Zach Leggett

Contact

profile_image:

Name:

Zach Leggett

Email address:

Department:

Faculty of Education Society & Creative Industries (6LAW)

Organisation:

University of Sunderland

Address:

Sir Reg Vardy Building Sir Tom Cowie Campus at St. Peters' St. Peters' Way Sunderland SR6 0DD

Country:

United Kingdom

Homepage URL:

Biography

Expertise:

Criminal Law, Crime, Justice and Society, Equity and Trusts

Job title:

Senior Lecturer of Law

Biography:

I am a Senior Lecturer in Law researching criminal law with specific focus on the regulation of sex work and sex workers' rights.

Qualifications:

LLB PGCE

My Latest

Leggett, Zach (2022) One step forward, two steps back: The Court of Appeal for Ontario clarifies Canada’s sex work laws but ultimately delivers a blow in attempts to challenge the constitutional validity of Canada’s ‘end demand’ model. R v NS, 2022 ONCA 160. The Journal of Criminal Law, 86 (5). pp. 377-383. ISSN 1740-5580
Leggett, Zach (2022) Things that go "Boom!"... or not? Defining explosive substances and pyrotechnic effects in under the Explosive Substances Act 1883: R v Margelis [2021] EWCA Crim 1215. The Journal of Criminal Law, 86 (1). pp. 46-50. ISSN 0022-0183
Leggett, Zach (2020) The unconstitutional nature of the criminalisation of the purchase of sex in Canada - R v Anwar 2020 ONCJ 103 (Ontario). Journal of Criminal Law, 84 (3). pp. 266-270. ISSN 0022-0183
Leggett, Zach (2019) The new test for dishonesty in criminal law – lessons from the courts of equity? Journal of Criminal Law. ISSN 0022-0183
Leggett, Zach (2019) The test for "substantial injustice" after Jogee and Johnson. Journal of Criminal Law, 83 (5). pp. 420-424.

My Most Viewed

	Item title
1	The new test for dishonesty in criminal law – lessons from the courts of equity?	374	1007
2	The unconstitutional nature of the criminalisation of the purchase of sex in Canada - R v Anwar 2020 ONCJ 103 (Ontario)	338	114
3	One step forward, two steps back: The Court of Appeal for Ontario clarifies Canada’s sex work laws but ultimately delivers a blow in attempts to challenge the constitutional validity of Canada’s ‘end demand’ model. R v NS, 2022 ONCA 160	280	101
4	The effect of s.39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 when a person attains the age of 18	226	145
5	The test for "substantial injustice" after Jogee and Johnson	225	10
6	Now or never? How imminent must a fear of violence be for the purposes of s.4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997? R. v Qosja (Robert)	220	265
7	Theft: appropriation through submitting false claims? Darroux v R	216	546
8	The exceptional case of the Watson direction	208	782
9	The process for ABE interviews and Re W Applications in child sexual abuse cases	183	247
10	Opening up the family courts in the name of public interest, but at what cost?	171	71

About SURE