freestanding interest that was worthy of protection.

A secondary dimension of the paper is the interesting way it illustrates how different approaches have been taken by jurisdictions of the British Isles, and it forms a nice case study of different approaches have been taken from the early-19th century all the way through to the post-devolution era. Furthermore, that historical development also shows how these developing interests might be described very loosely as fitting in with other ‘humane’ movements around this period which were based on ideas such as rolling back personal oppression, the infliction of pain, the improvement of social conditions, and occupies a period where the increasing permeation of state intervention and legislation in many areas of law can be observed, and animal protection law becomes embedded within the emerging legislative web of such regulation which emerges within an emerging modern bureaucratic state. In turn, the protection of animals’ welfare comes to be protected not only in specific ‘animal cruelty’ statutes, but can also be seen across other forms of legislation dealing with food production, transportation of livestock, and even mining legislation.

A further and related dimension which I think is important, but which can only be lightly touched upon here, within this context of the increasingly present state and legislative interventions in relation to the management and regulation of that state, is the emergence of non-state actors conducting public duties (not in general, but the specific animal societies inspectors etc.) who become, in effect, quasi-state functionaries. This includes the societies against cruelty to children and animals which emerge as organisations which the state entrusts with certain public powers, and those functions remain considerably later than many other quasi-public entities disappear or at least diminish