From prisoner to paralegal: Morris Kaberia tells his story

Posted on

Lawyer and activist, Morris Kaberia, recently came to visit students at UWE Bristol to speak about his story of justice. After suffering an unwarranted 13 years, 5 of which were spent on death row, in Kamiti High prison, Morris was set free. With help from African Prisons Project, a programme that UWE Bristol Law students support through our Pro Bono unit, Morris studied for a Law degree whilst he was in prison and was able to use his newly learnt knowledge to fight his case for which he was wrongly accused.

Morris visited the University on Monday 10 February 2020 to deliver a talk to our students about his journey, experiences and advice. You can listen to the full talk recorded as a podcast.

Kathy Brown, Senior Law Lecturer, oversees the student participation in the African Prisons Project programme. She said: “Studying for a law degree has enabled the prisoners to gain a higher level of education, act as paralegals for other inmates and represent themselves in court. Many of them are given extreme sentences for relatively small crimes, such as being given death penalty for aggravated burglary, and are on remand for several years.”

In his impactful visit to UWE Bristol, Morris spoke about the importance of the project and how it inspired a new lease of life within himself and his fellow prisoners. He greeted current Law students to enforce the need for students to continue working with this project, and he also reconnected with students who helped him whilst he was in prison which was extremely powerful and emotional.

Morris was interviewed after his talk which you can watch below. Please note: Morris went to Kamiti prison, not community prison as mentioned in the subtitles.

If you would like to know more about our Pro Bono Unit please contact fblclinic@uwe.ac.uk.

Using as the Starting Point the Article ‘WTO Rules against EU “Anti-Dumping” Duties on Indonesian Biofuel’ by Natasha Burton in New Economy on 26 January 2018, Discuss the Use of Anti-dumping Measures by the EU on Biofuels

Posted on

Written by Chloe Barratt

This post (edited for publication) is published on our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module ‘Public International Law’. Following the blogging success over the last couple of years, we decided to publish our students’ excellent work in this area again in this way. The module is an option in the second year of Bristol Law School’s LLB programme. It continues to be led by Associate Professor Dr Noëlle Quénivet. Using innovative learning and teaching methods, Noëlle developed this module to include the use of online portfolios within a partly student led curriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and analytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in this blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.

Anti-dumping duties are additional charges imposed by a state in response to the dumping of products into the ‘commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the products’ (Article VI GATT). They are a means of neutralising unfair trade practice, allowing states to protect their domestic industry if the dumping is having a negative effect on their economy. This blog will discuss how the European Union (EU) imposes anti-dumping measures on biofuels, a renewable source of energy that until recently was seen as an attractive alternative to fossil fuels. I will discuss how the issue that lies at the heart of the dispute with anti-dumping measures is, as Burton’s article highlights, how the extent of dumping is calculated. After examining the implications of anti-dumping measures, I will conclude that they are necessarily used to neutralise unfair trade practice and maintain economic and social stability within the EU.

Process of Bringing an Anti-dumping Measure

To ensure anti-dumping duties are imposed to counteract unfair trade practice, the process of imposing duties is heavily regulated. Accordingly, Article 1 of the  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (ADA) requires all investigations to be initiated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the ADA. Whilst the World Trade Organisation (WTO) does not regulate the initial act of dumping, it is responsible for regulating the process a state must follow when initiating an anti-dumping measure. If, for example, the EU believes products are being dumped into its market it must first be able to show that the dumping is taking place. In doing so it must be able to calculate how much lower the export price is in comparison to the home market price and show that it is causing injury or threatening to do so. The high threshold for establishing the injurious effect of the dumping accompanied by an investigation (see Article 5 ADA) seeks to ensure that anti-dumping duties are used productively.

Why Calculations of Anti-dumping Measures Have Proven Problematic

Whilst the process of imposing an anti-dumping measure is well regulated, the element of calculating the extent of dumping was highlighted as problematic in Burton’s article. As the EU explains in the Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/1570, following the rulings in Indonesia and Argentina (see para 8), the method of calculation has now been clarified in light of the ADA (for the original reports of the dispute settlement body, see Indonesia (DS480) and Argentina (DS473)). 

The dispute between the EU on the one hand and Argentina and Indonesia on the other (see history here) follows a number of WTO challenges to anti-dumping measures (see discussion in Crowley and Hillman, ‘Slamming the Door on Trade Policy Discretion? The WTO Appellate Body’s Ruling on Market Distortions and Production Costs in EU-Biodiesel (Argentina) (2018) 17 World Trade Review 195-213) where the underlying issue was how authorities adjusted the prices of exporting producers. For example, when constructing a home market price for Argentine biodiesel, that is the price of which biodiesel was sold in Argentina, the European Commission chose to alter the price of soybeans to compensate for the distortion in soybean prices, caused by an export tax imposed by the Argentine government (see Crowley and Hillman, at 2).  The price was adjusted based on the fact that soybeans, the primary input of biodiesel, were considerably below the international price and the Commission reasoned the adjustment was what ‘would have been the price paid… in the absence of the export tax system’.

The dispute with Indonesia was similar in the sense that it also involved a problem with  calculations: the EU had replaced the actual price of crude palm oil that was within the producers’ records with an international reference price. The price of the palm oil was lower than international prices, which meant the EU imposed higher duties on Indonesia in response to what they calculated the extent of dumping to be. When deciding on the trade disputes in the cases of Indonesia and Argentina, the Dispute Settlement Body for the WTO found the EU had indeed acted inconsistently with both GATT 1994 and ADA.

Therefore, whilst there has been a period of uncertainty in calculating the extent of dumping, this imperfection has now been clarified by the WTO. The clear guidance now states that countries are not legally permitted to take government manipulated price control into account.

Social and Economic Stability 

Since the WTO cannot regulate the act of dumping, the ability for a state to impose ‘remedial and not punitive’ measures in response to dumping are essential to nullify unfair trade practice. The measures imposed by the EU on biofuels have been used to counteract the great harm that dumping poses to the economic and social stability of the EU. 

Biofuels being dumped into the commerce of the EU not only disrupts the trading of the fuels but also distorts the standard value of the commodity. EU producers are faced with unfair competition and in considering the vast difference in Indonesia’s access to the raw materials used for biofuels (i.e. palm oil) in comparison to the EU’s access,  the EU could not physically be expected to meet the competitors’ low price without a substantial economic loss. The subsequent effect on the domestic economy could see a closure in business and vast unemployment, which the EU is able to avoid with anti-dumping measures.

Conclusion

In summary, anti-dumping measures by the EU have been imposed to minimise the economic disruption caused by the dumping of biofuels. Whilst the EU was found to have miscalculated the extent of dumping, this was recognised and rectified by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism which in turn acknowledged the lawfulness of anti-dumping measures as such. Overall, these measures have been used productively to counteract unfair competition. 

‘Who Cares?’ play comes to Bristol Law School

Posted on

The play ‘Who Cares’ was performed in the Faculty of Business and Law at UWE Bristol on 28 January 2020. It was a piece of social theatre which depicted a family in crisis and the delicate and difficult issues and decisions that might lead to a young child’s adoption.

Following the eight scenes, there was a question and answer session with the cast in role, and a facilitated discussion between the actors and the audience. This allowed the audience to interact with professionals and actors alike, helping them to gain a fuller understanding of the issues and the consequences of family proceedings for the family and professionals involved. Many of the audience were students, parents and grandparents. Many were family justice professionals. Others represented charities supporting people in the midst of a family crisis, facing homelessness or trying to address such issues as drug and alcohol misuse, and domestic abuse.

The engaging script was written by His Honour Judge Stephen Wildblood QC, the Designated Family Judge for wider Bristol area comprising 5 local authorities. He also took on the role of the Judge in the play. The performance and discussion highlighted the vital work of the Family Court, aiming to ‘show not tell’ the audience the kinds of issues that were considered there every day and how they might be resolved. HHJ Stephen Wildblood QC explained the impact of austerity and the current lack of funding on families and suggested that a preventative approach could help to avert family crises and court intervention. He pointed out the benefits of networks and charities such as The Nelson Trust which supported this production.

The play was presented in collaboration with The Nelson Trust and Gloucestershire Children’s Services’ Social Work Academy. The production was sponsored by Albion Chambers, Family Law Week and Bristol Resolution and it was performed by professional actors at ‘What Next Theatre’.

The play was brought to UWE Bristol by Senior Lecturer in Law, Emma Whewell, who is also on the steering committee of a Family Law Theatre initiative. Emma is one of two academics to sit on the Local Family Justice Board in Bristol and is currently in the process of organising a conference for the Local Family Justice Board to take place at UWE Bristol on 14th May 2020.

Insights from the UK’s Implementation of Key Anti-Money Laundering Obligations

Posted on

Blog written by Samantha Bourton, Lecturer in Law at UWE Bristol.

Photo: Samantha Bourton

Money laundering refers to the process used by criminals to conceal or disguise the profits of their illegal activities and is known to have devastating effects on society, national security, the economy and the integrity of financial institutions. This is because money laundering potentially enables criminals, such as drug traffickers, terrorists, and tax evaders, to remain undetected and to channel their profits into further illegal activities. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that 2-5% of global GDP is laundered each year, while the National Crime Agency estimates that hundreds of billions of pounds are laundered annually in the UK alone. Accordingly, an international legal framework has been developed to combat this financial crime, with almost all countries globally committed to implementing the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations on Combatting Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism.

The EU has implemented the Recommendations via a series of directives and has introduced its own measures to combat money laundering in the wake of the Panama Papers and recent terrorist attacks in Europe. One of the main innovations of the EU directives is the requirement for Member States to set up registers of the beneficial owners of legal entities and trusts. The fifth EU anti-money laundering Directive requires the information contained in the register of legal entities to be available to the public, while the register of trusts should be available to law enforcement authorities and those who can demonstrate a legitimate interest in the information. The aim of such registers is to reveal the identities of those who use companies to launder money and carry out illegal activities.

On Friday 29th November, I delivered a paper titled ‘Insights from the United Kingdom’s Implementation of Key Anti-Money Laundering Obligations’ at the CFE Tax Advisers 12th European Conference on the Tax Advisers’ Professional Affairs in Paris. The Conference aimed to examine the impact of the fifth European Union (EU) Anti-Money Laundering Directive, which Member States were required to transpose by the 10th January 2020. The speakers included representatives from the CFE, OECD, and the BASEL Institute on Governance, as well as legal practitioners and academics from several Member States.

My paper examined the UK’s implementation of some of the key obligations contained in the 4th and 5th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directives, including the inclusion of tax evasion as a predicate, or underlying, offence to money laundering and the introduction of beneficial ownership registers. The paper focused on the UK as a case study, as these measures were part of its legal framework long before they became an obligation within the EU; tax evasion has been a predicate offence to laundering in the UK since 1993 and the UK established the first publicly accessible beneficial ownership register in the G20, the People with Significant Control (PSC) Register.

The paper highlighted the benefits generated by these developments in the UK. Under the anti-money laundering legal framework, professionals in the regulated sector are required to submit reports, known as suspicious activity reports (SARs), to the National Crime Agency when they know or suspect that a client is engaged in money laundering. With the inclusion of tax evasion as a predicate offence to laundering, in the UK, professionals are required to submit SARs when they know or suspect that their clients are engaged in tax offences. This has led to a significant recovery of revenue, with the intelligence generated by the reports supporting the collection of over £40.2million in tax revenue from civil enquiries in 2018-19. The paper also highlighted research undertaken by the NGO Global Witness on the benefits of the UK’s PSC Register in detecting and preventing criminal activity. For example, Global Witness found that there has been an 80% reduction in the rate of incorporation of Scottish Limited Partnerships (SLPs) since SLPs have been subject to beneficial ownership requirements. SLPs are often associated with financial crime and were used in the Russian and Azerbaijani Laundromats.

However, the paper also cautioned against the implementation of these measures without appropriate resources devoted to their enforcement, or guidance provided on their operation. The information contained in the UK’s PSC register is not currently verified, leading to the inclusion of inaccurate and misleading information. This has caused some law enforcement authorities in the UK to refrain from using the register in investigations, effectively defeating its objective. In addition, the paper identified the difficulties professionals face in complying with the obligation to submit SARs for tax offences in the UK and stressed how these problems are likely to be exacerbated when these obligations are imposed at a European level.

I concluded the paper by recommending that the EU should define tax evasion for the purposes of the EU anti-money laundering directives and should provide further guidance on how Member States should verify the information contained in beneficial ownership registers.

Karl Brown: My legal life

Posted on

This blog was originally posted by the Law Society Gazette. UWE Bristol Law School alum and Faculty of Business and Law advisory board member, Karl Brown, speaks about his career to date.

At school my best and favourite subjects were English and history. I quickly realised that I would like a career which would involve analysing documents and using communication skills. In the sixth form I got a short work experience placement at a local law firm. This confirmed to me that I would like to study law at university and then go on to a legal career.

I found it very difficult to get a training contract. I did not secure one until four years after I had finished my degree, following more than 100 applications. I eventually obtained a contract with Porter Dodson in Somerset and my training was in its Taunton office. My seats were commercial property, litigation (a combination of civil and family litigation), residential conveyancing and private client.  

Many of the titles I had to review as part of my commercial property seat were large bundles of unregistered title documents or complicated titles related to rural properties. Despite this steep learning curve, I really enjoyed it and my confidence increased rapidly. My seat in residential conveyancing helped me fully understand each step involved in the property buying/selling process and also confirmed to me that I would ultimately want to specialise in property law.

I am a passionate believer in diversity, inclusion and social mobility. Working every day with the Bristol property industry I saw the fantastic opportunities available for anyone who would like a challenging and rewarding career, but I was concerned that not all young people in Bristol were aware of these opportunities. To address this I set up and launched the Bristol Property Inclusion Charter. This involves firms, companies and organisations working in the Bristol property industry signing up to pledges which aim to make the industry more diverse and inclusive. It is the UK’s first city property inclusion charter. I have been heartened by the enthusiastic response and to date have secured more than 15 signatories, including social housing associations, corporate building and architectural firms, estate agents and the University of the West of England. 

I saw the fantastic opportunities in the Bristol property industry available for anyone who would like a challenging and rewarding career, but I was concerned that not all young people in Bristol were aware of them

The Bristol Junior Chamber (BJC) is a business group for people under the age of 40. I joined the BJC in 2008 and from 2009 spent four years as its chair of education and skills (which included coordinating mock interviews at local schools), one year as vice-president and then in 2014 I became its first-ever black president. I had three main objectives: (a) organising speakers and events to help members become future leaders; (b) promoting products made or industries located in Bristol (for example, I organised a tour for BJC members of Bottle Yard Studios in Bristol, which has been the location for some major films and TV series); and (c) promoting the importance of social mobility to the business community in Bristol. Among other things, I arranged for the then deputy chair of the Social Mobility Commission, Baroness Gillian Shephard, to give a speech on social mobility at an inaugural BJC President’s Lecture.

In 2015 I was invited by the mayor of Bristol to sit on the new Bristol Learning City Partnership Board. Bristol was the first learning city in England. The aim of the board was to promote the idea that learning is for everyone regardless of age or background and should not stop when a person concludes their formal school/university education. 

It is clear that the legal sector has recognised the importance of diversity and social mobility. This can be seen when you look at firm websites and when you read articles from law firm leaders. I do think, however, that it is also recognised that law firms have not only to confirm that they have a diversity/social mobility agenda, but also demonstrate results. I am sure that if law firms do adopt procedures such as name-blind CVs and contextual recruitment, more firms will, in time, be able to demonstrate results from their social mobility objectives.  

Karl Brown, Senior Associate, Clarke Willmott. Image: Law Society Gazette.

Research into court reporting in criminal courts: Evidence submitted by UWE Bristol academics

Posted on

Written by Tom Smith and Marcus Keppel-Palmer.

In October 2019, the House of Commons Justice Committee published the report of its inquiry into Court and Tribunal reforms (see the full report here). The inquiry was prompted by “[s]erious concerns… about the effect on access to justice and its efficient despatch of the current court and tribunal modernisation programme, led by the Ministry of Justice and the senior judiciary of England and Wales” (p.3). As part of the inquiry, Tom Smith (UWE Law), Marcus Keppel-Palmer (UWE Law), Sally Reardon ( UWE Journalism) and Phil Chamberlain (Journalism, University of Bath), submitted evidence on their research into court reporting in criminal courts:

“In January 2018, we held a project at Bristol Magistrates Court, attending every case held in open court during one week. During this period of time, only one case was attended by a reporter from local media. We fear that important work shining a light on the work of the Courts will continue to diminish.

During the project, a number of cases were conducted using video link. The positioning of the video screens in court meant that it was often difficult and, in some instances, impossible to follow the evidence being presented. Actually being present in court, researchers were able to clarify details with the CPS, something that will not be possible if the hearing is online.”

They argued that:

“Open Justice is held up to be one of the great values of our legal system. At a time when economics dictate that many local media outlets are closing or cutting back on staff, it would be detrimental to that principle if the Courts Service enacted changes to hearings that impacted further on the ease of reporting the courts.”

The Committee’s report recognised this problem, and quoted the UWE team’s evidence as follows:

“The University of the West of England expressed concerns that the reform proposals would create further barriers preventing the reporting of the courts by the local media. They noted that: “[t]he number of dedicated Court Reporters on local newspapers is shrinking, and given the distances reporters would have to go to listen in on an online hearing at a booth at Court [this] can impose a further deterrent.” (p.54)

As mentioned above, the submitted evidence was based on an empirical study examining levels of court reporting, which was published by peer-reviewed journal, Journalism, in August 2019; and has attracted the attention of the Ministry of Justice, Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and journalism trade publication the Press Gazette.

The UWE Bristol team are currently undertaking a national survey of court reporting during one month in 2019 and preparing to bid for funding to expand the empirical study, underpinned by the concept of ‘Justice Reporting’ – the idea that reporting on courts should go beyond merely relaying facts and case details, but should examine the processes and issues that form part of criminal cases.

The team has also presented its findings at the SLSA 2018 Conference, the What’s The News Conference 2018 in Brussels, the MECCSA 2019 Conference in Stirling, and the Future of Journalism 2019 Conference in Cardiff, as well as presenting the research to visiting Chinese Judges.

Law Student of the Year awarded to Sam Louwers

Posted on

Congratulations to final year UWE Bristol Law student, Sam Louwers, for recently becoming Law Student of the Year at the Bristol Law Society awards 2019. Sam was nominated by Shilan Shah-Davis, Associate Head of Department, UWE Bristol, on behalf of the Law Department.

The Law Department started working closely with Sam last year through his involvement with the UWE Law Society. Sam was ‘made-up’ by Shilan’s submission and says it has been the proudest moment of his time at UWE Bristol so far.

“Sam is a highly motivated, hardworking, forward-thinking and compassionate individual with a strong commitment to the values of inclusivity, diversity and justice. Through his work in the UWE Law Society and involvement in other projects, Sam truly stands out as a champion for inclusion and diversity and an inspirational leader. Sam is very highly thought of within the Law Department and his values and commitment emulate all that UWE Bristol is seeking to achieve for its students.

Sam winning the Bristol Law Society Student of the Year Award is absolutely fantastic and very well-deserved. His passion, drive and commitment are truly inspirational and he is a great role model and ambassador for UWE Bristol.”

Shilan Shah-Davis

Interestingly, Sam’s career started in the Armed Forces, however, that abruptly ended in 2017 when he was medically discharged due to two injuries. Sam says, “I had always had an interest in Law but I never thought that University was where I would end up and never thought that I would be good enough to take that path.”

He joined UWE Bristol after getting medically discharged and has gone from strength to strength from becoming the President of the UWE Law Society to push for a more diverse representation of students, to being awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Representation at the Student Experience Awards in 2018.

In his spare time (amidst caring for his young daughter and family life), Sam also works for the Royal British Legion, running the Poppy Appeal in his local area and supporting the national media team. He says that the Royal British Legion have been instrumental in helping him deal with his injuries. Once Sam finishes his degree he hopes to do his Barrister Training here at UWE Bristol to start his career as a Criminal Barrister alongside Pro Bono work and giving back to others who need help within the Armed Forces Community.

Sam’s dedication and determination prove he was a worthy winner for Law Student of the Year and UWE Bristol are proud to have him as a student here. After the awards ceremony, Sam said “speaking to the selection committee and senior lawyers in Bristol, and hearing the kind comments that they had given me, the congratulations, and how much they admired the dedication that I had put into my degree – especially with the disturbance in my background, felt really worth-while, and I felt privileged to be recognised.”

Find out more about studying Law at UWE Bristol on our website.

Effective Legal Assistance in Pre-trial Detention Decision-Making: Regional Policy Meeting, Brussels, October 2019

Posted on
Written by Dr. Tom Smith, Senior Lecturer in Law at UWE Bristol.

Pre-trial detention (PTD) – that is, the removal of the liberty of those not yet convicted of any criminal offence – is a significant issue across all jurisdictions. It inherently interferes with the liberty of legally innocent individuals in the most significant way available to the state. This has implications for the presumption of innocence and access to justice for defendants, and its impact beyond the legal status and rights of those affected can be substantial – particularly regarding employment, family relations, housing, and mental health. Levels of PTD and decision-making regarding its use have been of particular concern across the EU for more than a decade, (including in England and Wales (E&W), a jurisdiction with a particularly high prison population). Alongside initiatives and proposals at the institutional level of the EU, both academic and third sector institutions have, for a number of years, been researching the use of PTD in various jurisdictions, and lobbying for a renewed policy focus on tackling its overuse and improving practise. A primary example is the report ‘A Measure of Last Resort?’; published by Fair Trials in 2016, the ten country study (including E&W) provided a detailed picture of PTD use and practise across the region, highlighting both good and bad practise. Amongst the many relevant issues highlighted was the importance of legal assistance for defendants in PTD hearings.

The presence of a lawyer is undoubtedly vital to fairer PTD proceedings; but it is the effectiveness of that representation, beyond mere presence, which is key. Effective representation – which challenges and scrutinises PTD decision-making in a meaningful way – gives operational value to the right to legal assistance; and underlying this is the quality of the lawyer providing the service. In 2017, Fair Trials – along with partners in Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary and Greece – commenced a project focusing on the effectiveness of legal assistance in PTD hearings, to further examine how such representation impacts on the use of PTD; the current issues existing in practice; and how effectiveness can be enhanced, thereby improving PTD decision-making. In October 2019, I attended a regional policy meeting in Brussels organised by Fair Trials (entitled ‘Effective Legal Assistance in Pre-trial Detention Decision-Making’) so that some of the findings of the project so far might be highlighted and discussed amongst practitioners, academics and policy makers from across Europe. This blog aims briefly highlight some of the major key issues raised during three panel sessions (consisting of a moderator and four practitioners from the project jurisdictions).

Panel 1 focused on the access of suspects and defendants to legal assistance in PTD proceedings. The primary issues raised included the limited time and facilities for preparation available to defence lawyers, coupled with pressure from courts to ‘get on’ with cases. Absence and poor quality of translation services for non-domestic defendants was highlighted as a problem, particularly since PTD disproportionately focused on such persons (as well as marginalised domestic citizens). The panel highlighted the problem of lawyers who lacked sufficient independence from the police/prosecution (although also pointed out that legal reforms in some jurisdictions had recently attempted to deal with this – but described the current situation as ‘new law, old practice’). Additionally, panelists emphasised the inadequate information provided to clients about their rights. Overall, the panel suggested that the role of the lawyer needed to be ‘concrete’, and provide more than a superficial form of legitimacy to what were ultimately unfair proceedings – particularly since courts would simply assume that there were no issues if a lawyer was present.

Panel 2 (moderated by myself) focused on improving the effectiveness of legal assistance. Panelists highlighted that, to truly ensure equality of arms, lawyers needed to be meaningfully acquainted with case files and materials in advance. However, problems with access (particularly for certain types of material) and time for study were again considered a major problem. It was pointed out that inaccessible drafting and organisation of case files hindered effective legal assistance, and that clear scheduling of materials would improve this. Notwithstanding the above, one panelist highlighted good practise in their jurisdiction, describing how full access to police/prosecution case files was granted to lawyers from the outset, with no ‘cherry picking’ of materials. This was bolstered by a minimum of 48 hours for lawyers to study materials and the support of the judiciary, who were generally reluctant to restrict access to files. The panelists highlighted the importance of knowledgeable, qualified and experienced lawyers, who were motivated to properly engage with cases and personally attend consultations with clients. This was, it was argued, supported by true independence and proper payment for the work done. However, good practise was also undermined by practical issues such as major delays in payment of legal aid to lawyers and lack of private physical spaces for consulting with clients. This would present serious difficulties for lawyers attempting to build a relationship of trust with their client. It was concluded that legal assistance needed to be ‘real’ and not simply ‘theatre’, and that lawyers can be both an assistant (not an obstacle) for courts, and a mediator between courts and defendants.

Panel 3 focused on the role of lawyers in promoting alternatives to detention. A central problem in this regard was the issue of credibility of alternatives; that is, a lack of trust in the effectiveness of non-custodial pre-trial measures on the part of the judiciary. Panelists felt that public/media pressure and risk aversion played a role in the under-use of alternatives to detention, which was not helped by a lack of time for all parties to fully consider alternative proposals. In some cases, poor inter-agency working appeared to undermine use of conditional release; for example, drug rehabilitation was described as being under-used in one jurisdiction because the courts and the medical profession administering rehabilitation spoke ‘two different languages, in two different worlds’. It was felt that lawyers could play an important role in promoting the use of alternatives, but that there needed to be more variety of alternatives available and some creativity as regards to their use in different cases. One panelist felt that alternatives were not simply under-used due to a lack of credibility, but due to the mindset of courts which regarded PTD as a ‘first resort’. In some cases, it was felt that prosecution/police used PTD as an investigative tool that could frustrate the accused and increase the likelihood of a confession. Overall, it was felt that lawyers needed to do more to establish a relationship of trust with the courts which would enable them to more credibly suggest alternatives to PTD.

Overall, the meeting identified a variety of key themes related to more effective legal assistance in PTD hearings, including: early and continued access to materials and information; trust; independence; privacy; quality and experience of lawyers; adequate translation; adequate time for preparation; and sufficient and timely remuneration. A key call by Fair Trials, and the project partners, was for the EU to make PTD a policy priority, in a similar form to the 2009 roadmap on minimum procedural rights of defendants in criminal proceedings. By establishing clear minimum standards across Europe in this key aspect of PTD practice, the quality and effectiveness of legal assistance could be significantly improved. Equally, individual jurisdictions (including E&W) also need to take ownership of this issue and act on some of these problems, so that PTD decision-making is robust and fair – and, as a consequence, detention is used appropriately and proportionately.

Photo by Fair Trials.

Pro Bono at Bristol Law School: Video

Posted on

UWE Bristol Law students speak about the benefits of taking part in Pro Bono activities.

The Pro Bono Unit enables UWE Bristol Law School students to provide free legal advice services to members of the community. We have spoken to several students about their experiences of getting involved in Pro Bono.

Here’s what they had to say:

“For my career it has helped me get work experience. I think that being involved in Pro Bono will give you that confidence to put that on your CV and when law firms can look at you being involved, they definitely would want to take you on and give you some more experience because they trust in you.”  – Manmeet Singh, Law Student

“When I was at UWE I got involved in an organisation called Street Law which is a programme that goes to help teach younger children the basic of laws. So, we would be teaching them things like civil and criminal law, the advocacy process and just a general introduction to studying law.” – Isaac Cole, Trainee Solicitor 

“It helped me build my confidence as before I couldn’t really speak in front of a group of people and now I’m accustomed to holding events of upwards of 300 people.” – Freya Whiting, Law Student

“The Pro Bono experiences I’ve done has helped me for my career in a sense that it’s developed my confidence when being in an interview situation. It’s also helped in a sense that it’s helped me further understand why I want to pursue this career.” – Rory Jutton, LPC Student

“I would recommend students to do Pro Bono activities or get involved with Pro Bono. The main reason is employability, you can’t really put a price on that – it’s invaluable experience, it’s satisfying and it’s incredibly rewarding.” – Dominik Morton, Pupil Barrister

If you would like to know more about Pro Bono at UWE Bristol please visit our webpage.

UWE Bristol wins Guardian Award for Equity Programme

Posted on

We were delighted to be finalists at this year’s Guardian University Awards but are over the moon to have actually won! This award means so much to everyone who’s been involved in developing and delivering the Equity Programme ever since our first pilot event in October 2016. It’s been a long and sometimes challenging journey to introduce a progressive positive action scheme like this. Working with students, local employers and national diversity thought leaders, we’ve created something which the University can be really proud of and which offers BAME students a chance to leverage leadership and enterprise skills as they embark upon their graduate careers. 

The Equity programme has 4 pillars: 1-2-1 mentoring, identity and leadership coaching, enterprise education workshops and large evening networking and guest speaker events. National statistics on the performance and progression of ethnic minorities in the labour market (as highlighted by the MacGregor Smith Race in the Workplace Review 2017) have to change and we are proud to be leading the way on the role universities can play in this regard. Finally, we want to thank every facilitator and the external guests who attend our events and enrich our student experience.

Equity evening events run throughout the academic year and are open to the public to attend. We warmly encourage alumni to consider attending the evening events to give our students networking opportunities as well as being part of the collective challenge to diversify the talent pipeline. To find out more please visit www.uwe.ac.uk/equityor email raceequality@uwe.ac.uk

Post written by Dr Zainab Khan- Equity Programme Lead