Registration Act

14,000,000 Leading Edge Experts on the ideXlab platform

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

The Experts below are selected from a list of 324 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Martin Dixon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Samantha Millar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • doe v o donnell and new york s sex offender Registration Act the problem of continued Registration under sora after leaving the state
    Social Science Research Network, 2016
    Co-Authors: Samantha Millar
    Abstract:

    The last two decades have seen the passage of sex offender Registration and community notification laws in every state, including the District of Columbia, and at the federal level. In 1995, New York State enActed the New York Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), requiring convicted sex offenders to report annually to the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), by providing address verification and other identifying information. The statute further mandates community notification, enabling law enforcement to make information about sex offenders and their whereabouts available for public consumption and awareness. In addition to Registration and community notification, the statute also requires that sex offenders inform the DCJS within ten days of a change of address both within and outside the state. The statute does not explicitly state whether a sex offender must continue to register in New York upon relocating to another state. In 2011, the Appellate Division, Third Department (Appellate Division) in Doe v. O’Donnell held that in the absence of such an explicit provision, the statute should be construed so as to assume continued Registration. The result of this ruling is a law imposed by New York State that requires residents of other states to continue to register as sex offenders even if they no longer live in New York and conceivably no longer pose a danger to the residents therein. This Note will focus on the New York Sex Offender Registration Act’s Registration requirement and its interpretation by the Appellate Division in Doe v. O’Donnell. It will consider the many implications of requiring continued Registration in New York after a registered sex offender has relocated to another state — including issues of state sovereignty and offenders’ rights — and will propose a potential judicial solution that seeks to address these implications in a way that does not offend relations between states or the rights of those who must register under SORA.

  • Doe v. O’Donnell and New York's Sex Offender Registration Act: The Problem of Continued Registration Under SORA after Leaving the State
    SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016
    Co-Authors: Samantha Millar
    Abstract:

    The last two decades have seen the passage of sex offender Registration and community notification laws in every state, including the District of Columbia, and at the federal level. In 1995, New York State enActed the New York Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), requiring convicted sex offenders to report annually to the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), by providing address verification and other identifying information. The statute further mandates community notification, enabling law enforcement to make information about sex offenders and their whereabouts available for public consumption and awareness. In addition to Registration and community notification, the statute also requires that sex offenders inform the DCJS within ten days of a change of address both within and outside the state. The statute does not explicitly state whether a sex offender must continue to register in New York upon relocating to another state. In 2011, the Appellate Division, Third Department (Appellate Division) in Doe v. O’Donnell held that in the absence of such an explicit provision, the statute should be construed so as to assume continued Registration. The result of this ruling is a law imposed by New York State that requires residents of other states to continue to register as sex offenders even if they no longer live in New York and conceivably no longer pose a danger to the residents therein. This Note will focus on the New York Sex Offender Registration Act’s Registration requirement and its interpretation by the Appellate Division in Doe v. O’Donnell. It will consider the many implications of requiring continued Registration in New York after a registered sex offender has relocated to another state — including issues of state sovereignty and offenders’ rights — and will propose a potential judicial solution that seeks to address these implications in a way that does not offend relations between states or the rights of those who must register under SORA.

Simon Gardner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • the land Registration Act 2002 the show on the road
    Modern Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: Simon Gardner
    Abstract:

    This article reviews the Land Registration Act 2002, taking advantage of the deeper perspective afforded by the intervening decade, and absorbing subsequent developments – and, in the case of the Act's electronic conveyancing project, non-developments – that have also come to contribute to the picture. It suggests especially that while the Act's central idea of conclusive, indeed ‘constitutive’, Registration can be beneficial, its deployment here has been problematic. In particular, the lapse of electronic conveyancing, and the possibility (resisted by the courts) that conclusive Registration can be procured by fraudsters, have diminished the control that parties have over dispositions of their own title, to the detriment of their autonomy; and over-preoccupation with the central idea has resulted in a failure to think carefully enough about problems to which it was never going to be the answer.

  • The Land Registration Act 2002 – the Show on the Road
    The Modern Law Review, 2014
    Co-Authors: Simon Gardner
    Abstract:

    This article reviews the Land Registration Act 2002, taking advantage of the deeper perspective afforded by the intervening decade, and absorbing subsequent developments – and, in the case of the Act's electronic conveyancing project, non-developments – that have also come to contribute to the picture. It suggests especially that while the Act's central idea of conclusive, indeed ‘constitutive’, Registration can be beneficial, its deployment here has been problematic. In particular, the lapse of electronic conveyancing, and the possibility (resisted by the courts) that conclusive Registration can be procured by fraudsters, have diminished the control that parties have over dispositions of their own title, to the detriment of their autonomy; and over-preoccupation with the central idea has resulted in a failure to think carefully enough about problems to which it was never going to be the answer.

Emma Lees - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Richall Holdings v Fitzwilliam: Malory v Cheshire Homes and the LRA 2002
    The Modern Law Review, 2013
    Co-Authors: Emma Lees
    Abstract:

    Richall Holdings v Fitzwilliam, holds that Malory v Cheshire Homes is binding in relation to the Land Registration Act 2002. Newey J saw himself as bound by that decision because he could find no relevant distinction between the provisions of the Land Registration Act 1925, and the Land Registration Act 2002. There are however significant differences in the general system of Registration that is established. In particular the different roles of section 20 LRA 1925, and section 29 LRA 2002 mean that Malory was not binding and indeed ought not to have been followed. In addition, the treatment of the priorities rules in Richall misinterprets section 29 LRA 2002. Finally, the decision by-passes the rectification and indemnity provisions of schedules 4 and 8. The decision ought to be overruled.

  • Title by Registration: Rectification, Indemnity and Mistake and the Land Registration Act 2002
    The Modern Law Review, 2013
    Co-Authors: Emma Lees
    Abstract:

    Our understanding of the system of registered title is crucial to our understanding of real property in general but there is no consensus as to the best way to interpret ‘correcting a mistake’ in Schedule 4 LRA 2002. This provision should be interpreted to mean that subsequent Registrations following a ‘mistaken’ Registration are not in themselves a mistake. Section 58 means that the subsequent transferee is relying on good title and a valid transfer and this ought to protect them from rectification. Where an original registered proprietor loses out as a result of this interpretation, they should be entitled to an indemnity however and this requires a change of approach to the interpretation of Schedule 8 LRA 2002. This approach best accords with the logic of the principle of title by Registration whilst also avoiding a clash with Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR.

Barbara Bogusz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Bringing Land Registration into the Twenty-First Century - The Land Registration Act 2002
    Social Science Research Network, 2003
    Co-Authors: Barbara Bogusz
    Abstract:

    Land Registration in England and Wales is embarking on a new voyage. Reforms proposed by the Land Registration Act 2002l (LRA 2002) seek to transport conveyancing into a new technologically advanced era, and remedy the deficiencies and limitations with the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925) and subsequent amending legislation. The objective of the Act, which will repeal the LRA 1925, is to create a truly transparent accurate and comprehensive Register. The Act has its origins in the consultative document entitled 'Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century' published in 1998,2 which provided a forum for stimulated debate in this area. The joint Law Commission and Land Registry Report of 20013 published simultaneously with the Bill, endeavoured to assist in dissemination of the changes introduced by the Bill, reviewed the current legal position and indicated the departures from the 1998 Consultative Document. The purpose of this note is to consider some of the key changes that are introduced by the new Act to the system of land Registration in England and Wales, and the impAct the changes will have on conveyancing law and prActice. Some aspects of the reforms, for example, reducing the number of overriding interests or compulsory first Registration for leases over seven years duration are particularly welcome. These developments will undoubtedly help to simplify conveyancing and protect third party rights. Other changes, such as the introduction and development of electronic conveyancing (e-conveyancing), leave a number of unanswered questions relating to implementation and regulation. This will require further secondary legislation and a significant change in prActice amongst solicitors before the full benefit of e-conveyancing can be brought to all property buyers. The introduction of e-conveyancing in the LRA 2002 continues a popular theme witnessed in much of the legislation introduced by the Labour Government. The Government, focusing on the concept of modernising the state, has demonstrated a keen interest in bringing the benefits of Information Technology to the public services and the process of government and administration more generally.4 In this commitment to use new technology, the Government is seeking to meet the needs of both citizens and business, and not trail behind technological developments being used in many other European Union (EU) countries. The LRA 2002 in seeking to introduce this technology into conveyancing law and prActice, which is

  • Bringing Land Registration into the Twenty–First Century – The Land Registration Act 2002
    The Modern Law Review, 2002
    Co-Authors: Barbara Bogusz
    Abstract:

    Land Registration in England and Wales is embarking on a new voyage. Reforms proposed by the Land Registration Act 2002l (LRA 2002) seek to transport conveyancing into a new technologically advanced era, and remedy the deficiencies and limitations with the Land Registration Act 1925 (LRA 1925) and subsequent amending legislation. The objective of the Act, which will repeal the LRA 1925, is to create a truly transparent accurate and comprehensive Register. The Act has its origins in the consultative document entitled 'Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century' published in 1998,2 which provided a forum for stimulated debate in this area. The joint Law Commission and Land Registry Report of 20013 published simultaneously with the Bill, endeavoured to assist in dissemination of the changes introduced by the Bill, reviewed the current legal position and indicated the departures from the 1998 Consultative Document. The purpose of this note is to consider some of the key changes that are introduced by the new Act to the system of land Registration in England and Wales, and the impAct the changes will have on conveyancing law and prActice. Some aspects of the reforms, for example, reducing the number of overriding interests or compulsory first Registration for leases over seven years duration are particularly welcome. These developments will undoubtedly help to simplify conveyancing and protect third party rights. Other changes, such as the introduction and development of electronic conveyancing (e-conveyancing), leave a number of unanswered questions relating to implementation and regulation. This will require further secondary legislation and a significant change in prActice amongst solicitors before the full benefit of e-conveyancing can be brought to all property buyers. The introduction of e-conveyancing in the LRA 2002 continues a popular theme witnessed in much of the legislation introduced by the Labour Government. The Government, focusing on the concept of modernising the state, has demonstrated a keen interest in bringing the benefits of Information Technology to the public services and the process of government and administration more generally.4 In this commitment to use new technology, the Government is seeking to meet the needs of both citizens and business, and not trail behind technological developments being used in many other European Union (EU) countries. The LRA 2002 in seeking to introduce this technology into conveyancing law and prActice, which is

Related terms

Registration Act - 15 days free trial to Access Experts & Abstracts