Dr Jane Marriott
Qualifications: LLB, PhD
Phone: Work: 01483 68 6238
Room no: 05 AP 02
Office hoursWednesdays 1100-1200, Thursdays 0900-1100 or e-mail for appointment
Jane joined the School of Law in August 2005. She was awarded her PhD in 2000 for research into the effects of election campaign finance regulation on freedom of political expression.
- Comparative constitutional law, with a particular focus on the English and American jurisdictions but encompassing Canada and Australia also
- American constitutional law
- Election law
- Campaign finance regulation
- Theoretical approaches to the issues of political equality, expressive rights generally and expressive and participatory rights in democratic processes particularly
- SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) as they affect freedom of expression
- 'The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme: A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing?'. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 5Full text is available at: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/342990/
This article addresses issues that arise out of a state's undertaking to compensate, from public funds, citizens it has placed in harm's way through its policy- and decision-making. In the past decade, many western liberal democratic states have been required to place a value on their citizens through the provision of compensation to troops injured as a result of their deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. Here we examine the UK's much criticised Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS), charting its development and analysing its strengths and its flaws, in order to assess whether it places adequate value upon the sacrifices of the citizens for which it was created. We investigate whether, in its attempts to create a compensatory framework that mimics Tort, the legislature has ultimately promised an equivalence that the AFCS fails to deliver in substance and we examine the idea that the AFCS represents an uneasy and unnecessary collapse of the distinction between corrective and distributive justice.
- 'Citizenship or Civic Death? Extending the Franchise to Convicted Prisoners'. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 5Full text is available at: http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/342989/
Following the decision of the ECtHR in Hirst v UK, (Application no. 74025/01) the government indicated a need, as opposed to a desire, to reconsider the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners. Over eighteen months on, no firm decision as to future policy has been made, although consultation has been undertaken. In view of the government’s apparent procrastination, this paper identifies a number of issues that should be given prominence, by critically evaluating the justifications for the current blanket ban on prisoner voting and assessing whether this form of penal sanction is proportionate and legitimate. Through an exploration of these themes, the wider ramifications of disenfranchisement emerge. The suggestion is that serious collateral consequences flow from the withdrawal of voting rights such that members of particular groups in the prison population are a-typically and intensely affected. Of particular concern is the ban’s impact on ethnic minority prisoners, given their already failing engagement with the electoral process outside the prison walls. With the government advocating a partial ban, it is contended that any denial to inmates of their voting rights bestows a ‘civic death’, to the detriment of prisoner rehabilitation and modern democratic principle.
- 'Walking the Eighth Amendment Tightrope: Time Served in the United States Supreme Court'. in Yorke J (ed.) Against the death penalty Ashgate Publishing Article number 7 , pp. 159-185. . (2008)
Public Law II: Administrative Law
Constitutional Law of the United States of America