Adapting English for the specific purpose of tourism: A study of communication strategies in face-to-face encounters in a French tourist office L'anglais mis au service de l'échange d'informations touristiques : une étude des stratégies de communication dans des interactions en face-à-face au sein d'un office de tourisme français

This paper proposes that the expansion and subsequent unbridling of the provision of a law clinic in the sector will provide the students with the skills necessary of graduates in the increasingly corporate, commercially motivated, UK university sector. Secondly, it provides a basis for the rationale of a movement in funding bands, a study which is being undertaken by the Higher Education Funding Council for England over the proceeding three years, in consequence to the increasing costs involved to the institutions. This increase in funding, coupled with a determination from the institution and case study evidence as presented in this paper, will hopefully propel clinical legal education to the forefront of undergraduate legal studies in the UK. Clinical legal education is a method of improving the student experience and offers various advantages if integrated fully into the university administrative set up. Such views have been given rigorous academic coverage, however this paper further analyses the academic benefits passed on to the student populace, in relation to the potential advantages to UK universities.

No abstract

This article assesses the admissibility of expert testimony and suggests that generic principles for admission may, taken in isolation, be more inclined to mislead than assist. Instead, it is preferable to consider each case on an individual basis. This is the current judicial response. The judicial response, whilst broadly correct in approach, may benefit in terms of implementation by greater precision of definition. Judges may benefit from guidance provided by working parties outside the courtroom. A middle path is suggested charting a path between laissez-faire admission, on the one hand, and a call for pervasive principles of admission, on the other.

This article focuses predominantly on the recent miscarriages of justice in the cases of Angela Cannings and Sally Clark. The article identifies possible causes of error in trials involving expert testimony. It is suggested that admission of scientific evidence may inevitably elicit such miscarriages of justice. In order to reduce their frequency, however, experts need training in both scientific and forensic methodology. The science community must also ensure vigilance against scientific dogma. The cases show that responsibility does not lie solely at the feet of expert witnesses. Advocates need training in how to deal with expert testimony. Finally, the use of the jury in complex scientific trials is considered and approved.