Much has often been made of Maine's striking opening sentence to his Ancient Law, in which he states that the most celebrated system of jurisprudence in the world, the Roman law system, ‘begins, as it ends, with a code.’ It is a remark which serves well those who argue that law has evolved as a predominantly written culture. Yet, as Maine points out, the publication of the Twelve Tables (these traditionally being regarded as the foundation of Roman law) ‘is not the earliest point at which we can take up the history of law.’

The issue of the admissibility of improperly obtained non-confessional evidence in criminal proceedings has been the subject of considerable academic discussion. However, much of the discussion in England has been confined to an exploration of the deficiencies and internal inconsistencies of the English law in the area. In particular, the House of Lords decision in R v Sang has been subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism. Little has been written which examines the theoretical issues associated with the problem of improperly obtained evidence, with view to laying down foundations for a new approach. It is this task which I seek to undertake here. First, it will be demonstrated that the major Anglo- American legal systems have all abandoned rules ofmandatory inclusion and mandatory exclusion of improperly obtained evidence in favour of more flexible positions whereby such evidence is to be admitted in some circumstances but excluded in others. This suggests that rules of mandatory inclusion and mandatory exclusion have been perceived to be undesirable.

The traditional view of the scope of the tort of private nuisance is that the action protects a person's right to the use and enjoyment of land, and therefore only a person who can show that he has an interest in land is entitled to sue. What is a sufficient interest in the land affected, however, has never been free from doubt. Whilst freeholders and lessees in possession may certainly sue, there is doubt as to the entitlement of certain licensees, such as members of the family of a freeholder or lessee. In the recent case of Deuon Lumber Co Ltd u MacNeill, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal held, by a majority, that the children of a freeholder who had been adversely affected by dust from the defendant's adjacent cedar mill were entitled to sue in private nuisance, for ‘even though the children lacked any legal title to the property, they had a right of occupation sufficient to support an action on their behalf for damages for any unreasonable and substantial interference with their lawful use or enjoyment of the family residence’.

Although the law relating to common mistake has engendered a plethora of conundrums, many problem areas have in fact been well-traversed in the literature. The present article does not seek to re-cover such welltrodden ground, but attempts, instead, to suggest a different and more systematic approach that would effect a merger of the common law and equitable branches of common mistake into one coherent, doctrine.

In a previous article in Legal Studies I suggested a general framework of rules for analysing problems of restitution which arise from ineffective transactions. It was explained that normally a claim should be available to a party who has performed his part, usually based on mistake or failure or consideration, or on ‘policy’ grounds. A benefit to the recipient of goods and services will usually be shown by the fact that in making the agreement he requested the performance Problems may arise, however, when the factor which renders the contract unenforceable also provides an argument against allowing a claim in restitution. One problem which arises frequently with goods and services is that the factor which vitiates the contract makes it difficult to show a benefit. For example, when the defendant mistakes the nature of the goods which he is purchasing, it may be impossible to say that he requested them for the purpose of showing they are of benefit to him.

A trustee who has accepted trust obligations can retire from his trusteeship in four ways: (i) by virtue of the trust instrument which expressly or impliedly authorises him to do so; (ii) under s 36 of the Trustee Act 1925; (iii) under s 39 of the Trustee Act 1925 and (iv) under s 41 of the Trustee Act 1925, ie by permission of the court.

In regard to retirement under s 36 which provides for non-judicial appointment of new trustees, it is widely accepted that a trustee may so retire only by the valid appointment of another trustee in his place; retirement without replacement is only possible under s 39 and that would require consent to the retirement. An examination of the relevant case law reveals that it assumes rather than establishes the widely accepted view; but more importantly the effect of legislative changes culminating in the present s 36 removes the most probable reason for the view so that the formulation for it has, so to speak, disappeared.