Stephenson, R. (2020). Durie v Gardiner: Public Libel Law and Stare Non Decisis. Modern Law Review, 83(3), 637–651. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12524
Randall Stephenson is a comparative public law and defamation scholar specialising in the intersections between press freedom, democratic theory, and networked accountability dynamics. After obtaining his MSt and DPhil at the University of Oxford (the latter awarded without revisions or corrections), his doctoral thesis was published by a leading academic issuer. A Crisis of Democratic Accountability: Public Libel Law and the Checking Function of the Press (Oxford: Hart 2018) examines the modern rise of public interest/political speech defences in libel law. It argues that the law and legal approaches in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States are undertheorised, lack adequate criteria for determining suitable doctrinal approaches, and require a more precise understanding of ‘democracy’, ‘representation’, and ‘accountability’. The book’s interdisciplinary law reforms incorporate innovative advances in public accountability scholarship, recommending jurisdictions adjust their pubic libel doctrine to match their unique accountability profile and institutional networks. Dr Stephenson’s legal scholarship has since been published in The Modern Law Review, the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, and the Osgoode Hall Law Journal. Before attending Oxford, Dr Stephenson practiced litigation as a senior associate at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, a leading business law firm in Toronto, Canada, and studied under prominent First Amendment scholars and attorneys during his LLM studies at Columbia Law School. He was also a panelist at the Law Commission of Ontario's international conference on Defamation Law and the Internet: Where Do We Go From Here? - one of the most thorough and wide-ranging appraisals of digital communication's impact on defamation law and public discourse to date.
Dr Stephenson's comparative research at the Department of Public Law examines the impact of the Internet and digital communications on networked accountability dynamics in contemporary democracies. His principal research project, Democracy and State Secrets: Calibrating Public Accountability in Modern Intelligence Gathering, examines whether mass 'full-take' surveillance (and its legal authorisation) is consistent with established principles of self-governance, including theories of separation of powers, judicial review, and democratic accountability.
-
Democracy and State Secrets
Calibrating Public Accountability in Modern Intelligence GatheringStatus: laufend
-
Democracy and State Secrets
- Gruppieren nach:20202019
Stephenson, R. (2019). Restoring Accountability in Freedom of Expression Theory: Public Libel Law and Radical Whig Ideology. Osgoode Hall Law Journal , 56(1), 17–58.
Stephenson, R. (2019). A Truth-Seeking Justification for Press Freedom? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(3), 681–704.
2018Stephenson, R. (2018). A Crisis of Democratic Accountability: Public Libel Law and the Checking Function of the Press . Oxford: Hart.
2012Pepper, R., Morritt, D., Stephenson, R., & Ross, J. (2012). Canadian Defamation Law and Practice. Canada Law Book.
2007BücherStephenson, R. (2018). A Crisis of Democratic Accountability: Public Libel Law and the Checking Function of the Press . Oxford: Hart.
Pepper, R., Morritt, D., Stephenson, R., & Ross, J. (2012). Canadian Defamation Law and Practice. Canada Law Book.
ZeitschriftenaufsätzeStephenson, R. (2020). Durie v Gardiner: Public Libel Law and Stare Non Decisis. Modern Law Review, 83(3), 637–651. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12524
Stephenson, R. (2019). Restoring Accountability in Freedom of Expression Theory: Public Libel Law and Radical Whig Ideology. Osgoode Hall Law Journal , 56(1), 17–58.
Stephenson, R. (2019). A Truth-Seeking Justification for Press Freedom? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(3), 681–704.
Pepper, R., & Stephenson, R. (2007). Young v. Bella: Concurrent Liability in Defamation and Negligence; Freedom of Expression Values and the Checking Power of the Press. Advocates’ Quarterly , 33, 230–260.
EnglischStephenson, R. (2020). Durie v Gardiner: Public Libel Law and Stare Non Decisis. Modern Law Review, 83(3), 637–651. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12524
Stephenson, R. (2019). Restoring Accountability in Freedom of Expression Theory: Public Libel Law and Radical Whig Ideology. Osgoode Hall Law Journal , 56(1), 17–58.
Stephenson, R. (2019). A Truth-Seeking Justification for Press Freedom? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(3), 681–704.
Stephenson, R. (2018). A Crisis of Democratic Accountability: Public Libel Law and the Checking Function of the Press . Oxford: Hart.
Pepper, R., Morritt, D., Stephenson, R., & Ross, J. (2012). Canadian Defamation Law and Practice. Canada Law Book.
Pepper, R., & Stephenson, R. (2007). Young v. Bella: Concurrent Liability in Defamation and Negligence; Freedom of Expression Values and the Checking Power of the Press. Advocates’ Quarterly , 33, 230–260.
- WS 2020/2021Comparative Constitutional Law
Despite its recent origins, the newly energized subject of comparative constitutional law continues to advance in scholarly scope and sophistication. This course explores the principle theories, methods, and elements of constitutional democracies, with particular emphasis on how constitutional structures affect the exercise and check the abuse of governmental power.
The course is structured in three parts. Part I introduces the student to comparative constitutional law, outlining its history and scope, as well as its main theoretical and methodological features. Topics include separation of powers, constitutional forms, and functionalism--comparative law's dominant methdology. Students are also introduced to a case study in public libel law that serves as an educational benchmark during the course.
Part II shifts focus to specific elements of constitutional design, both ancient and modern. Topics include presidential and parliamentary systems, federal and unitary governance, electoral systems, mechanisms of legislative scrutiny, and models of judicial review. By comparing the constitutions of Germany, Britain, and the United States, students are encouraged to reflect on their structural implications for safeguarding political accountability and facilitating democratic rule.
Part III explores the broader impact of constitutional structures on protecting fundamental rights, and the functioning of our legal institutions and democratic processes. Topics include entrenching constitutional rights, maintaining the rule of law, and ensuring optimal measures of democratic accountability. Final reflections on our case study confirm the efficacy and adaptability of comparative constitutional law's evolving theories and methods.
Ort / Zeit:University of Freiburg, Faculty of Law (Electronic), every Wednesday, 02/11/20 – 13/02/21, 2 – 4 p.m.
- Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (UK 2014)
- Admitted to the Bar of Ontario as a barrister and solicitor in July 2003