Law - Essay ExampleThe development of each of these areas of law would be discussed in turn and any similarity as well as difference would looked into so as to make an effective comparison between the two difference applications that have been provided for that is one by way of statute and the other 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 benefit 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 element in respect of an easement is the based on the fact that since there is a benefit that is accruing there is a burden on what is known as the servient tenement or in other words 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 criterion that had been laid down in Re Ellenborough Park1 which are generally referred to when determining the existence of an easement. The first and foremost requirement is the fact that there must 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 tenement’s occupation and ownership must be by different persons (Roe v. Siddons)3. However, according to Wright v. Macadam4 the occupation by different persons would allow an easement to be created. The Third element is the fact the easement must benefit the dominant tenement and this is dependent upon the proximity of the servient tenement; it also been stated that the advantage should not be purely personal (Hill v Tupper); and the right must not that be of a recreational user. The fourth criterion is that the easement that has been alleged must be capable of formation of subject matter of a grant. Case law has developed upon the criterion and has provided guidelines in this respect, the first one being that there must be a capable grantor, which is clear in the facts at hand, the second that there must be a grantee which is evident because the tenants were granted 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 covered under the rights which have been recognized to be easements, which has been done in respect of the right to cross. The 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 Property Act (LPA) 1925. (Cooke 2006) As far as legal easements are considered there are a number 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, by deed or registered disposition. All other easement are equitable in nature. (Dixon 2004) As far easement by prescription is Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 wordsLaw - Essay ExampleUnfortunately, even in 2012, until more research is conducted to collect data on duration of street bail, Hucklesby’s claims remain valid. Street 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 bringing the suspect in the police station to bail him or her out a few minutes later.2 There were estimates in 2004 that the new 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 Sections 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 offender in or not, the police officer must consider following facts: whether 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 continue 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 will 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 Hucklesby’s arguments, due to the inexperience of the arresting 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. PACE’s 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 before 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 protection 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 arresting police officers. Though PACE aims to decrease the detention time, Skinns has found evidence that detention time has been increasing 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 still a problem. Skinns found that gathering evidence is still a problem in the British criminal system, and it rests with “
