The advent of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) is poised to transform global transportation systems, offering unparalleled opportunities to enhance safety, sustainability, and efficiency. Given that CAVs are most likely also to be electric vehicles (EVs), and in the UK, CAVs/EVs are a central element of government efforts to modernise mobility while achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, it would seem the UK is ready to embrace the transition to this new and disruptive form of transportation. However, while technological innovation has surged, critical questions remain about the readiness of physical, digital, and policy infrastructures to support the widespread adoption of CAVs. In this paper we examine the UK's preparedness for CAV deployment, focusing on the pivotal role of Local Authorities (LAs) in bridging infrastructure gaps. Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with LAs and experts from a broader project and report, findings presented in this paper reveal significant disparities in preparedness, driven by funding constraints, inconsistent national policies, and public ambivalence. By situating these findings within the broader global context of CAV research, this paper underscores the urgency of coordinated strategies to align CAV integration with sustainable mobility goals.

In Colley v Motor Insurers’ Bureau the Motor Insurers’ Bureau appealled against liability to satisfy a claim for damages for injuries suffered by a passenger in a motor vehicle accident. The driver was uninsured, but at the time of the accident the vehicle in which the victim was travelling was subject to a policy of motor insurance. By operation of national law, and in breach of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive (MVID), the insurer was allowed to recant the policy and leave the passenger a victim of an, ostensibly, uninsured vehicle. This note explains why the decision of the Court of Appeal was fundamentally flawed, how the Court continues to apply EU law incorrectly, and broader concerns the case presents for remaining EU law claims in the appeal courts. This is particularly the case for retained EU laws and the cases remaining to be heard under the MVID's application in national courts.

“Publish or perish” is a term used for the culture adopted in universities, whereby academic members of staff, typically although not exclusively on research and teaching contracts, are required to publish research. Minimum levels of quantity and quality may apply and these may be included in key performance indicators and annual staff reviews to ensure compliance. Whilst this culture has been reported in universities for nearly a century, most recently it has cascaded down to doctoral students who are increasingly expected to publish and otherwise disseminate research during their studies (i.e., research outside of that which is to be submitted in their thesis). This entry relates primarily to doctoral students in a UK setting and studying a monograph route (rather than a published papers submission) in the humanities. It further explores the role played by supervisors to help doctoral students to publish, and in turn the help and guidance supervisors need to offer as support. Many of the findings explored in this entry apply equally beyond the parameters noted above, and, as demonstrated in the literature, international students and institutions are facing similar issues.

Commercial law clinics are not a new phenomenon, and indeed in this very journal reports and academic commentary have been presented which identify and explore the nature, formation and operation of such clinics. However, these contributions focus on how clinics and their student volunteers can help commercial enterprises and start-up ventures with various legal issues they may encounter. Clearly, the need for such clinics and the value they provide to the students and community are immense. Where the clinical offer outlined in this report differs, and on which we hope a meaningful contribution to the body of scholarly knowledge is made, is in using a clinic setting with a simulated corporate client to operate two (elective) modules that enable the students to gain a thorough appreciation of those issues which underpin the formation and operation of a corporate structure. A simulated law firm is the setting through which the modules operate, albeit most of the tasks and issues raised in the modules would equally apply to other professions. By using the simulated client approach we are able to guide the students in helping navigate the client through every aspect of the journey of the business – its inception, the legal sector in which it will operate, its mode of incorporation, its clients and the generation of business, legal policies and issues likely to be faced in respect of running a business, its marketing and advertisement, professional body regulation and compliance, the financing of the business, and an appreciation of the stakeholders (and underlying philosophies) with whom the business and its personnel will engage. This clinical perspective allows the students to proactively develop strategies to navigate the owner through myriad complexities, whilst gaining valuable feedback regarding the efficacy of their decision-making and being empowered to adopt revisions to accommodate numerous changes in the professional, legal and financial environments. The main aim of this clinical experience (which we describe in Section 3) is to develop in the students a commercial awareness and understanding of what is required to be an entrepreneur in a modern legal service setting. This requires moulding their ‘shape’ as a legal graduate.

In Colley v Motor Insurers' Bureau the Motor Insurers' Bureau appealled against liability to satisfy a claim for damages for injuries suffered by a passenger in a motor vehicle accident. The driver was uninsured, but at the time of the accident the vehicle in which the victim was travelling was subject to a policy of motor insurance. By operation of national law, and in breach of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive (MVID), the insurer was allowed to recant the policy and leave the passenger a victim of an, ostensibly, uninsured vehicle. This note explains why the decision of the Court of Appeal was fundamentally flawed, how the Court continues to apply EU law incorrectly, and broader concerns the case presents for remaining EU law claims in the appeal courts. This is particularly the case for retained EU laws and the cases remaining to be heard under the MVID's application in national courts.

Self-driving cars, also referred to as connected and autonomous vehicles, are not only in vogue among technology and car enthusiasts (among others) but they have been broadly considered to form a new and disruptive means of transport. The benefits of self-driving cars are replete with stories of inclusivity, safety, environmental benefits, and social connectivity. However, the reality of the words ‘self-driving’ and ‘autonomous’ in the designation of this form of transport are not only inadequately defined, they appear to be actively misleading individuals as to the capabilities of the vehicle and the responsibility that they as driver or person behind the wheel have when in use. Tesla is at the forefront of this debate given that it not only sells an option for its vehicles of full self-driving capability, but it also uses terms such as autopilot which, we argue, lead to misunderstandings by the public and may have resulted, directly or indirectly, to fatal car crashes. We conclude this paper with a recommendation that legislative change is enacted through use of an existing international Standard which will provide the definition and guidance that is necessary for the benefit of all stakeholders.

As part of EU legislation regulating the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles, the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives (MVID) imposed onto Member States the obligation to ensure that civil liability for vehicles normally based in their territory is covered by insurance. In the 2009 sixth consolidating Directive (Directive 2009/103/EC), the law had become well established. Yet in 2014, the Court of Justice embarked on a journey of extending the scope of compulsory motor vehicle insurance, first through its ruling in Vnuk v. Zavarovalnica Triglav, and continuing in Juliana, Andrade and Nunez Torreiro. Together, these authorities confirmed the broadening direction of the Court of Justice's interpretation of the MVID, contrary to its understanding by many Member States and various interested parties. This in turn led to an amending Directive enacted in December 2021 which attempted to clarify the regulation ofcompulsory motor vehicle insurance law for the Member States. An examination of the amending law is provided, with a focus on the exclusions available to Member States, with the consequence that states have been provided with the tools to remove or limit the most expansive and protective rights for third-party victims of motor vehicle accidents.

AR v Others is a Polish reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) centring on the application of Directive 2009/103, the sixth and consolidated Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive (MVID), and the obligations therein regarding insurers' liability to third-party victims. To ensure that persons suffering injury (third parties) in motor vehicle accidents are provided with minimum standards of protection, the MVID regulates the compulsory motor vehicle insurance regime throughout the EU. This judgment is significant for two reasons. First, it identifies the scope of extra-contractual clauses permitted in the laws of Member States which affect the remedies of third-party victims of motor vehicle accidents. Secondly it, for the first time, defines the scope of the direct right of action of a third-party against the insurer of a driver who caused the damage (a right introduced by the Fourth MVID (2000/26)).1 As a final, albeit perhaps more discursive contribution but one which we find profoundly important, it confirms the Court's decision in Linea Directa regarding when a vehicle is in "use" for the application of the MVID. However, in so doing it raises again the issue of the Court of Justice embarking on a course of factual jurisprudence.

Connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) currently exist in varying states of readiness to, at one end of the spectrum, assist the driver in normal driving activities and at the other operate in fully autonomous mode, requiring no driver input at all. In facilitating these features, CAVs create, give access to, and allow communication of the data produced. The further along the autonomous scale CAVs progress, the greater the data generated, which are being harvested by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), often unwittingly by the end user. The operation of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 gives government agencies power to compel the retention and access to these data. Here we argue that the definitions within the Act result in CAV OEMs being subject to retention notices of the data generated by these vehicles. This issue, its extent and potential for abuse, and the lack of protection for those associated with the use of CAVs, hitherto unexamined in the legal academic literature, is the focus of this paper.

Since the first Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive (MVID) in 1972, not only did the scope of the legal protection of victims of motor vehicle accidents increase in each of the five subsequent MVID iterations, but so did the activism of the Court of Justice to continue the protective momentum. A pivotal judgment came in 2014, when in Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav the Court interpreted the MVID as applying to vehicles on public and private land. Consequently, and following a consultation exercise by the EU Commission, Directive 2021/2118 was enacted which amended the MVID, reversing the effects of Vnuk, but also limiting rights for third-party victims of motor vehicle accidents in unexpected ways. In this article, we assess the broad and negative effects of the Directive's implementation and compare how the Commission's "Roadmap" proposals would have been a far more proportionate response to curb the Court of Justice's activism.

Given the increasingly competitive higher education (HE) marketplace, it is becoming progressively more important for university law schools to distinguish their offer. In England and Wales, it is commonplace for non-law undergraduate degree programmes to incorporate compulsory empirical research training within discrete modules or as part of a broader research skills package. Yet this element is typically missing from traditional LLB programmes. Addressing the gap in the literature around HE students' perceptions of conducting empirical research, in this paper we explore insights into the benefits of or barriers to undertaking such research and the extent to which students believe that it should form part of their undergraduate experience. This paper is based on findings from a small-scale, pilot case study at a post-1992 higher education institution (HEI) involving students who participated in an extracurricular empirical research evaluation project. The findings reveal perceived benefits for three key stakeholder groups: students as researchers, the host HEI and the local community where the research took place. Drawing on these themes, we conclude by offering recommendations for law schools to learn from their counterparts in other disciplines and explore potential opportunities for incorporating empirically based research training within law undergraduate degree programmes.

This chapter explains how, in the face of an emerging refugee crisis and in reaction to significant national funding cuts, the authors established a refugee family reunion clinic based upon a therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) philosophy. This chapter explores the development and operation of this human rights clinic based on this experiential and clinical legal education model. It offers an explanation of the induction and training provided to the students, of how a TJ philosophy is infused into their development and their interactions with the clients, and of the experience and reflections of the students following their involvement. The chapter explores how the ideas that TJ exhorts are becoming an increasingly important skills-base for graduates, and particularly for those students who will become the next generation of lawyers, judges and advisors. It is asserted that such philosophies are universally applicable to global legal education.

Following concurrent global enthusiasm and concern regarding the introduction in public spaces of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs), this article critically examines the legal, regulatory and policy frameworks around their introduction, focusing on the potential issues for the growing number of stakeholders with disabilities. Through adopting an internationally comparative approach, we apply the lens of inclusivity to explore these issues around CAV growth and deployment, specifically from a UK perspective, albeit we observe similar opportunities exist for legislators in Hong Kong. In so doing, we present recommendations for the development of a legislative framework adhering to key principles of consultation, collaboration and communications with members of these stakeholder groups.

Connected and autonomous vehicle (CAV) use, having been tested in various cities around the world and adopted in many areas through public transport, is being prepared for private sector use. The connected dimension of CAV provides for the vehicle to communicate with other vehicles and local infrastructure to operate in a safe manner. Yet, it is this communication of data and operation through software which causes potential problems in the event of the software suffering from unlawful modification (hacking). The consequences of a CAV being hacked could result in its features being compromised resulting in accidents, damage, financial loss, deaths and personal injury. It is also likely that hacking will affect fleets of vehicles operating on the same software version rather than individual vehicles. In this paper we argue there is a need for a strategy to determine how responsibility for the damage and loss caused following the mass hacking of CAVs is to be apportioned. This discussion is presently missing in the evolving literature on CAV maturity and we conclude that a national compensatory body offering a guarantee fund from which victims may seek redress would provide the most appropriate solution for all stakeholders.

In this Article, we argue that the uncertainty of UK national motor vehicle insurance law-when viewed with respect to its European Union (EU) parent, the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive (MVID)-was never satisfactorily addressed, primarily when using the remedy available through the non-contractual liability of the State. The EU enforcement mechanisms were equally haphazard in their effectiveness and success in affording rights to third-party victims. Given the link between the MVID and the free movement of persons and goods, on which the harmonization of insurance protection was based, we present the first Article establishing an argument that those offending aspects of UK national law should have been disapplied. The UK has concluded its agreement to withdraw its membership of the EU-and thus no longer to be bound by EU law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. Yet until the transitional period ends, the UK remained aligned to EU law and those defects present in national law should have been remedied. Therefore, the remedy issued from the Factortame line of case authorities may have proven to be the most effective way to grant access to rights which were denied to third-party victims in the UK. Here we present a justification for its application.

This article outlines the method by which self-employed individuals assess and fulfil their income tax obligations. The civil and criminal investigative powers available to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) are analysed, adopting a comparative approach, following which we present an application of game theory in determining the strategy for the most advantageous options available to both the taxpayer and HMRC for payment and recovery, respectively. Game theory provides an explanation for the conscious and purposeful decision-making of competing parties, based often on incomplete information and/or the intentions of the parties. This is particularly apt given the nature of the self-assessment tax regime in England and Wales with the choice of the taxpayer to fairly and honestly disclose their income and the tax to be paid, and equally HMRC with its choice to accept or challenge the details in the taxpayer’s return. As such, we use game theory as a means for determining optimal behaviours in difficult circumstances. Criminal and civil enforcement, Fraud, Game theory, HMRC, Tax returns.

Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is an emerging and developing philosophy which, established by Winnick and Wexler, and continued by the work of Perlin ( inter alia ), has been predominately used to explain the operation and efficacy of drug courts and the criminal justice system generally. It recognises that law has the potential to have both therapeutic and anti-therapeutic effects, and thus it is in the use of its rules, whilst not transgressing normative values, that therapeutic outcomes should be realised. More recently, however, TJ has been used to explore other legal jurisdictions beyond its drug and mental health origins – even to musical TJ. [i] In respect of the law surrounding motor vehicle insurance and the compensation applicable to third-party victims, a TJ approach has been used to discuss the standard of care in torts law (in an American context [ii] and that of the law in India) [iii] recognising the common agenda present in both the deterrence of potential injurers and the restoration of the injured. In the UK, motor vehicle insurance is governed through statutory (for example the Road Traffic Act 1988) and extra-statutory measures (for example the Untraced Drivers’ Agreement 2017), underpinned by the United Kingdom (UK)’s obligations to the European Union (EU). The extra-statutory element of this regulatory scheme is the focus of this paper. It is unique in the exploration of the procedural rules relating, primarily, to the Untraced Drivers’ Agreement concluded between the Motor Insurers’ Bureau and the Secretary of State for Transport. This Agreement has been defective in correctly transposing EU law into national law and, we argue, the UK’s fulfilment of its withdrawal from the EU could prove the opportunity for a new Agreement, based on conscious contracting, to remove the anti-therapeutic features present and to expunge the worst elements of an agreement that often fails to ensure the restoration of vulnerable third-party victims. [i] Perlin, M. L. 2019. ‘You That Build the Death Planes’: Bob Dylan, War and International Affairs. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3379255 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3379255 [ii] Shuman, D. W. (1993) ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Tort Law: A Limited Subjective Standard of Care’ 46 SMU L. Rev . 409, https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol46/iss2/5. [iii] Halder, D., and Shetty, A. (2018) ‘Regulating Road Traffic Violation by Youth in India: A Therapeutic Jurisprudential Approach’ Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3230604 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3230604