Monetising constitutional rights: the award of damages in constitutional claims
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to chart the development of the law on the award of damages as a form of relief for the breach of constitutional rights. First it will examine the jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to the forms of redress under the Constitution, ranging from the seminal case of Maharaj v Attorney General to the recent decision in Alleyne v Attorney General. The Privy Council jurisprudence can be analysed along a spectrum ranging from cautious gradualism on the lower end, routine dispensation towards the middle and finally tapering off with restrained awards in recent times. The award of damages under Caribbean constitutions can be useful contrasted with the approach of courts in the UK to awards of damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Privy Council appears much more willing to grant damages in constitutional claims than their English counterparts in cases of alleged human rights violations. The article will end with a panoramic overview of the case law of other jurisdictions, most notably from New Zealand, South Africa and Canada in an effort to determine to what extent those jurisdictions ascribe to the Privy Council or the UK approach to damages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".