What’s UPSO at OUP, and the Oxford Index..

I’d like to draw your attention to a resource called the Oxford Index. It is a free resource available to everyone, and it may have a usefulness beyond the usual legal research sources we are familiar with.
The breadth of online materials on the OUP platforms can be quite difficult to identify easily, because the digital resources vary in format and purpose. Bibliographies and journals and e- monographs covering many subjects and titles can be discovered via Google and other search engines, and there are records in institutional online catalogues. But the introduction of this new free search and discovery portal makes it all so much easier to find what’s there.
The Index searches well over two and a half million abstracts from OUP publications such as essays, journals and chapters from monographs and reference works, and the results provide summaries from the resources identified by the search. The abstracts are very informative, and include chapters within books. It is possible to set up free personalised accounts, so searches can be saved and results bookmarked. Results include related content links, broadening the usefulness of the results.
As subscribers to OUP’s online resources, the result links to the full text of the item irrespective of where it is located within the Oxford contents. The index is not restricted to law, but covers all OUP online subject coverage, so this can also be rewarding, as other types of material may be retrieved that can still be relevant to a query.

Search for International Law on the Index

And now we come to UPSO. OUP ‘s  academic publishing arm provides a wide range of online monographs and journals. A couple of years ago OUP decided to broaden its offering of scholarly titles by bringing together some of the leading University Presses which may not have been able to provide their own online platforms. The aggregated monographs are easily accessible via University Press Scholarship Online (UPSO), with content from the following presses:

The American University in Cairo Press;  University of Chicago Press;  University of California Press;  Edinburgh University Press;  University Press of Florida;  Fordham University Press;  Hong Kong University Press;  The University Press of Kentucky;  Manchester University Press;  Policy Press; and launching this year:  Liverpool University Press ; The MIT Press ;  Stanford University Press and Yale University Press.

We  subscribe to these OUP resources, so the range of resources indexed includes UPSO titles, as well as Oxford Scholarship Online (OSO) which contains 886 law titles, all searchable via the index.

OUP’s  law database materials, which are mainly in the field of Public International Law, are not included in the Oxford Index search. This includes the Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Law and the  Oxford Law Reports on International Law.  Both these have their own search interfaces on their home page, to search within their content. And don’t forget that updates to the ORIL, via RSS feeds, are free, and may act as a useful alerter to new cases as they are added.

 

Indigenous Peoples and the law (and a useful new LibGuide!)

I thought that I would take the opportunity, having done a lot of research for my soon-to-be-published LibGuide on the topic, to share a few interesting pieces of international legislation and highlight a significant case concerning indigenous peoples that I discovered along the way. Also, it may be a (not so subtle) attempt draw attention to the new guide! The LibGuide focuses on physical and electronic resources for indigenous peoples in a public international law dimension, as well as having pages devoted to resources on indigenous peoples in the jurisdictions of Australia, Africa, Canada, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, New Zealand and the USA.  These include physical resources held in the Law Library, and online res0urces, which are either free or available through library subscription using an Oxford Single Sign On username and password. Through working on the guide, I came to understand how the legislation affecting, and the social and political position of, indigenous peoples varies considerably between jurisdictions. Take a look, and see if you find anything useful! Note the OED definition of indigenous: ’ born…naturally in a land or region; native or belonging naturally to’ .

The struggle of indigenous peoples throughout history and today, to lay claim to their human rights as the natural peoples of lands across the world has become an important concern in international human rights law in recent years. The implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has highlighted their push for rights and representation in areas including land, language, culture, education, health and housing. United Nations also has several bodies which advise on, support, and monitor indigenous rights. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues informs the UN Economic and Social Council on matters relating to indigenous peoples. The Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples advises the UN Human Rights Council on indigenous issues, and the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples promotes and reports on issues of concern. Additionally, there is a be a UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in 2014. The LibGuide has links to numerous titles held in the law library and electronic resources, discussing United Nations in relation to indigenous issues.

Photograph by David Jackmanson. Depicts the Australian, Queensland, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags at the Queensland parliament.

A famous, historic High Court case involving Australian Aboriginal land rights is Mabo v. Queensland [No.2], which is available electronically on Westlaw AU (access through OxLIP+) and in hardcopy in the Commonwealth Law Reports, (1992) 175 CLR 1. The case involved five Torres Strait Islander Aboriginals of the Murray Islands, headed by Eddie Mabo, arguing for their rights to the land on which they lived, given their traditional ownership and connection to it. (They have been self-sufficient, with their own laws for centuries.) In 1879, the land was assigned to the Queensland government under terra nullius, further confirmed by the Queensland Coast Islands Declaration Act 1985. However, Mabo v Queensland No 1 in 1988 found this act to be in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The case was brought to court again in 1992, and it ruled that, given their connection to the land and their traditional ownership, the land was not terra nullius, and native title (Aboriginal right to traditional land because of historical connection)  should be and could be recognised under common law.  It had a profound impact on legislation in relation to land in Australia, resulting in the Native Title Act 1993.  The Act recognises and protects native title. Notably, Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islander Aboriginals are still not recognised in the Australian Constitution, although this looks set to be rectified in the near future, as the Australian House of Representatives has recently passed an indigenous recognition bill.

This just one example (and a brief overview at that) of numerous high-profile (and not so high profile) cases of indigenous peoples fighting discriminatory laws. The challenge for indigenous peoples across the world is an ongoing one, and much material can be found in the Law Library documenting this. Remember, you can always contact the library at law.library@bodleian.ox.ac.uk for any research help (and take a look at the Lib Guide – look out for a tweet announcing its publication!)

 

What links tattoos, hackney carriages and water …

Byelaws that’s what!

by Hannah Chandler

A lengthy search for byelaws recently prompted us to delve further and do a bit of research….

Byelaws are effectively local laws to deal with local issues. They are made by a body, such as a local authority, using powers granted by an Act of Parliamentm and so are a  form of delegated legislation. Some byelaws are made by private companies or charities that exercise public or semi-public functions, such as airport operators, water companies or, for example, the National Trust.

Byelaws generally require something to be done – or not done – in a particular location. As the non-observance of a byelaw result in a criminal offence tried in a Magistrates’ Court, they must be approved by central government before they can come into force.

They are usually restricted to a physical location such as a park (no cycling or skateboards for example) or a particular activity such as  tattooing or hair dressing. See http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decCD/Byelaws.htm for examples from the Oxford City Council.

How are they made?

Once the byelaw has been made under the common seal of the authority the byelaw has to be published in a relevant local newspaper as notice of the Council’s intention and the byelaw must then be kept in on deposit at the offices of the Council for at least one month before it can be put before the Secretary of State for approval and date of enforcement.

A slippery customer?

Byelaws can be quite hard to track down as they are not formally deposited in any one place.  Here are some useful information sources in order of relevance.

• Local council, authority or private company relevant for creating the byelaw
• Local library or record office
• Newspaper archives
• London Gazette
• The government department responsible for approving the byelaw

A useful archive collection is held at the National Archives who has a set of printed copies of local authority byelaws dating from 1872 to 1977.

For more information the Bodleian libguide ‘United Kingdom Law’ guide has a page dedicated to byelaws.

 

Riparian law

Private Mooring – photo by Carolina Jimenez-Garcia

I’ve been wanting to write a post about riparian law (relating to legal rights of land owners on the bank of a watercourse) for some time, and a recent case provides an interesting window (or should I say porthole?) into this area. Disclaimer: I’m the Law Library IT officer, not a lawyer or law librarian! I must also declare a personal interest in this topic:  I live on a narrowboat on the River Thames in Oxford, by arrangement with the riparian land owner (with whom we are on good terms, I hasten to add). Additionally, management of the River Thames, currently entrusted to the Environment Agency, is scheduled to pass to the Canal and River Trust, formerly British Waterways, in 2015.

The story begins in 2008, and ends with the February 2013 Court of Appeal judgement in Moore v. British Waterways Board ([2013] EWCA Civ 73) Throughout, the matter raises questions of riparian mooring rights and the public right of navigation.

At issue was the right of Mr. Moore to moor boats in the tidal reaches of the Grand Union Canal in Brentford, which includes the former River Brent. In 2008, Mr. Moore, who resided on a narrowboat, was involved in a legal action brought by property developers Geronimo and the British Waterways Board  or BWB (now known as the Canal and River Trust). An account of that case,  ”the Geronimo action”, was published in the local press at the time.

Subsequently, British Waterways issued notices requiring a number of residential boats, including Mr. Moore’s, to move from their moorings in the same area. Mr. Moore brought a case against them contesting this: Moore v British Waterways Board [2009] EWHC B12 (Ch) (12 March 2009) The judgement, by Mr. Martin Mann QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge (Chancery Division), went against Mr. Moore, who represented himself.

In the judgement, Mr. Martin answered four questions:

(i) The rights concerning the waterway between Bax’s Mill and the River Thames, as described in the Grand Junction Canal Company Act of 1793, remain in force and unaffected by the provisions of the Transport Act 1968;

Answer: the private right of navigation granted by section 43 of the Act was repealed by the 1968 Act.

(ii) The Grand Union Canal extends downstream to the mouth of the River Brent into the River Thames;
Answer: Yes.

(iii) The Defendant is the relevant statutory navigation authority for that element of the Grand Union Canal which now or formerly comprised tidal waters of the River Brent;

Answer: Yes.

(iv) A public right of navigation includes an ancillary right to moor other than temporarily in the course of navigation.

Answer: No.

There is some fascinating stuff here. The answer to question (ii) means that the formerly private Grand Junction (now Grand Union) Canal includes the canalised portion of the River Brent between it and the River Thames. This is important, because it gives jurisdiction over this *tidal waterway* to the British Waterways Board, as stated in question (iii).

Following the judgement, Mr. Moore then went to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in November 2009 to apply for leave to appeal. His case was heard by Lord Justice Mummery, Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Elias.

The crux of the matter is evident in the following two passages of their judgement:

The claims (of rights to moor without a BWB license) are resisted by BWB, in which the GUC has been vested since 1962. BWB does not rely in this case on private rights of ownership of, or of possession to the banks of the GUC, or on other common law rights. It asserts its position as statutory navigation authority controlling inland waterways and equipped with statutory regulatory and management powers, in particular the power to issues the notices given to Mr Moore in respect of his houseboats moored to the bank of the GUC and to the pontoon at The Nib without lawful authority.

In disputing the legal validity of the notices Mr Moore relies in particular on s43 of the 1793 Act, which provided that the free navigation of the river should not be impeded or hindered and that

” …it shall and may be lawful, to and for the owners, proprietors, possessors, and occupiers of the several houses, warehouses, wharfs, lands, tenements and grounds, on, along, or near adjoining to, the said River of Brent, to have the full, free, and uninterrupted use and enjoyment thereof, and the Navigation of the said canal, and also of the said River of Brent as heretofore had, used, and enjoyed, by them and their predecessors….”

The case and subsequent appeal – the case went to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) – gives rise to some interesting and sometimes entertaining quotes. At one point, Lord Justice Mummery at the Court of Appeal declares that, in his judgement of February 16, 2012, the Hon Mr Justice Hildyard had “illegitimised, at a stroke, every bankside mooring in the UK inland waterways, even though not in breach of any BWB regulation on mooring.”

Interestingly, in the final analysis, Mr. Moore won his case not because of riparian rights, or right of navigation per se, but on a much broader point of English law. All England Reports puts it thus:

Accordingly, if what [Moore] had been doing was not a legal wrong, he had been entitled to do it. If he had been entitled to do it, he had not been doing it ‘without lawful authority’ within s 8 of the Act, because the law had allowed him to do what it did not prohibit at common law or by statute. In the instant case, in light of the defendant’s concessions, it had not been possible to identify what unlawful act the claimant had committed that had entitled the defendant to serve a notice under s 8 of the Act. Accordingly, [BWB] had had no power under s 8 of the Act to require the claimant to remove vessels, the mooring of which had been lawful, with the effect that the notices were invalid.

My own (cheeky) paraphrase of the judgement would be: OK, they can’t stop you from mooring here. But you had better behave yourself.

For further interesting reading on the issues raised in this case, see George Monbiot’s recent blog entry on the Guardian web site.

2/5/2013: Francis Davey has written about this case at the nearlylegal housing blog. And narrowboat world has an (admittedly pro-boater) article about the legal costs incurred.

 

Legal databases and how to get at them

Kat here – Information Resources trainee at the Law Bod. Since starting work here last September, I have had lots of chances to delve into some of the weird and wonderful resources the Bodleian Law Library and the Bodleian Libraries generally have to offer. Despite doing my undergraduate degree here in Oxford, there were lots of new things to me. So when it came to thinking of things to blog about, I decided that, if they were new to me, chances are they would be new to plenty of our readers! I came up with quite a long list of things, but today I’ve picked password-protected legal databases, and how to get at them.

Password-protected legal databases

Law students and readers, I’m sure, are quite familiar with using Westlaw, LexisLibrary, HeinOnline and others to look at legislation, law reports and journals online. They probably get to them by a variety of routes. Personally, I like to use OxLip+, search for ‘Westlaw’, and click on the link to Westlaw UK. Then I’ll need to sign in with my Oxford Single-Sign-On (SSO). Alternatively, I can just go straight to Westlaw UK, mouse-over the ‘Log in to your service’ button in the top right, choose ‘Organisation Name’, type in Oxford, and login from there, still with my SSO. It’s up to you, and it’s the same for LexisLibrary. Simple. You can also go via the Law Bod’s own list of databases, which is a great page to bookmark if you use a lot of databases for your work. By the way, if you’re not sure about your Oxford Single-Sign-On, it’s what you need to put into any screen that looks like this: If you’re a member of a college, or have been in the past, the username often looks something like ball1234 or quee4567 (for Balliol and Queen’s).

Not everyone has an Oxford Single-Sign-On, and if you don’t, you won’t have access to all of our electronic resources, unfortunately. However, many of them are free anyway, and can be found on OxLip+ as well, so don’t despair! Subject librarians spend lots of time compiling lists of e-resources by subject for OxLip+, so it’s definitely worth having a look. You can watch out for those which always require Single-Sign-On because they have the little flag next to them. On the Law Bod website list of databases, they have [OSS] in square brackets next to them.

However, some online resources don’t require your Oxford Single-Sign-On, they require another password. In law, examples of these are Manupatra (legal database of Indian law), All South African Law Reports (via LexisNexis but needing a different password), De Jure (Italian language website containing cases and journals), Lextenso (French language website with journals and legislation), Funmi Quadri Online (Nigerian Supreme Court reports) and LawNet (the Singapore Academy of Law, which contains Indian Supreme court cases from 1969 onwards). All of these require their own special passwords.

To find out these mysterious passwords, you need to navigate your way to Weblearn and, naturally, log in. Luckily, to do that, you just need your Oxford Single-Sign-On, so that’s easy. Then you can either follow this link to the correct page, or navigate it by selecting from the left-hand navigation column: ASUC (Academic Services and University Collections), then Libraries and Information Resources, then E-resources, and there you are! Out of your difficulty at once. You can tell which databases need a special password on OxLip+, because they have a little key by them. And if you’re looking on the Law Bod website’s list, they have [P.WORD] next to their name.

A final note – if you’re on a university network, you’ll find that you won’t have to sign in at all to a lot of our resources. It’s only special ones like LexisNexis and Westlaw which require it regardless of where you are.   If you’re not on an Oxford University internet network, for example if you aren’t living in university or college accommodation for any reason, then you will always need your SSO to get access.

You can tell which on the Law Bod website list because they have [EXTERNAL: OXLIP+] next to them. Then you will have to log in with your SSO when you are off campus.

If you are still having problems with an online resource and you’re not on an Oxford network (for example, where the website keeps asking you to log in when you already have), but you are a member of the university, you might want to set up a VPN (Virtual Private Network). This is also useful when you go home for the holidays and you encounter an Oxford website which says (Oxonly). It lets you tell websites that you are affiliated with Oxford. To get it, follow the link and download the software to your computer, following It Services’ instructions. You will also need to register for a Remote Access Account if you don’t already have one (you will already have this if you use the Eduroam wireless network).

You shouldn’t really need to use your VPN to access library resources, even if you’re not on the Oxford network – just using your SSO should work. However, as a last ditch attempt to get something working, it’s worth a try. Personally, I’ve used it for Cambridge Companions Online, where I’ve had this problem.

Hopefully this post has clarified how to get to our various legal databases on online resources! Remember that, if you’re still having problems, you can always ask a member of library staff (if you’re in a library), or consider emailing us at law.library@bodleian.ox.ac.uk if you’re elsewhere within normal working hours.

 

Electronic Legal Deposit

Thanks to the initial shrewdness of our founder, Sir Thomas Bodley,  a requirement for English, later UK, publishers to deposit a free copy of each of their publications to certain designated Copyright Libraries has existed for over 300 years (Summary of  historical background is available from another Bodleian website.)

Now this fine tradition has to adapt to a world where e-publishing is increasingly becoming the norm. In fact the UK parliament has already set down the new rules for the new regime – Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003   and —Legal Deposit Libraries (Non-Print Works) Regulations 2013  — – and the new system was born on 6 April 2013. For fanfare see Saving the nation’s digital memory

SOLO, our search tool for our online catalogue, is now geared up – the observant will notice an extra tab called Electronic Legal Deposit. This will become an increasing useful search screen as content of the underlying collection grows, BUT  it only links through to the source if you are searching SOLO via a Library Computer in a  Bodleian Reading Room. There is a Bodleian LibGuide to help you understand the new resource and all Reading Room Staff are receiving training. (I am sure you will be patient – we are all learning about it together!)

Sir Thomas Bodley, National Portrait Gallery NPG D25545

—

 

Malaysian law

The Free Access to Law initiative takes many forms. We may already be used to accessing decisions of the Federal Court of Malaysia and Court of Appeal of Malaysia via CommonLII. (This LII also offers a few issues of Journal of Malaysian and Comparative Law (JMCL)  for some commentary.)

If you are interested in something a bit more dynamic, another free access point worth checking in case it can help your researches  is MLTIC (read as M-L-Tick).

Home page of main portals – the topic micro-portals have the same layout

MLTIC  – in full the Malaysian Legal and Tax Information Centre – is a cluster of web portals on Malaysian law and tax. It has been live for about 3 years now. (The website says it will keep an archive for as long as the copyright holders allow.)  MLTIC consists of a main portal (Malaysia Law), with specialist micro-sites according to topic as below

1. Banking & finance
2. Corporate law
3. Competition law
4. Criminal practice
5. Dispute resolution
6. Employment law
7. IP law Malaysia
8. Real estate & construction
9. Transport & logistics
10. Malaysian tax (from Chartered Tax Institute of Malaysia)

The specialist sites follow the same pattern as the main one with a double row of hot links near the top of the page so that you can jump quickly to, for example, judgments.

MLTIC makes available the full original text of selected Malaysian legal and tax developments : news (“full text of news items … sourced from leading newspapers and news agencies, professional bodies, industry newsletters, regulatory bodies and government departments”), legislation (“selected Federal Acts and Amendment Acts, Federal Bills, Federal PU(A)s and PU(B)s, and State Legislation … where possible, the full text of the legislation”), judgments and rulings (“selected judgments and rulings from the Federal Court, Court of Appeal, High Court of Malaya, High Court of Sabah and Sarawak and several tribunals … the full text of the judgments … and commentaries on landmark judgments.”), regulatory guidelines and circulars, events, books and articles, products and services.