The document discusses several news stories related to EU regulations and directives being implemented in the UK legal system. It provides examples of an EU regulation harmonizing rules around herbal medicines and electronic communications. It also discusses how the UK brings EU laws into force through the European Communities Act of 1972, allowing them to be implemented by statutory instrument without passing separate legislation. Additionally, it covers a case where a former banker appealed and was granted a larger divorce settlement, and emergency legislation being rushed through Parliament to reverse a court ruling on police bail.

2. Is it immediately binding on the UK and why?

4. Is it immediately binding on the UK and why?

6. How are the UK bringing in this legislation without having to create a ‘separate statute’? (see lines 4 and 5)Criminal and Civil Law<br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214219/I-want-fair-divorce-deal-says-3m-banker-left-450-000.html <br />19050181610Ex-banker left with £450,000 from £3m in divorce deal wins bigger share of fortune at Appeal Court A former banker has been granted an extra £370,000 in his divorce settlement after challenging the initial verdict. The Court of Appeal said the judge was wrong to include William Murphy's company deferred compensation fund in its calculations. The fund, from his former employer Merrill Lynch, was notionally valued at £550,000 <br />The appeal judge also found that Mrs Justice Parker was not justified in ruling that Mr Murphy had wasted £2million of the family assets after separating from his wife, Helene, in 2006. Lord Justice Thorpe, who headed the panel of three appeal judges, said the accusation was 'unfair to the husband'. <br />Mr Murphy, who worked for Salomon Brothers in New York and Merrill Lynch in London, will now get nearly £820,000. His wife's share was cut from £1.9million to £1.5million. He can also claim the substantial legal costs of the case. The assets of the couple, who were married in 1996 and have no children, have been split 65/35 in favour of Mrs Murphy. Lord Justice Thorpe said this was justified as Mr Murphy had greater future earning potential. <br />The case came in the week a leading family lawyer called for an end to court rulings which left wives living in comfort on the back of their husbands' money. Baroness Deech said handing a husband's wealth to the wife after a short childless marriage was demeaning to women who were fully capable of finding work. She said such over-generosity to women had made London the divorce capital of the world. At the time of Mr Murphy's settlement, the former banker was earning nothing, his lawyer Martin Pointer QC, had told the court. But his wife Helene had a handsome income as a director of a London art gallery, he added.<br />Which court (and which division of that court) would initially have heard this case before the appeal?<br />Which court heard the appeal and why was it heard in that court?<br />What change did the court make to the original hearing?<br />Why do you think the appeal was allowed?<br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011152/Emergency-legislation-reverse-police-bail-ruling-rushed-Commons.html <br />Emergency legislation to reverse police bail ruling to be rushed through the CommonsThe initial ruling, made by a district judge and backed by a judicial review at the High Court, means officers can no longer bail suspects for more than four days without either charging or releasing them.<br />His announcement came as three Supreme Court justices were considering an application from Greater Manchester Police (GMP) to stay the judgement pending a full appeal at the same court on July 25.<br />The row started when district judge Jonathan Finestein, sitting at Salford Magistrates' Court, refused a routine application from GMP for a warrant of further detention of murder suspect Paul Hookway on April 5. High Court judge Mr Justice McCombe confirmed the ruling in a judicial review on May 19, which meant time spent on police bail counted towards the maximum 96-hour limit of pre-charge detention, after which Home Office officials were told about the problems.<br />A legal bid by Greater Manchester Police to stay the judgement, effectively putting it on hold, has been submitted to the Supreme Court.<br />Emergency legislation to reverse a controversial legal ruling on police bail will go through all stages in the Commons on Thursday, the leader of the House said. Sir George Young said peers would then consider the police detention and bail Bill early next week.<br />1. What court made the initial ruling? (see line 1)<br />Why was it reviewed at the High Court?<br />What court is considering the appeal? Why is this court handling the appeal?<br />Which court is handling the ‘stay of judgement’ request? Why is this court handling it?<br />‘Emergency Legislation’ is being rushed through parliament going through ‘all stages in the Commons on Thursday’ before going to the Peers ‘next week’. What are the stages it will go through? Why does it go to the Peers?<br />