Chris Monaghan
I am a Principal Lecturer in Law at the University of Worcester. I have taught at the University of Worcester since the School of Law opened in 2016. Prior to this I was a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Greenwich.
I have a keen interest in constitutional law, accountability and legal history. My current research projects include the Chagos litigation and impeachment as an accountability mechanism. I am the co-editor of the Routledge Frontiers in the Study of Accountability book series and has published in journals such as the Criminal Law Review, Judicial Review and the European Human Rights Law Review.
I hold a PhD in law from King’s College London. My thesis provided a balanced and independent examination of the case for a new impeachment process for the United Kingdom, arguing that it would have a valuable role to play in the future development of the United Kingdom’s system of politics and government. As part of the thesis, I set out a detailed model for the structure, working, and effect of impeachment.
I am happy to supervise PhD students and welcomes expressions of interest.
Qualifications
PhD in Law (King’s College London)
LLM (Anglia Ruskin University)
Legal Practice Course (College of Law)
Graduate Diploma in Law (University of Hertfordshire)
BA (Hons) History (University of Liverpool)
I have a keen interest in constitutional law, accountability and legal history. My current research projects include the Chagos litigation and impeachment as an accountability mechanism. I am the co-editor of the Routledge Frontiers in the Study of Accountability book series and has published in journals such as the Criminal Law Review, Judicial Review and the European Human Rights Law Review.
I hold a PhD in law from King’s College London. My thesis provided a balanced and independent examination of the case for a new impeachment process for the United Kingdom, arguing that it would have a valuable role to play in the future development of the United Kingdom’s system of politics and government. As part of the thesis, I set out a detailed model for the structure, working, and effect of impeachment.
I am happy to supervise PhD students and welcomes expressions of interest.
Qualifications
PhD in Law (King’s College London)
LLM (Anglia Ruskin University)
Legal Practice Course (College of Law)
Graduate Diploma in Law (University of Hertfordshire)
BA (Hons) History (University of Liverpool)
less
InterestsView All (12)
Uploads
Books
Adopting a clear and simple approach with legal vocabulary explained in a detailed glossary, Chris and Nicola Monaghan break the subject of Contract law down using practical everyday examples to make it understandable for anyone, whatever their background. Diagrams and flowcharts simplify complex issues, important cases are identified and explained and on-the- spot questions help you recognise potential issues or debates within the law so that you can contribute in classes with confidence.
Beginning Contract Law is an ideal first introduction to the subject for LLB, GDL or ILEX and especially international students, those enrolled on distance learning courses or on other degree programmes."""
Each text offers a clear understanding of legal study and an engaging introduction to each subject; presenting the study of law as both an academic subject and a force in society. The texts map to undergraduate law degree programmes and are tailored for use harmoniously alongside core law material
- See more at: http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/educator/product/Blueprints-Constitutional-and-Administrative-Law/9781447904977.page#sthash.HHUMi6vM.dpuf
'A highly stimulating book' --From the Foreword by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Product Description:
In Dissenting Judgments in the Law a team of expert contributors reassess nineteen landmark cases from different areas of the law, each of which had the potential for the law to have developed in a markedly different direction. The cases have been selected on account of their continued relevance to the law today or the controversial nature of the majority s decision. A key feature of each case was a dissenting opinion from a judge who thought that the law should develop in a different direction. The aim of the contributors is to re-evaluate important cases, such as YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27, Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 and R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 by assessing the merits of the judgements given, before deciding whether the law would, in fact, have been better served by following the dissenting opinion rather than that of the majority of judges in the case. The judicial reasoning in each case is explored in depth and is contrasted with differing approaches in other jurisdictions. Where relevant, a comparative analysis is employed in order to show how the law, by not following the dissenting opinion, has developed out of step with other common law jurisdictions. Each contributor then sets out what impact the dissenting judgment might have had on the law if it had decided the case and assess where the law in that particular field would be today.
About the Authors:
Neal Geach is a senior lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire specialising in Tort and Property law. He also has research interests in electronic and mobile commerce.
Christopher Monaghan is a Lecturer in Law at BPP University College. He also has extensive research interest in criminal law and legal-history.
The chapters which I contributed:
A Defence of Commercial Certainty in the Wake of Judicial Pragmatism Lord Bingham’s Dissent in Golden Strait Corpn v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [2007] UKHL 12
Show me the Precedent! – Prerogative Powers and the Protection of the Fundamental Right not to be Exiled Lord Mance’s Dissent in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61
Restricting the Meaning of ‘Appropriation’ under the Theft Act 1968 – A Cool, Calm and Rational Approach to the Issue of ‘Stealing’ A Perfectly Valid Gift Lord Hobhouse’s Dissent in R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53, [2001] 2 AC 241
Book Chapters
Papers
Keywords: Warren Hastings, human rights, East India Company, Edmund Burke and impeachment, Chilcot Inquiry.
Adopting a clear and simple approach with legal vocabulary explained in a detailed glossary, Chris and Nicola Monaghan break the subject of Contract law down using practical everyday examples to make it understandable for anyone, whatever their background. Diagrams and flowcharts simplify complex issues, important cases are identified and explained and on-the- spot questions help you recognise potential issues or debates within the law so that you can contribute in classes with confidence.
Beginning Contract Law is an ideal first introduction to the subject for LLB, GDL or ILEX and especially international students, those enrolled on distance learning courses or on other degree programmes."""
Each text offers a clear understanding of legal study and an engaging introduction to each subject; presenting the study of law as both an academic subject and a force in society. The texts map to undergraduate law degree programmes and are tailored for use harmoniously alongside core law material
- See more at: http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/educator/product/Blueprints-Constitutional-and-Administrative-Law/9781447904977.page#sthash.HHUMi6vM.dpuf
'A highly stimulating book' --From the Foreword by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Product Description:
In Dissenting Judgments in the Law a team of expert contributors reassess nineteen landmark cases from different areas of the law, each of which had the potential for the law to have developed in a markedly different direction. The cases have been selected on account of their continued relevance to the law today or the controversial nature of the majority s decision. A key feature of each case was a dissenting opinion from a judge who thought that the law should develop in a different direction. The aim of the contributors is to re-evaluate important cases, such as YL v Birmingham City Council [2007] UKHL 27, Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [1962] AC 446 and R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53 by assessing the merits of the judgements given, before deciding whether the law would, in fact, have been better served by following the dissenting opinion rather than that of the majority of judges in the case. The judicial reasoning in each case is explored in depth and is contrasted with differing approaches in other jurisdictions. Where relevant, a comparative analysis is employed in order to show how the law, by not following the dissenting opinion, has developed out of step with other common law jurisdictions. Each contributor then sets out what impact the dissenting judgment might have had on the law if it had decided the case and assess where the law in that particular field would be today.
About the Authors:
Neal Geach is a senior lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire specialising in Tort and Property law. He also has research interests in electronic and mobile commerce.
Christopher Monaghan is a Lecturer in Law at BPP University College. He also has extensive research interest in criminal law and legal-history.
The chapters which I contributed:
A Defence of Commercial Certainty in the Wake of Judicial Pragmatism Lord Bingham’s Dissent in Golden Strait Corpn v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [2007] UKHL 12
Show me the Precedent! – Prerogative Powers and the Protection of the Fundamental Right not to be Exiled Lord Mance’s Dissent in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61
Restricting the Meaning of ‘Appropriation’ under the Theft Act 1968 – A Cool, Calm and Rational Approach to the Issue of ‘Stealing’ A Perfectly Valid Gift Lord Hobhouse’s Dissent in R v Hinks [2000] UKHL 53, [2001] 2 AC 241
Keywords: Warren Hastings, human rights, East India Company, Edmund Burke and impeachment, Chilcot Inquiry.
and press coverage as a result of the unsuccessful attempt to prosecute a mother for allegedly lying on her son’s school application form. This article argues that it was inappropriate to begin proceedings using the Fraud Act 2006 in such circumstances. The use of fraud, which has become a catch all
offence under the Act, is dangerous. The prosecution attempted to stretch the statutory provisions of the Act and fell foul of the meaning of ‘gain’ or ‘loss’ and the principle of ‘remoteness’.
This article submits that it is wrong to criminalise behaviour just
because we find it morally or socially objectionable. Consideration will also be given to whether there are other, more appropriate sanctions which may be taken in such circumstances.
Keywords:
Dishonesty; False representation; Remoteness; School
admissions; Meaning of gain and loss"
Chris Monaghan asks, does this place an unfair burden on the magistrates, and create too much uncertainty for the prosecution, the defendant and the local authority?"
The seven year long Impeachment Trial of Warren Hasting, Governor-General of Bengal and complicit facilitator-in-chief: How Edmund Burke attempted to prevent the East India Company and their servant’s abusing their position, racketeering, judicial complicity, murder, the extortion of India’s wealth and the wholesale abuse of ‘human rights’.
ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE? - UNIVERSITY OF WORCESTER SERIES 2
Tuesday 30 May 2017, 11.30am Venue: Cube
Judges have blocked Presidential executive orders in the US and corrected the legality of the Prime Minister’s parliamentary Article 50 procedures in the UK. What should the constitutional role of the courts be in maintaining a proper balance of power in a modern democracy? Professor Penny Darbyshire is from Kingston Law School, Bill Davies is Head of the School of Law and Chris Monaghan is Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Worcester, David Shaw is the former Chief Constable of West Mercia Police and they are joined by retired judge, Toby Hooper QC.
Monday 29th June 2015, School of Law, University of Greenwich
Queen Anne Building, Old Royal Naval College, Greenwich
This one-day conference The Chagos Litigation: A Socio-Legal Dialogue will bring together academics and legal practitioners to explore the landmark significance of the Chagos litigation from a number of distinct and interconnected perspectives. The Chagos litigation refers to the cases brought by the former inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago and the Republic of Mauritius against the United Kingdom. The claim by Mauritius concerned the sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago and the legality of the Marine Protected Area. The Permanent Court of Arbitration has recently ruled that the creation of the Marine Protected Area was inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s international law obligations. The cases brought by the former inhabitants were concerned with inter alia the decision to remove and prevent their return to the Chagos Archipelago. The conference aims to facilitate a dialogue that brings together academics and legal practitioners who are interested in the different aspects of the Chagos litigation and the wider issues that emanate from this litigation, in order to address these issues from a socio-legal perspective. The conference is hosted by the School of Law and the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Group at the University of Greenwich.