Latest news with #LawCommission
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Protection against misuse: on POCSO Act, adolescent sex
The key objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is the protection of children, but over the past few years, courts around the country and rights activists have called for some exemptions. Noticing a trend that adolescents, above 15 years but under 18, in voluntary relationships and having consensual sex were often being persecuted, the courts sought a review. In that backdrop, senior advocate Indira Jaising's written submission to the Supreme Court that consensual sex between teenagers aged 16-18 years must not be criminalised is a welcome move. She was appointed amicus curiae and her submissions are part of a petition filed by advocate Nipun Saxena. Her brief challenged the designation of 18 years as the age of consent. She said the only solution lies in declaring that sex between consenting adolescents between the age of 16, an almost universal age of sexual maturity, and 18, is not a form of 'abuse'. Ms. Jaising called for this exception to be read into the POCSO Act and Section 63 (sexual offences), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). 'Such an exception would preserve the protective intent of the statute while preventing its misuse against adolescent relationships that are not exploitative in nature,' she said. In a 2023 report, the Law Commission had said that it was against changing the age of consent. It advised 'guided judicial discretion' instead, while sentencing in cases that involve children between 16 and 18 years in a voluntary, consensual relationship. Under the POCSO Act and under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the BNS, whoever commits a penetrative sexual assault on a child — who is anyone below 18 years — can face stringent punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and provisions of the IPC and BNS. A 16-year-old is considered a 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and hence her consent does not matter. But caveats have to be put in place so that the broad intent of the law is adhered to, as the Madras High Court suggested in 2021, in Vijayalakshmi vs State Rep. The High Court said the age difference in consensual relationships should not be more than five years to ensure that a girl of an impressionable age is not taken advantage of by an older person. Educating adolescents about the law on sexual offences and its consequences is a must too. Criminalising normal adolescent behaviour is not the way to protect against non-consensual, exploitative sexual offences.
Coin Geek
13-06-2025
- Business
- Coin Geek
UK lodges 'supranational approach' to decentralized disputes
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... The United Kingdom Law Commission—a statutory independent body that keeps U.K. laws under review and recommends reform—opened a consultation on June 5 to determine the tricky and controversial issue of which country's laws apply when disputes arise over decentralized digital assets and networks. First reported by Ledger Insights on June 6, the Commission proposed an innovative 'supranational approach' that considers protocol whitepapers and network participant expectations rather than attempting to apply existing territorial rules to complex decentralized disputes to overcome this dilemma. Since the entry of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and its most famous iteration, blockchain, onto the global scene, legal systems around the globe have been struggling to get to grips with the decentralized—or semi-decentralized—structure of many entities utilizing the technology. Legal processes are often reliant on companies and groups having a physical location to determine which jurisdiction's laws apply; when a dispute arises, in which country's court the parties should litigate their dispute; and after a judgment is passed, how it can be recognized and enforced in the courts of another country. Private international law is the body of domestic law that supplies the rules used to determine these questions, and it is premised on the principle that all national systems of law are limited in their application to sovereign territories defined by geographical boundaries – often known as the 'territoriality principle.' Decentralized DLT and blockchain entities challenge this tradition by transcending and defying geographical boundaries—a phenomenon described by the Law Commission as 'omniterritoriality.' The proposed solution In order to meet this challenge and ensure that decentralized entities remain answerable to laws, irrespective of where they may be operating, the Law Commission proposed developing a 'supranational' approach – i.e., one that transcends national boundaries or governments. This approach would involve the creation of 'a special body of substantive rules of decision that apply only in private law cases in which the law of no country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute and the law of every country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute.' According to the Law Commission, the supranational approach is often formalized through conventions and treaties. It does not require the special substantive rules to be a state-based law or agreed upon at an international level. This approach would involve the creation of 'a special body of substantive rules of decision that apply only in private law cases in which the law of no country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute and the law of every country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute.' According to the Law Commission, the supranational approach is often formalized through conventions and treaties and does not require the special substantive rules to be a state-based law or agreed upon at an international level. In other words, for peer-to-peer transactions on truly decentralized networks, the courts would not be required to identify the 'applicable law,' rather they would aim for a 'just disposal of proceedings' by reference to a range of different factors, including the legitimate expectations of the parties based on the terms of the relevant decentralized protocol and any white paper or other public document relating to the network. In this way, a dispute that crosses international boundaries, multiple jurisdictions, and lacks any physical location could be raised in the U.K. courts, and the parties could appeal to laws of other jurisdictions when making their arguments. Though the Commission's proposal would be initially for the U.K. courts to take up, depending on how it played out other countries may follow suit and apply a similar approach to complex blockchain and DLT disputes. By proposing supranational rules that consider the unique characteristics of decentralized networks such as blockchain, the U.K. Law Commission is innovating itself in an attempt to meet the challenges of new innovative technologies and systems present to traditional legal systems. Thus, the Law Commission's efforts represent a significant step toward filling a substantial legal hole around the issue of jurisdiction and decentralized entities. The consultation will remain open until September 8, 2025. Editor's note: This article has been updated. Watch | Tech of Tomorrow: Diving into the impact of tech in shaping the future title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""> Decentralization Regulation United Kingdom United Kingdom Law Commission
Coin Geek
12-06-2025
- Business
- Coin Geek
'Supranational approach' to decentralized disputes proposed in UK
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... The United Kingdom Law Commission—a statutory independent body that keeps U.K. laws under review and recommends reform—opened a consultation on June 5 to determine the tricky and controversial issue of which country's laws apply when disputes arise over decentralized digital assets and networks. To overcome this dilemma, the Commission proposed an innovative 'supranational approach' that considers protocol whitepapers and network participant expectations rather than attempting to apply existing territorial rules to complex decentralized disputes. Since the entry of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and its most famous iteration, blockchain, onto the global scene, legal systems around the globe have been struggling to get to grips with the decentralized—or semi-decentralized—structure of many entities utilizing the technology. Legal processes are often reliant on companies and groups having a physical location, to determine which jurisdiction's laws apply; when a dispute arises, in which country's court the parties should litigate their dispute; and after a judgment is passed, how it can be recognized and enforced in the courts of another country. Private international law is the body of domestic law that supplies the rules used to determine these questions, and it is premised on the principle that all national systems of law are limited in their application to sovereign territories defined by geographical boundaries—often known as the 'territoriality principle.' Decentralized DLT and blockchain entities challenge this tradition by transcending and defying geographical boundaries—a phenomenon described by the Law Commission as 'omniterritoriality.' The proposed solution In order to meet this challenge and ensure that decentralized entities remain answerable to laws, irrespective of where they may be operating, the Law Commission proposed developing a 'supranational' approach—i.e., one that transcends national boundaries or governments. This approach would involve the creation of 'a special body of substantive rules of decision that apply only in private law cases in which the law of no country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute and the law of every country would be appropriate to apply to resolve the issue in dispute.' According to the Law Commission, the supranational approach is often formalized through conventions and treaties. It does not require the special substantive rules to be a state-based law or agreed upon at an international level. In other words, for peer-to-peer transactions on truly decentralized networks, the courts would not be required to identify the 'applicable law.' Rather, they would aim for a 'just disposal of proceedings' by reference to a range of different factors, including the legitimate expectations of the parties based on the terms of the relevant decentralized protocol and any white paper or other public document relating to the network. In this way, a dispute that crosses international boundaries, multiple jurisdictions, and lacks any physical location could be raised in the U.K. courts, and the parties could appeal to laws of other jurisdictions in the course of making their arguments. Though the Commission's proposal would initially be for the U.K. courts to take up, depending on how it played out, other countries may follow suit and apply a similar approach to complex blockchain and DLT disputes. It would also not be an unprecedented system to adopt, as various Courts have demonstrated the application of rules beyond national laws, including religious principles and international frameworks like UNIDROIT—an intergovernmental organization that aims to harmonize private international law across countries through uniform rules—for commercial contracts. By proposing supranational rules that consider the unique characteristics of decentralized networks such as blockchain, the U.K. Law Commission is innovating itself in an attempt to meet the challenges of new innovative technologies and systems present to traditional legal systems. Thus, the Law Commission's efforts represent a significant step toward filling a substantial legal hole around the issue of jurisdiction and decentralized entities. The consultation will remain open until September 8, 2025. Watch | Tech of Tomorrow: Diving into the impact of tech in shaping the future title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen=""> Decentralization Regulation United Kingdom United Kingdom Law Commission
Times
12-06-2025
- Business
- Times
Updating the law is welcome but digitising wills comes with risks
It has been many years in the making, but the Law Commission's recent report on wills — together with a draft bill — includes radical suggestions to modernise the system. While virtually all documents can be created and signed electronically today, an English will in 2025 differs only marginally from one created at the time of the 1837 Wills Act, and often bears a greater resemblance to a Dickensian document than one drafted in the 21st century. The report and draft bill pave the way for electronic wills, bringing England and Wales into line with other jurisdictions that allow digital wills, such as the US, where several states recognise such wills, and parts of Canada and Australia. While the recognition that the law must reflect changes in society is to be welcomed, it is important to be aware of the potential risks, such as how documents will be made and stored securely. Electronic documents are more likely to be hacked, corrupted and to be subject to fraud. It may be easier to corrupt an electronically stored document and amend its provisions than to forge a paper will. Digital documents are more easily deleted accidentally, and if remote witnessing becomes a reality, then undue influence could be of increasing concern. The commission appears to be aware of the potential risks and has indicated that electronic wills will only be valid if they are registered and stored on a government-authorised central storage system, which should mitigate some of the risks. The requirements will be similar to those for paper wills in that a will must be written, signed by the testator, and witnessed by two people present at the same time. • At last, a proposal to overhaul 188-year-old wills legislation However, additional safeguards are highlighted — for example, the testator and witnesses should be linked to their signatures at the time of signing, and the original or authentic will must be identifiable from copies and protected from unauthorised alteration or destruction. The report goes on to say that the commission does not recommend the means or technology necessary to establish these criteria, which could mean that corners are cut at the lower end of the market in an attempt to keep prices low. In addition, the report advises giving the courts a 'dispensing power' to recognise documents that are not formal wills but that show a testator's intentions, including videos, electronic documents and recordings. The fact that the court would need to approve these 'wills' should act as a check and balance — however, there are clearly risks associated with proving the authenticity of such Lynn is a partner at the law firm Russell-Cooke
Dublin Live
10-06-2025
- Health
- Dublin Live
Europe's first 'boil in the bag' funerals happened in Meath and are set for UK
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info 'Boil in a bag' funerals could soon be made available across the UK after Europe's first facility opened in Meath. This unusual method, officially known as water cremation or alkaline hydrolysis, offers an environmentally friendly, yet controversial, way to say your final goodbyes to a loved one. It is currently effectively banned in the UK, but could well get the legal go-ahead following the independent Law Commission's new consultation into funerary methods. And Ireland has paved the way. Already available across 30 US states, as well as Canada and South Africa, the first European water cremation facility, or resomation, opened its doors in early 2023 in Navan, Co Meath, Ireland. Traditional burials can lead to embalming fluid seeping into the grave soil, while each gas-powered fire cremation releases around 245kg of CO2 into the atmosphere, according to UK-based cemetery and crematorium development the CDS Group. By comparison, figures from Resomation Ltd, the founding body for alkaline hydrolysis, show just 28kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere per water cremation. Unlike conventional cremations, these eco-friendly farewells, which take between three to four hours, also don't release harmful mercury emissions into the atmosphere. A body is loaded into the alkaline hydrolysis machine, which calculates the amount of water and potassium hydroxide required. The machine locks, and an alkaline solution then fills the pressurised tank, which is gently heated to 152°C (305°F). The remains are broken into their chemical components - amino acids, peptides, sugars and salt - leaving behind a liquid that is then cooled in another tank until sterile and free from any remaining tissue or DNA. Around 330 gallons of brown-coloured liquid will be washed down the drain, while the softened bones are ground to powder in a reducer, and presented in an urn to the grieving family. Back in 2017, Wired journalist Hayley Campbell described the process in colourful detail after seeing a resomator in action at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Hayley wrote: "Over the course of up to four hours, the strong alkaline base causes everything but the skeleton to break down to the original components that built it: sugar, salt, peptides and amino acids; DNA unzips into its nucleobases, cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine. "The body becomes fertiliser and soap, a sterile watery liquid that looks like weak tea. The liquid shoots through a pipe into a holding tank in the opposite corner of the room, where it will cool down, be brought down to an acceptable pH for the water treatment plant, and be released down the drain." Noting that "it's not actually that terrible", Hayley revealed: "The human body, liquefied, smells like steamed clams." Although many scientists view alkaline hydrolysis as the future of the death industry, it's something many still feel squeamish about, while others object on religious or cultural grounds. Highlighting why this process is still a bit of a taboo in an interview with The Telegraph, Dr Lian Lundy, a wastewater specialist from Middlesex University, explained: "Some people view it as basically mixing up my loved one with poo in the sewer and they don't like that. But there's a lot that goes into the sewer that we don't really think about – waste from mortuaries and hospitals and all sorts of things that we don't know about – so from that perspective, it's not really any different." Join our Dublin Live breaking news service on WhatsApp. Click this link to receive your daily dose of Dublin Live content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. For all the latest news from Dublin and surrounding areas visit our homepage.
