Presentation of a Paper on Brexit and EU Citizenship at a Conference in Austria

Posted on

In the past few years the concept of citizenship has for a variety of reasons regained fashion amongst national, European and international lawyers. In the UK the renewed interest in the notion of citizenship is partially explained by the effect of Brexit on the status of EU citizens in the UK (and UK nationals in the EU). Last year a wide range of events, which Christian Dadomo and Dr Noëlle Quénivet attended, were organised in Bristol to discuss citizenship (see here and here) and so when they saw a call for papers for a conference on citizenship at the University of Graz (Austria) they jumped onto the opportunity to present their work abroad and thankfully their paper entitled ‘Assessing EU Citizenship under the Myopic Lens of Brexit’ was accepted.

The conference ‘Transformation of Citizenship’, held on 20 and 21 November 2018, was organised by the Institute for International Law and International Relations in conjunction with the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy of the University of Graz (Uni-ETC) within the context of the project ‘Transnational Governance of Irregular Migration and the Transformation of Citizenship’.  It brought together a vast array of scholars from all around the world to discuss issues such as the sale of passports, global citizenship, statelessness, foreign terrorist fighters, solidarity, etc. Two panels were dedicated to Union Citizenship, thus highlighting the importance and relevance of the topic.

Christian and Noelle started their paper by reminding the participants that the CJEU had defined EU citizenship as a fundamental status that enables nationals of Member States to enjoy the same treatment in law and that since then scholars had been debating the legal value of such status. Christian and Noelle argued that Brexit brings to the surface again discussions about the legal value or more generally the worth of EU citizenship in contrast to (State) nationality. In their opinion, there are two ways of looking at EU citizenship. There is first a minimalist approach that focuses on the legal status and the rights with which individuals are endowed. It is the more palpable, almost every day life appearance of EU citizenship for EU citizens having exercised their right to free movement. Yet, attachment and loyalty to the EU cannot be fostered by a limited focus on citizens’ status and rights alone and so there is also a broader and more dynamic approach to EU citizenship that looks at the symbolism of EU citizenship and more specifically at the solidarity between EU citizens that should create some form of identity. It is more aspirational and inscribes itself in a vision of the EU as a polity in which a European civitas exists and thrives.

At first sight, Brexit undergirds this minimalist approach to EU citizenship in as much as many discussions centred upon the rights of the EU citizens in the UK (though less on the UK nationals in the EU27). The focus of attention was initially about the fate of these EU citizens in the UK and the rights they would lose as a result of Brexit. Both EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU realised the value of their EU citizenship. After all, you only appreciate what you had once you have lost it! For example, UK nationals both in the EU and more interestingly in the UK (even those who have never exercised their right to free movement) have applied for the nationality of an EU Member State to keep their EU citizenship.

However, the wider, aspirational approach towards EU citizenship is no less visible in Brexit for there have been demonstrations in favour of the EU in a State whose nationals have always been sceptical towards the EU, support in the European Parliament for ‘associate’ EU citizenship and a European Citizenship Initiative launched in July 2018 with the objective of keeping EU citizenship for UK nationals in the EU27. Therefore, it is possible to state that Brexit has revealed that EU citizenship goes beyond this minimalist approach that focuses solely on rights to a vision of EU citizenship as something that has a wider appeal and is based on solidarity along the French motto of ‘liberté, égalité et fraternité’.

More fundamentally, the European Union has enabled a shift in the way non-nationals are viewed: from foreigners to workers (homo economicus), to residents and to EU citizens. With Brexit the pendulum might go all the way back to viewing UK nationals in the EU who were EU citizens as foreigners and EU citizens in the UK as foreigners. Yet, the rhetoric of both the UK and the EU shows that they are adamant to reverting to square one. Consequently, it might be possible to state that Brexit has demonstrated that EU citizenship has subtly though fundamentally challenged the way EU citizens who have exercised their right to free movement are viewed. Though Brexit undeniably highlights the duality of EU citizenship, a status in its own right as well as a complementary over-layer that acts as a gate to rights that will be lost post-Brexit, it has revealed the intrinsic value of EU citizenship for EU citizens living in another EU Member State. As a result, Christian and Noelle argued that Brexit shows that EU citizenship is more than just a bundle of rights. EU citizenship has a transformative power in the sense that it is not just a ‘top up’ but has become part of a Union citizen’s legal heritage, especially in relation to long-term residents. And so, reverting to the status quo ante is nearly impossible.

What is more Brexit offers an opportunity to reinforce and complete EU citizenship and putting EU citizenship at the forefront of the European project. Like the French revolutionaries who created French citizenship on the tryptic ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’, the EU citizenship can equally be further developed on the tryptic ‘freedom of movement, equality treatment and solidarity’. Freedom of movement is fully developed, equal treatment can be completed by extending the so-called special (political) rights and notably the right to stand and vote in all national elections including referenda in their country of residence, and finally solidarity needs better promotion as it is only in its infancy.

Matthew Hall presents “Thatcher’s Legacy on the Narrative Surrounding Fans of Football” at the Football Collective Conference

Posted on

On Friday 31st December 2018, Matthew Hall (UWE Bristol, Law), along with Ashley Jane Lowerson (University of Sunderland, Law) presented their paper at the Football Collective Conference at Hampden Park, Glasgow. This is an event attended by many scholars from across all disciplines from around the world. Also attending were current and ex-professional footballers and members of the Football Association.

Titled, ‘Thatcher’s Legacy on the Narrative Surrounding Fans of Football’, Matt and Ashley introduced by discussing Mrs Thatcher’s early days as PM and the ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric that she often espoused. It was discussed how some scholars have argued through a punitiveness lens that Mrs Thatcher’s legislative programme was anything but tough. The prison population remained around the 45,000 mark during her time as PM and only under Major and Blair did a sharp increase occur (and now is around the 80,000 mark). Thatcher’s legislation merely created an ‘illusion’ of toughness and ‘laid the foundations’ for a more punitive approach some years later.

Matt and Ashley then discussed how measuring the ‘toughness’ of law through a punitive lens was a narrow approach and legislation can influence in other ways. Attention turned to football fans and some of the legislation that was created with fans of football in mind, particularly since the events of Heysel in 1985. Ashley discussed the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, Public Order Act 1986 and the Football Spectators Act 1989 and how collectively, these have arguably created a stigma that has become attached to all fans. In particular, when taking in to account the wide nature of some of the legislation in that numerous restrictions apply to all fans and not just those who seek to cause disorder.

Matt then went on to discuss Goffman’s theory of stigma and Frost’s conceptual framework. Structural inequalities were discussed and how the law can be constructed in ways that reflect negative meanings to certain groups in society; how stereotypes and prejudice can result from structural inequalities; and finally, discrimination in that these groups then become treated differently in society because of their stigmatised status. Discussed on this point was the nature of how the police often favour the tougher ‘command and control’ approach when policing football matches as opposed to other large gatherings such as political protests, where a more ‘facilitative’ role is adopted with the use of Police Liaison Teams to create a ‘friendlier atmosphere.’ Also, how public houses quite often refuse admission to fans of football on match days for no other reason other than they are football fans and in early 2018, Chorley councillor Danny Gee attempting to ban all fans of football from entering Chorley Centre on Saturday afternoons.

Matt and Ashley then discussed how stigma can be legitimised by law, and in terms of football fans, this is arguably the case. Mrs Thatcher may not have been regarded as ‘tough’ by some scholars with her legislative programme, but fans of football would disagree. 1985, under Mrs Thatcher PM, saw the first football-specific legislation introduced and arguably, this is one of Thatcher’s legacies surrounding the narrative of football fans in the current day.

Pre-trial Detention in England & Wales: An academic analysis

Posted on

In November 2018, Dr Tom Smith hosted a delegation of visitors from China, including academics from two universities, several prosecutors and lawyers from city, provincial, and national procuratorates (the bodies responsible for prosecution decisions), and colleagues from the Great Britain China Centre. The purpose of the visit was to discuss pre-trial detention practice in England and Wales, with a view to promoting reform in China (following on from a pilot project conducted in various provinces in 2016-17). Alongside a question and answer session and a court visit, the visit included a presentation by Dr Thomas Smith. This blog is a written form of this presentation.

This presentation aims to summarise the current regulatory structure for pre-trial detention (PTD) in England and Wales (E&W); to summarise research conducted in this area of practice; and to identify future issues which will be faced in ensuring PTD is used appropriately and decisions are made fairly. It is hoped that this presentation will assist the delegation in promoting reform of PTD practice in China over the coming years, an area of both great importance and great challenge.

 

Law and Procedure in E&W

Before engaging in analysis of the system, it is first necessary to briefly summarise the stages at which a person suspected or accused of a criminal offence can be detained prior to trial (commonly known as pre-trial detention (PTD)). PTD traditionally refers to detention of a person, by a court, prior to trial. However, since the police also have the power to detain unconvicted persons (both before and after a charge), these have been included in this summary. After a person is arrested on suspicion of an offence, decisions about their detention or release can be made at various stages prior to any potential trial. The first, and earliest, point at which this can happen is before a person is charged with any offence (hereafter, the pre-charge stage). The second stage is after a suspect is charged with offence, but before their first appearance at court (hereafter, the post-charge stage). At both of these stages, the decision as to whether a person should be released or detained is made by the police (specifically, a custody officer). The third stage at which such decisions will be made is after the accused person (now referred to as a defendant) has appeared at court for the first time (hereafter, the court stage). The court stage also includes such decisions made at the conclusion of any subsequent court hearings involving the defendant. At the court stage, PTD decisions are made by judicial figures – specifically, Magistrates or District Judges in a Magistrates’ Court; or professional judges (such as Circuit Judges) in the Crown Court. Whilst PTD will not normally be the primary focus of court hearings, all such hearings must end with a decision about the liberty of the defendant. Decisions or hearings relating to PTD in E&W are commonly referred to as ‘bail’ or ‘remand’ hearings; in this sense, if one encounters a reference to bail or remand in relation to court proceedings, this can be equated to PTD decision-making. Notwithstanding the different figures responsible for these decisions, one element is common across all stages: a person suspected or accused of an offence is at risk of being deprived of their liberty; or, if they are released, of being the subject of ‘conditions’ which can regulate or control their behaviour. As such, PTD at all stages has a significant impact on the fundamental rights of people who have yet to be charged, tried or convicted.

Pre-charge

If suspects are not charged with an offence, there is a presumption that they will be released without bail (that is, unconditionally). This presumption was recently introduced by the Policing and Crime Act 2017. However, this presumption can be overturned if certain pre-conditions are met, meaning that a suspect can be released on bail for 28 days (initially). This will allow the police to attach conditions to release. Crucially, if the police decide it is necessary (to secure or preserve evidence or obtain evidence through interrogation), a suspect can also be detained until they are charged with an offence. This is, initially, for a maximum of 24 hours (which can potentially be extended) and is subject to review.

Post-charge

After a person is charged, they can either be released (with or without bail); or detained (if the police believe that they may fail to attend court, commit an offence or interfere with witnesses). Whatever decision is made, it will apply until the charged person’s first court hearing. Both pre and post-charge, all suspects held in police custody are entitled to legal representation if they request it, regardless of means (under s.58, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984).

At court

If an accused person is detained post-charge, they must appear before a Magistrates’ Court quickly. Normally, this will be no later than the first court sitting after charge (generally, within 24 hours of being charged). At the end of this first court hearing, the defendant must be released or detained; as such, this represents the first ‘formal’ PTD hearing for those accused of criminal offences. Importantly, there is a presumption of release on bail for every defendant (under s.4, Bail Act 1976). This applies at all stages of proceedings (there are some exceptions to this presumption). The presumption can be overturned if the court has reasonable grounds for believing that detention is justified. There are a number of available ‘grounds’ for detention under the Bail Act 1976, with the main ones being the fear that the defendant may fail to surrender to the court; may offend on bail; or may interfere with the administration of justice (for example, by intimidating a witness). In deciding whether the ‘grounds’ to detain a defendant are established, the court should consider various factors, including the nature and seriousness of the offence; the probable outcome/sentence; the character of the defendant; antecedents (previous convictions); and the defendant’s bail record (that is, whether they have breached bail conditions in the past).

If the presumption of release is not overturned by the court, a defendant will be released on either unconditional bail or conditional bail. With the former, the only requirement is for the defendant to return to court for a future hearing (for example, a trial). With the latter, the defendant can be released subject to additional requirements, commonly known as ‘conditions’. Conditional bail is effectively an alternative to detention; that is, when the court feels that the defendant needs to be subject to some measure of control or monitoring, but detention is inappropriate or disproportionate. Conditions can therefore be attached to release, primarily if the court believes that the defendant might fail to surrender to custody; might offend on bail; or might interfere with witnesses or the administration of justice (among others). The court has significant discretion in terms of the type of conditions it can impose. There are three basic categories: a surety (the surrender of something of value, such as a passport); a security (sometimes known as ‘money bail’); and ‘other conditions’. The first two categories (particularly securities) are generally unusual in E&W. Other conditions are common, and can include (theoretically) anything the court thinks is necessary. However, frequently used conditions include a residence requirement; a curfew and/or electronic monitoring (or ‘tagging’); or the requirement to stay away from a location or person (for example, a witness).

Defendants can be represented by a lawyer at court, but – in contrast to police custody – are not entitled to this (with some limited exceptions). Whether a defendant will qualify for legal aid will depend on whether they pass an interests of justice test; and a means test. If the defendant does not qualify for legal aid or cannot afford their own lawyer, they may be unrepresented. A ‘duty’ lawyer scheme operates in English and Welsh criminal courts, which provides a lawyer to unrepresented defendants on a rota system. That is, a lawyer will be assigned a ‘slot’ during which they will provide representation at court to defendants who require it. However, if the current duty lawyer is not available when a defendant requires one (perhaps because they are covering another case); or is unable to deal with the case because of its nature, a defendant may be left unrepresented.

Research on pre-trial detention in E&W

E&W has one of the lowest ‘proportional’ PTD populations both in Europe and globally, at approximately 10% of the prison population. However, this figure needs additional context. E&W also has one of the highest prison populations per capita in Europe (141 per 100,000); therefore, the gross number of pre-trial detainees is significant (roughly 9,000 persons on any given day). It should also be added that this figure relates only to those placed in detention by the court – it does not include those in police custody, a figure which is not routinely published. The number of persons placed in PTD annually has varied over the years, but was estimated to be roughly 80,000 in 2016. In that year (and the following year), it has also been suggested that 10-12,000 people facing less serious offences were kept in PTD. Finally, the average number of persons held in PTD on any given day has been decreasing over the last decade (whilst the overall prison population has been increasing, until recently). PTD has largely received little attention from policymakers, although the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 did usher in some significant changes with the aim of lowering the PTD population. In essence, this legislation restricted the circumstances in which the presumption of release could be overturned at the court stage in relation to summary (that is, minor) non-imprisonable offences and introduced a ‘real prospects’ test – that is, courts making PTD decisions needed to consider whether there was any ‘real prospect’ that a defendant would receive a custodial sentence if convicted.

Some research has been conducted on PTD at the court stage over the past two decades, but a limited amount. Hucklesby conducted research on bail and detention in the late 1990s; HMIP undertook a thematic review of remand prisoners in 2009; and the Howard League for Penal Reform conducted some examination of this area in 2014. Most recently (2016), Professor Ed Cape and Dr Tom Smith undertook research in England and Wales as part of a 10 country study of PTD (coordinated by Fair Trials International, and backed by the EU Commission), producing a report entitled the ‘Practice of Pre-trial in England and Wales’. The project examined five aspects of PTD decision-making: process (how decisions are made); substance (content/nature of decisions); review (scrutiny of decisions); alternatives to PTD (specifically, the use of conditional bail); and outcomes (the case outcomes for defendants subjected to PTD). The project examined these aspects of practice based on observation of PTD hearings; interviews with lawyers and judges; a survey of defence practitioners; and a review of prosecution case files.

Processes used in E&W PTD hearings were broadly compliant with European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) standards. Detained defendants were promptly produced; were normally present at hearings, and represented by a lawyer. When defendants were detained, trials normally took place quickly. However, PTD hearings were often uncontested (that is, parties did not challenge each other); were reliant on police and prosecution information, rather than an extensive, objective body of evidence; and were generally short and formalistic. Disclosure of information to the defence prior to hearings was the subject of limited regulation; so much so, that it was possibly in breach of the EU directive on the right to information by virtue of its narrow scope. There were significant problems with timely disclosure, with concerns about the lack of material available to the defence prior to hearings (although prosecutors were generally observed to share such information if it was available). Defence practitioners generally felt that most disclosure was ‘somewhat’ sufficient.

The most common outcome in observed hearings was unconditional bail; the most common outcome in reviewed cases was conditional bail. Defendants were detained in approximately 40% of observed hearings and reviewed cases. Most applications for detention by prosecutors were granted, and where detention was approved by the court the most common ground for doing so was fear of further offences. In establishing grounds for detention, the most important factor influencing the decisions of courts was a defendant’s history of offending. In terms of the nature of the decisions made, witnesses were rarely called to give evidence in PTD hearings. Additionally, the reasoning provided by judges for their decisions was limited at times, arguably in breach of ECHR jurisprudence. In some cases, Magistrates were observed confusing ‘grounds’ for detention with the ‘factors’ to be taken into account. As such, rather than using a factor as evidence to establish a ground (for example, using a history of offending to establish the ground of ‘fear of further offences’), some Magistrates would simply detain on the basis of a factor (for example, the seriousness of the offence). This was therefore in breach of domestic legislation, specifically the Bail Act 1976.

In terms of the use of alternatives to detention, bail (both types) was granted in approximately 60% of observed hearings and reviewed cases. Extensive use was made of a limited range of bail conditions, with the most frequently imposed being a residence requirement; an order to stay away from person or location; and imposition of a curfew or electronic monitoring via a ‘tag’. The research also found that bail was not limited to less serious cases; in one observed case, a defendant accused of rape was released on unconditional bail (although this was exceptional). Concerns were raised by practitioners and judges about monitoring and enforcement of conditions, which could potentially undermine confidence in their use as an alternative to custody. Additionally, there was concern about the lack of available bail hostels and bail information schemes, which were felt to be helpful in ensuring that defendants were not detained unnecessarily.

Generally, review of PTD decisions took place quickly. When a defendant was detained by the court, such a review had to take place within 8 days. When PTD decisions were reviewed in the Crown Court (for example, when a defendant appealed a decision or when a routine review took place in serious cases), defendants were generally not present (although were normally represented by a lawyer). Practitioners and judges could not adequately explain why this was, with the ultimate conclusion being that non-appearance was simply habitual. Review hearings experienced the same issues as at initial hearings, namely limited reasoning, a lack of evidence, and short length. There was some anecdotal evidence to suggest that an informal ‘reversal’ of the presumption of release operated at the review stage. That is, when a defendant was detained at a previous hearing, the review court would expect the defendant to show why they should be released. This appeared to be a prima facie breach of the presumption under the Bail Act 1976, suggesting that securing release at the review stage was significantly harder for detained defendants. Finally, the research examined final outcomes in cases where defendants had been detained at some point during proceedings. This was only recorded for case file reviews as observed cases could not be followed through to completion. The research found that nearly 25% of defendants detained at some stage were acquitted or had the case against them dropped. Of the remainder, just under one-third received a non-custodial sentence. Additionally, nearly half of defendants detained at some stage prior to trial did not go to prison after conviction. Of those who did receive a custodial sentence, nearly all received a sentence longer than the time spent in PTD.

On the basis of these findings, the authors made a number of recommendations. It was suggested that the law regulating PTD should be simplified and codified in one statute. It was also suggested that judges and prosecutors should receive consistent and regular training on ECHR standards, due to an apparent lack thereof. The report also recommended clarified and extended regulation to ensure defendants had access to all relevant information, material and evidence prior to PTD hearings. The research recognised that a lack of time and resources was a significant factor in a number of the problems identified, and suggested that more time and resources be made available to the courts, the prosecution and the defence to ensure thorough and fair consideration of PTD decisions. It was also suggested that more resources be made available for the provision of bail information services and bail hostels, and that the mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing bail conditions should be reviewed and strengthened.

Recent reform in this area

Since the research was published, some progress has been made in implementing these recommendations. In March 2016, Professor Cape and Dr Smith engaged with the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee (hereafter, the Committee), the agency responsible for drafting the rules governing criminal proceedings (the Criminal Procedure Rules, hereafter CrimPR). The Committee had pre-existing concerns about aspects of PTD practice, including problems with disclosure of information and evidence to defendants prior to hearings and the amount of scrutiny undertaken during hearings. Based on the research report, the authors engaged in dialogue with the Committe over a period of several months; attended Committee meetings; and submitted a position paper relating to the recommended changes to PTD practice. On the basis of this (alongside contributions from a number of other stakeholders), the Committee proposed changes to the CrimPR in late 2016. These changes would clarify and expand the scope of initial disclosure required of prosecutors before a PTD hearing; introduce a new rule requiring defendants to be given sufficient time to consider information and evidence before a PTD hearing; and amend an existing rule, to require the court to ensure sufficient time is taken in considering PTD decisions. These proposals were accepted, becoming law in February 2017.

Current and future issues in pre-trial detention practice

Notwithstanding these very positive developments, the research – and other developments since – suggest that PTD practice in E&W has a number of ongoing challenges that should, ideally, be addressed. These include the problem of limited information and disclosure; the ‘routinisation’ of PTD hearings; the viability of alternatives to detention; access to lawyers and legal aid; and the use of Video Link (VL) technology in PTD hearings.

Limited information and disclosure

Courts rely primarily on police and prosecution information and summaries in PTD hearings. The research (alongside a more recent study by Transform Justice, in 2018) suggests that such material has some problems of reliability, accuracy, completeness, and availability at the early stages of a case. Whilst this is, to some extent, understandable considering that a hearing will normally take place within a day of charge, there is undoubtedly a gap in terms of material that can and should be supplied. This problem is exacerbated by a lack of clear and extensive regulation for disclosure of information to the defence in advance of PTD hearings. At the time of the research, this was primarily regulated by the CrimPR, specifically Rules 8 & 14. The requirements were fairly limited, both in terms of scope and the obligation to provide material to the defence in advance of proceedings. The regulation therefore appeared to be in breach of Articles 6 and of the 7 EU directive on information, which mandate disclosure of a more extensively defined category of material and information. As described above, the CrimPR were amended in 2017 and this went some way toward addressing these issues on paper. However, it is as yet unclear whether these amendments have been impactful in practice. As noted earlier, prosecutors did generally share available information with the defence when they could; but equally, 30% of surveyed defence lawyers stated that they regularly received no paperwork pre-hearing. Such issues impact on the accuracy of decision making and the fairness of the hearings for defendants, since a lack of information will inevitably limit the ability of defendants and their lawyers to challenge detention applications.

Similarly, PTD prior to the court stage is also afflicted by problems in relation to disclosure. These are, arguably, even more acute and impactful. At the pre-charge stage the police and prosecution have few requirements to disclose information (with some limited common law requirements and some regulation in PACE 1984, Code of Practice C). Post-charge, disclosure is generally regulated by statute (specifically, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996) although this primarily relates to disclosure once a defendant pleads not guilty or is anticipated to plead not guilty. Generally, there is an ongoing ‘crisis’ in relation to the disclosure of evidence and information which might assist the defence at the pre-court stage (which covers material which would be useful for the purposes of PTD decisions). There have been a number of high profile cases involving disclosure failures (for example, that of Liam Allan, in December 2017). This has led to the halting of a number of prosecutions due to concerns about inadequate disclosure; a critical parliamentary inquiry into the issue (published in July 2018); and a review by the Attorney General (published in November 2018). As such, at all stages, the failure to provide information and evidence to the defence can impact on the ability of accused persons to adequately engage with and challenge bail decisions and the ability of authorities to make fair and proportionate decisions which take such representations into account..

Routinisation of PTD hearings

Another concern raised by the research was that PTD hearings are ‘routinised’ – that is, conducted in a very routine manner with limited engagement with individual cases on the part of practitioners. Hearings were largely uncontested, with little discussion or debate amongst lawyers or judges. Hearings were also very swift, lasting only a matter of minutes on average. Whilst this is not inherently inappropriate, the frequency with which proceedings were dealt with in this almost cursory manner raises the risk that cases of genuine complexity might be not be scrutinised properly. The brevity of hearings and the speed of the overall PTD process can arguably be explained by a range of factors, including the actual or perceived simplicity of many cases; pressures on lawyers and judges to make decisions quickly; the long-running agenda of maximising efficiency in courts; and statutory time limits on the detention of defendants (which would therefore motivate all parties to proceed with in-custody cases as quickly as possible to avoid any undesired release of a defendant). Hearings also appeared to be formalistic; that is, the submissions of parties and the judgments of the court were often repetitive, generic, and closely reflected the ‘formal’ wording of the law. There was often a lack of individualised rationale for decisions in cases – that is, one which relied on and engaged with the specific facts and issues in the case before the court. It might therefore not be obvious to a defendant exactly why decision has been made (even if such reasons were obvious to the judge and lawyers). Generally, the reasoning provided by judges was limited – in some cases, no reasoning was provided at all or no decision was clearly announced. Such practice appeared to pose issues of compliance with ECHR jurisprudence. Overall, the findings (and the response to their publication and dissemination) suggested an attitude of complacency and political lethargy to PTD practice in E&W. An exception was the proactive and engaged response of the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee; otherwise, no action has been taken by Government or other bodies, despite the inclusion of PTD as part of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (which the UK is committed to). Most practitioners who engaged in the research appeared to think the PTD system in E&W was adequate, despite identifiable problems and areas for improvement.

Viability of Alternatives to Detention

The research also identified three significant problems with alternatives to detention: bail information schemes, which practitioners considered to be useful but lacking provision across courts; the lack of availability of bail hostels when a defendant did not have a suitable address to be released to (which could lead to unnecessary detention); and concerns about the monitoring and enforcement of bail conditions. Bail information schemes involve specialist assessment of the needs and circumstances of a defendant, which is used to provide recommendations to the court about appropriate conditions for release. This is normally conducted by probation officers. Whilst the input of the scheme was not always necessary, practitioners and judges noted the usefulness of this support in some more challenging cases, particularly those involving issues such as mental health and addiction. As such, this was generally regarded to be a valuable service for prosecutors and judges when making PTD applications and decisions. However such schemes were not consistently available at courts, with some schemes only being available on certain days or simply not being available at all in other locations. This might therefore rob decision-makers of valuable insight into the best way forward. A similar problem affected bail hostels, officially known as ‘approved premises’ – a form of accommodation used to house released defendants in the community. These are utilised when a defendant does not have an appropriate address to which they can be released on bail. They are particularly useful for offences involving domestic violence (which will often involve a defendant and complainant who co-habit) or homeless defendants. Like bail information schemes, bail hostels were lacking in terms of availability or might be located in inappropriate locations (such as being some distance from a defendant employer). As such, when a defendant had no address or no suitable address, the court might have no choice but to detain them. In some cases, this might be unnecessary or disproportionate.

In terms of monitoring and enforcement of alternatives to detention, it would be fair to say that prosecutors and judges were generally confident in using conditional bail. Electronic ‘tagging’ was considered to be the most effective condition, and appeared to be used commonly. However, some practitioners and judges expressed concerns about effective and consistent monitoring of conditions and enforcement of breaches. There was, to some extent, a lack of clarity as to who was responsible for checking defendants were abiding by conditions. The default assumption was that the police should do so, although this was not necessarily clear. Particular concern was expressed about monitoring and enforcement of residence conditions; ‘no contact’ orders (especially via social media); and the condition to report to a police station. Ultimately, it was felt that, in many cases, it was difficult to ensure that adherence to these conditions was effectively supervised and that breaches could be detected and acted upon (with the exception of ‘tagging’, which has a fairly clear protocol for this). In this sense, confidence in the effectiveness of the conditions as regulators of defendant behaviour – and therefore as alternatives to detention – could be undermined. That being said, the courts utilised conditional and unconditional bail in the majority of cases, suggesting that such misgivings have not necessarily translated into more restrictive use of alternatives.

Access to lawyers and legal aid

As highlighted earlier, access to a lawyer is an entitlement for all suspects in police custody regardless of means; but not for all defendants at court. Access to a lawyer is a vital element of the right to a fair trial (Article 6, ECHR) which should be available from the very start of criminal proceedings (for example, see the case of Salduz v Turkey). In relation to PTD (in both police stations and courts), access to a lawyer helps an accused person understand what is happening; challenge decisions; and ensure those decisions are taken legitimately. Provision of lawyers and the quality of representation is affected by both the amount of legal aid funding for lawyers and the law firms who employ them, as well as the eligibility of defendants at court for legal aid. With this in mind, it is important to highlight that (notwithstanding claims it has ‘spiralled out of control’) legal aid funding has reduced year on year since 2004, and fees for legal aid lawyers have been effectively ‘frozen’ since the mid 1990s. Significant cuts to fees were imposed in 2014; and further planned cuts were either abandoned (2015) or ruled unlawful (2018) – although, may well be imposed in the future. Evidence suggests that the overall number of firms and providers of criminal legal aid services has reduced, with a consequent impact on the numbers of lawyers available to provide such services. We might therefore ask what the impact of this is on PTD decision-making.

Notwithstanding the challenging climate in which criminal legal aid now exists, suspects in police custody continue to remain entitled to a lawyer if they request it. However, the reality of uncompetitive, fixed fees for police station advice work may mean an impact on the availability of providers (for example, in rural areas) and the quality of advice provided (for example, if firms are forced to rely on less experienced and/or qualified advisors for financial reasons). A lack of available lawyers may mean long delays in arrival at the police station; those who request advice may be deterred from waiting for their lawyer, leaving them unrepresented and the police freed from external scrutiny in considering PTD decisions. Fewer defendants in court now qualify for a legal aid lawyer due to restrictions on the rules of eligibility. Moreover, a smaller pool of legal aid providers and lawyers may mean that ‘duty’ schemes in courts are stretched beyond capacity, with demand outweighing supply. A major concern is that defendants may be forced to appear as ‘litigants in person’ (that is, unrepresented) in PTD hearings. Some evidence suggests this is happening in criminal proceedings (for example, a suppressed Ministry of Justice report and research undertaken by Transform Justice). Unrepresented clients at court is rarely a desirable outcome for any party, with defendants potentially disadvantaged and the time of courts wasted. Overall, the fundamental concern is that fewer lawyers with less time and shrinking resources may impact access to a representative and therefore the quality of PTD decisions affecting defendants. PTD hearings should have meaningful input from both parties; without a defence lawyer involved, a defendant is at a significant disadvantage and the court is robbed of a valuable perspective in choosing whether or not to overturn the presumption of release.

Video Links and PTD

The use video link (VL) technology in court proceedings is not new, and is relatively widespread (although is not the norm in criminal proceedings generally). Currently, the Ministry of Justice is in the midst of a £1bn reform programme designed to ‘modernise’ the courts, and the use of VL is a major part of this. In terms of PTD hearings, the primary benefit is saving time and money by avoiding the need for detained defendants to be transported to court from a prison or police custody. Many PTD hearings are already conducted using VL; the Ministry of Justice has also suggested that, in the future, VL might be used for all but exceptional PTD hearings. However, some concerns exist about the use of VL in such hearings. The reliability of the technology used has been called into question (for example, when the virtual connection between the defendant and the court is lost during proceedings). Questions have been raised about the variable quality of VL and the impact it has on PTD decision making (for example, poor audio and visual quality). Access to legal advice for those on VL may be more inconsistent; the ‘duty’ lawyer (if available) will be at the court centre rather than custody. There may be problems of access for lawyers in custody locations (particularly prisons). As such, defendants appearing virtually may not have a lawyer at all. If they do, it may be more difficult for them to consult their lawyer in private, as there are significant concerns about how well police stations and prisons ensure defendants are not observed or monitored. Some research suggests that the psychological impact of a virtual appearance, specifically feelings of isolation and disengagement from proceedings (particularly for those with vulnerabilities) may impact the fairness of proceedings. Finally, there are also concerns about the accuracy of claims that it saves time and money, particularly if proceedings are slower or interrupted. In 2010, research by the Ministry of Justice suggested defendants appearing via VL in PTD hearings were less likely to be represented. A more recent study by Transform Justice (2017) found that 58% of court users thought VL made it more difficult for defendants to engage. Multiple studies of VL in bail immigration hearings have been critical, noting that applicants are depersonalised and isolated from the court. All of these concerns should be borne in mind for the use of VL in PTD hearings.

Conclusions

When compared with other systems – both in Europe and globally – it is reasonable to argue that E&W operates a system that, in theory, is well designed, fair and balanced. In practice, PTD does not appear, when taken at face value, to be used excessively – but it is difficult to determine what proportion of cases may involve detention which is inappropriate, unjustified or possibly unlawful. Considering the proportion of defendants who are either not convicted or not imprisoned after conviction (in combination with the somewhat superficial approach PTD decision-making observed in a number of cases), PTD does not appear to operate as a matter of last resort. If this were the guiding principle, it appears difficult to justify the detention of 40% of defendants. Whilst the system and its practical operation do compare favourably with some European neighbours, there are undoubted problems which have existed for a number of years and which, if unchecked, can feed unfair and opaque decision-making, inadequately regulated conditional release and, ultimately, unnecessary deprivation of liberty. Complacency as PTD practice in E&W, at both a political and practice level, appears to be entrenched. Bearing in mind that PTD is likely to be in the ‘front line’ of future reform of criminal proceedings (both financial and technological), this apathy towards the need for improvement is concerning. That being said, interest in the area has been growing in recent years. In March 2018, Transform Justice undertook research into remand hearings which provided further insight into the issues affecting this area of practice, and have proceeded to lobby for reform. In April 2018, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative gathered a roundtable of academics (including Dr Smith) to discuss pre-trial detention in relation to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (to which the UK Government is committed), which includes limiting excessive pre-trial detention. In July 2018, the House of Commons Justice Committee published an inquiry into disclosure in criminal proceedings, referencing written evidence based on Professor Cape and Dr Smith’s research. One can only hope that, with sustained effort, awareness can be raised and action taken on the issues highlighted in this presentation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Criminal Justice Research Unit share their latest scholarly writings

Posted on

The Criminal Justice Research Unit organised on 12 November a Staff Research Seminar giving colleagues the opportunity to talk about their latest scholarly writings.

Matt Hall launched the seminar by presenting a fascinating and highly topical research piece on the legal framework relating to alcohol consumption in airports. This topic is not far off from his own PhD that examines the (ab)use of alcohol at football events and the law that governs it. As Matt pointed out, drunkenness at airports is not a new phenomenon, though it is not causing as much trouble as the media would like to portray it. What seems however new is the fact that individuals, particularly those about to embark on hen/stag/18-30’s etc., arrive at airports in a state of drunkenness which is indicative of the ‘pre-loading’ phenomena that is popular amongst many drinkers. Moreover, over indulgence in unregulated access to free alcohol in some departure lounges is also a concern. The abuse of alcohol at airports is a source of unease for the safety of the aircraft and of the passengers. It leads to disruptions to passengers, (including the planes having to be diverted) for which the airlines incur costs.

So, how is alcohol consumption regulated within society and at airports? As Matt explained, the most important piece of legislation relating to alcohol is the Licensing Act 2003. Its objectives are to prevent crime and disorder as well as public nuisance, ensure public safety and protect children. Anyone selling alcohol must comply with the Act’s principles. The system works on the basis of a licence which must be renewed and thus can also be lost. When applying for an application renewal, representations can be put forward to the relevant Licensing Authority from members of the public or the authorities, highlighting any concerns that the aforementioned principles are not being adhered to. The Act also lists a number of offences such as the sale of alcohol to drunk persons on the relevant premises, the failure to leave the relevant premises when requested to do so, obtaining alcohol for a drunk person on the relevant premises and the sale of alcohol to an individual under the age of 18, etc. The key problem is the enforcement of these offences, as for example, drunk people are regularly still being served alcohol. Remarkably, the Licensing Act 2003 does not apply to airside bars within airports as they are exempt under Section 173 which lists several designated airports. Two justifications are adduced for this exemption: a licensing officer would need to obtain airside security clearance, as well as any ‘sting’ personnel who ‘test’ licensed premises by sending in under 18’s to ‘test purchase’ and secondly, the exemption is in line with practice at airports in other countries. There is thus no surprise that in 2017 the House of Lords Select Committee on the Licensing Act 2003 recommended the repeal of Section 173.

Another important piece of legislation is the Civil Aviation Act 1982 which lists as offences entering the aircraft drunk, endangering an aircraft, endangering the safety of a person, etc. Yet, it turns out that the enforcement is poor here too as drunk individuals are very rarely stopped when boarding an aircraft. There are however on average 40 prosecutions per year which result in anything from a fine of £2000 up to 13 months custody.

Matt highlighted the fact that one problem resides in the definition of drunkenness, thus raising the issue of legal certainty. At which point is an individual deemed drunk? To explain this Matt referred to the situation of drunkenness in public places and at football events. In the former case, offenders are often ‘dispersed’ and told to go home; in the latter, they are prevented from accessing the football stadium as arresting drunk individuals is not a priority for law enforcement officers. Discretion is the key word here. A similar situation is happening at airports as fighting drunkenness is not a priority for airport officials and so enforcement of the law is low.

How can the issue be tackled? Matt went through a number of possible solutions. First, Section 173 could be repealed thus allowing airside bars to be licensed and thereby adhering to the Licensing Act’s principles. There could also be a blanket ban on alcohol consumption at airports and on board of aircraft, however, this would be unlikely given the financial interests of various stakeholders and also, issues of jurisdiction such as when an aircraft leaves UK airspace. Alternatively, individuals who are drunk could be barred from entering an aircraft, which would require a stricter approach in applying the law. In his opinion, the thrust of the problem is that there is no clear definition of the concept of ‘drunk’.

The second presentation held by Dr Noëlle Quénivet focused on the defence of duress and whether it was a justification or an excuse under international criminal law. Her presentation is based on a chapter of a book she is co-writing with Dr Windell Nortje (University of Western Cape, South Africa) on child soldiers and the defence of duress (to be published by Palgrave). Noëlle started by highlighting that, as strange as it may sound, defences are an essential component of international criminal law: individuals who have committed war crimes, acts of genocide or crimes against humanity are allowed to raise defences. The possibility to use defences should be welcomed as a sign that international criminal law is not about victor’s justice and human rights standards, and particularly the right to a fair trial, are complied with. After all, the use of defences does not mean that the act finds approval; it however does not merit condemnation and punishment.

Duress is one of the defences available to alleged perpetrators prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is usually understood as the compulsion of perpetrator to commit a crime because he/she fears for his/her life and limb, the threat stemming from another person (see Article 31(1)(d) of the ICC Statute). As a result, the perpetrator is placed in a position where his/her freedom of will and decision-making abilities are restricted to such level that he/she is not able to make a moral choice.

Noëlle explained that to understand how the defence of duress is applied one needs to examine the Anglo-American common law tradition in as much as the latter has been key in influencing case-law in international criminal law, namely via the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Under national law criminal law defences are often subdivided into justifications and excuses to distinguish between wrongfulness and blameworthiness. A justified action is not criminal because the conduct, although unlawful, is permissible or tolerated as its benefits outweigh the harm or evil of the offence. Here the focus is on the act. An excuse involves an action that is produced by the impairment of a person’s autonomy. Here the focus is on the actor.

Duress is a highly controversial defence in international criminal law. In common law countries it is a justification whilst it is an excuse in Romano-Germanic (civil law) systems. Moreover, duress is not admitted as a full defence in common law countries which means that it can never be invoked in the case of killing. To illustrate the issues relating to the application of duress Noëlle recounted the facts of the Erdemovic case and how the ICTY had come to the conclusion that ‘[d]uress does not afford a complete defense to a soldier charged with a crime against humanity and/or war crime involving the killing of innocent human beings.’ (para 19)

She then suggested that the ICC Statute might have overruled this jurisprudence since duress is accepted as a ground excluding responsibility that applies to all crimes and does not stipulate that it cannot be pleaded when taking a person’s life. Whether it is an excuse or a justification remains to be seen as the criteria for duress have been amalgamated with that of necessity (usually viewed as a justification) in a single provision and the fact that the provision requires the actor to carry out a lesser evil test seems to indicate that the defence is considered a justification.

Noëlle then explained that she would prefer the defence of duress to be an excuse. First, it ensures that the wrongful acts are viewed as such, the message being that such acts cannot be tolerated. Second, it allows to understand the act in its wider context, the focus being on the actor and his/her lack of autonomy in the given circumstances. Third, it can be used as a full defence, including killing though at this stage she indicated that she supported the application of the principle of proportionality, rather than a balance of harms test, as a limit to using duress as the defence.

UWE Bristol’s first Interdisciplinary Symposium on Organized Crime with Dr Mary Young.

Posted on

On 10th October 2018, Dr Young convened and hosted the First Interdisciplinary Symposium on Organized Crime. The day long Symposium (sponsored by UWE Bristol’s CALR) attracted 45 participants, with many from outside of UWE and academia. Five senior officers from the Metropolitan Police Service attended, as well as participants from the South West Regional Organised Crime Unit, the Institute of Statecraft, the Tax Justice Network and also attachés from several Embassies. Speakers included, Professor Tim Hall, Human Geography, University of Winchester; Dr Anna Markovska, Criminology, Anglia Ruskin; Dr Michael Woodiwiss, History, UWE; Mr Chris Atack, Detective Sergeant in the Metropolitan Police Service specialising in Economic Crime; Mr Mark Berry, PhD Researcher, Cardiff University, Trustee for the International Association for the Study of Organised Crime; Dr Phil Legg, Computer Science and Programme Leader for MSc Cyber Security, UWE Bristol.

 

On the back of this success Dr Young has created the entirely “Independent Organized Crime Research Network for Law Enforcement and Academics”, which had its inaugural meeting on Friday 16th November and saw colleagues from FET, HAS and law enforcement officers come together.

 

In October and November 2018, Dr Young was also a Panel Discussant, ‘Towards tax justice: challenging global tax avoidance” RebLaw, University of Law, London; and an invited Session Discussant, Open Society Justice Initiative & Tax Justice Network, Closed Meeting on Strategic Litigation to Combat Tax Havens.

 

Presentation of a paper on ‘Nationality as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare’ at a Workshop on Russia and International Law

Posted on

It is argued that Russia’s contemporary foreign policy and actions following its loss of territory after the breakup of the Soviet Union have led it to attempt to regain its influence using a variety of methods. In particular, it is contended that increasingly Russia is using ‘hybrid warfare’ tools to this end while at the same time exploring the limits of international law through lawfare which is defined as the use and exploration of the limits of the law to the letter but not necessarily the spirit to achieve desired outcomes. It is against this conceptual framework familiar to war studies specialists that Dr Noëlle Quénivet presented a paper, jointly written with Dr Sabine Hassler, entitled ‘Nationality as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare – Limits under International Law’ at the Workshop on ‘Russia and International Law – Politics and Discourse’ organised by the British International Studies Association on 17 September 2018. The workshop, held at the War Studies Department at King’s College London, brought together a group of young and well-seasoned scholars in international law and international relations to discuss Russia’s current stance in international law.

After a keynote address by Prof Bill Bowring of the University of Birbeck the first panel focused on Russia, Law and ‘Hybrid Warfare’ in which Dr Hassler and Dr Quénivet’s paper was delivered. It is contended that to achieve its foreign policy objectives, Russia has developed an arsenal of tools such as information operations, cyberattacks, proxies, etc. while maintaining that it complies with international law, at least with the established legal framework. One set of arguments claims that Russia is not trying to create new law but rather explores the scope and interpretational variations of the existing framework to achieve its objectives. Another set of arguments focuses on lawfare in the sense that Russia has employed law and legal processes to further its aims by exploiting legal thresholds and grey areas, thereby instrumentalising international law: it is using, abusing and misusing the law.

Using the example of the concept of nationality under international law Dr Hassler and Dr Quénivet show how Russia has instrumentalised the identification of nationals and the subsequent conferral of nationality to create facts and context that seemingly justify Russia offering its discretionary right to offer diplomatic protection to its nationals abroad and ‘intervening’ in Georgia and Ukraine. The paper maintains that the conferral of nationality (coined ‘passportisation’) is part of an integrated lawfare strategy that has so far evolved in five phases. This long-haul policy consists in creating facts as a basis for legal claims and then applying the law onto the facts with a view to modifying the law and thus establishing new, albeit sometimes unrelated to nationality, international law norms. Whilst it might be viewed as an exercise in international law interpretation, the fact that there seems to be a discernible pattern and that the situations created as a result of this policy are often unlawful means that first the law appears to be deliberately misused or abused and thus indeed is an instrument of warfare, and second one needs to carefully examine the practice and the opinio juris of Russia to predict possible changes in customary international law.

“Justice is not being seen to be done – and we’re all the poorer for it”- Research on reporting in criminal courts

Posted on

By Dr Tom Smith.

In January 2018, researchers from the School of Journalism (Phil Chamberlain and Sally Reardon) and the Department of Law (Marcus Keppel-Palmer and Tom Smith) supervised journalism students for a week of observations in Bristol Magistrates’ Court. It took three days before they spotted a news reporter. The students sat through more than 200 cases, with the vast majority going entirely unreported in mainstream media

It’s been a complaint for many years that criminal courts are not being covered sufficiently by reporters. It requires a particular skill set, and too many of today’s depleted newsrooms don’t have the resources to spare for such work. High-profile cases – such as the recent trial of Ben Stokes at Bristol Crown Court in August 2018 – still get attention; but the vast majority of people passing through Magistrates’ Courts do so anonymously. As a result, the public has little idea how, or indeed if, justice is being served fairly and effectively in their local area.

In January 2018, the Society of Editors convened a seminar to consider the problem and launched a working group to consider solutions (see here). Meanwhile Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has been making efforts to make courts more ‘open’ to the media. At the aforementioned seminar, a number of media executives said that if they had more resources, they would employ the journalists to do this vital job. They directed their anger at organisations such as Facebook and Google, who they accuse of profiting from their labour without putting any money back into the industry. John Whittingdale MP, the former chair of the House of Commons’ Culture Select Committee, has said this issue needs addressing. The National Union of Journalists has also highlighted the lack of court reporting. The consensus therefore appears to be that more coverage of court proceedings is ‘a good thing’.

Yet, for an issue which lawyers, journalists and politicians all agree on, there is surprisingly little analysis of court reporting, and quite a lot of received opinion. Dr Judith Townend (University of Sussex) has written extensively on the principle of open justice and its importance. In 2014, Professor Leslie Moran (Birkbeck University) examined the level of court reporting in the local and national press for one day. He found that a few stories dominated most media reports, rather than providing a representation of the range of cases. In 2016, the Justice Gap’s Brian Thornton (University of Winchester) repeated the exercise, identifying a decline in coverage (see here). This was, he suggested, probably due to the fact that half of local newspapers did not have a court reporter. The limited number of studies so far have looked at the presence and volume of court reporting. This study wanted to identify what was being missed by this lack of coverage. In short: if the objective is to send more reporters into court, what might they find?

The small-scale pilot study in January 2018 saw the research team supervise student journalists, who observed cases in Bristol Magistrates’ Court for a week, recording every case they encountered. They utilised a coding sheet designed to record key details; these were structure so as to include not only basic detail about offence with which defendants were charged, but also other potentially relevant details and factors such as mental health, drugs, and housing. Crucially, the observers gave each case a ‘newsworthiness’ rating. Using criteria developed by Galtung and Ruge, and refined by others over the years, the students judged how valuable a local newspaper would view each story. Various factors contributed to this rating such as the seriousness and location of the offence, how easily the case could be understood by a lay audience, or the profile of those involved. These were rated on a Likert Scale of 1-5, ‘one’ being cases of little interest to the potential audience (i.e. the public) and ‘five’ for high interest. They also recorded if any reporters were present during proceedings.

In what staff at the court said was a relatively quiet week, the study recorded 240 cases. On average, six courts were open each day. Of these cases, the number given a score of ‘three’ or more was approximately 50 (roughly 20% of the sample). Stories in this batch included:

  • a man charged with breach of the peace after sparking a terror alert in a local shopping centre;
  • a man who had taken natural remedies for a cold, finding himself over the drink-drive limit
  • Bodycam footage showing a man who failed to produce his driving licence being punched by police officers

What was also clear was the number of stories about the ‘process’ of justice rather than the substance of the case itself. Mental health issues were a common part of cases, as were drug addictions and social security problems. Defendants were not always best served by the use of technology in court and on a number of occasions were unrepresented during their hearing.

Although the research team only encountered a single reporter, the media did report some of the cases. This was, however, done so without the use of ‘inperson’ reporting; instead, media outlets re-published information issued to them the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on cases which it had successfully prosecuted that week. Whilst this provides a useful indication of the cases heard, there are obvious problems with, in essence, subcontracting reporting on criminal proceedings to the CPS. The ‘list’ of convictions clearly relates to only a fraction of the cases (primarily the most ‘newsworthy’ according to internal CPS standards) and does not account for acquittals or other types of hearing. It is highly unlikely that the list would include any which called CPS competency into question – such those with disclosure failures, missed deadlines, or acquittals. Yet, the team observed cases where the procedural and evidential competence of the CPS (and other parties) was questioned by Magistrates. Ultimately, the nuance of the criminal justice process is lost in this simple ‘guilty list’ approach. A huge slice of public life – impacting on many people’s lives and our perceptions of criminality and justice – is passing by, unreported and uncontested.

We should be concerned by this. The reporting gap cannot be made up by anyone; it requires specialist skills and there are legal penalties should it not be done correctly. A topical example is the case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (better known as Tommy Robinson). In May 2018, Yaxley-Lennon was convicted of contempt of court after live broadcasting from Leeds Crown Court during a highly sensitive trial of a number of Muslim men accused of running a child sex ring. His primary justification for doing so was the perception that mainstream media were ignoring cases of Islamic men engaged in serious sexual offences, and that in taking such actions he was providing an informative and valuable public service. Whilst one can fairly dispute the true motivations behind these actions and criticise the methods used (and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial), it is arguable that non-specialist laypersons such as Yaxley-Lennon may be catalysed to undertake, in essence, ‘vigilante’ journalism, should they perceive a deficit in journalistic coverage of criminal justice. Whilst a fairly extreme example, this case – which was appealed by Yaxley-Lennon and is currently in the hands of the Attorney General – does demonstrate how a lack of media reporting of criminal court proceedings leaves a vacuum which will, without appropriate action, inevitably be filled by those unsuited to an important, challenging, and sensitive role.

The experience of the study was, generally, encouraging. The research team found Bristol Magistrates Court staff to be polite, helpful, and professional; one magistrate wanted to hear much more about the research project. Another wanted us to look at particular areas where the justice system wasn’t working. At the same time, we were also aware of an incident last year where a citizen reporter was ordered to stop taking notes in court. Anecdotal evidence from around the country has painted a similarly mixed picture of the attitude towards open justice and external scrutiny. With this mind, it is worth highlighting that the general availability of information on the court’s work for the public is poor. There are no transcripts; full court lists are off limits to non-journalists; and mobile phones are treated as weapons of mass destruction (although the aforementioned Yaxley-Lennon case demonstrates the worst fears of court staff in this regard).

Bristol has a vibrant media community. As well as its established daily newspaper, it is home to regional BBC and ITV offices; it has MadeInTV; a vigorous community newspaper (the Bristol Cable); and radio stations, from independents such Ujima to commercial and BBC outlets. There are bloggers, tweeters, and very popular freesheets in the Voice series. Yet the courts remain largely ignored. Subject to funding, we hope to develop (through research and collaboration) ways of increasing court coverage. We also aim to repeat our study across the country and provide a fuller picture of the state of court reporting in England and Wales, and highlight what is being missed. We think it likely that some places will be well served by agencies, trained independent reporters, or traditional media. We hear of others where a reporter has not been seen for years.

Finally, business as usual isn’t going to do justice to justice stories. Simply having more reporters cover the relatively few high profile or unusual cases from the many that pass through the courts each year is not going to add greater understanding or provide better scrutiny. Some stories are about patterns, better understood through data analysis. Some are about social issues which need following up by specialists. The failure of ‘business as usual’ also extends to the endemic opaqueness of the criminal justice system, and its inherent caution in opening up to the outside world. Without doing so – and without addressing the growing chasm left by traditional media – more Yaxley-Lennons may emerge to take their place. Few would approve of this. There are some 300 Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales. If Bristol is any guide (and, at present, it is the only yard stick we have), each week 15,000 newsworthy stories are potentially being missed by the media and the public are none the wiser. Justice is not being seen to be done; and we’re all the poorer for it.

 

Operationalizing Green Governance: New Policy Strategies for Ecosystems and Resources: Exploring the Commons

Posted on

By Elena Blanco (Environmental Law Research Unit, CALR), Associate Professor of International Economic Law

 

Project: “Operationalizing Green Governance: New Policy Strategies for Ecosystems and Resources: Exploring the Commons” at the Watershed Bristol, 5-6 September 2018.

Neoliberalism has produced multiple, entangled, and intersecting crises that cannot be resolved from within conventional political and legal systems. A liveable, sustainable future requires a fundamental shift towards new ways of thinking and being where the limits of ecosystems and the Earth life systems are respected. As part of this new thinking Bristol was the setting of a second ‘Commons: Law and Politics’ extended two day encounter organized by Elena Blanco (UWE Bristol), David Bollier (Commons author and activist) and Professor Anna Grear (Cardiff).

The workshop addressed the following challenge: how can we transform Western Capitalist crises by using creative ‘legal hacks’ and new types of governance. Watershed provided the inspiring background for an intense two-day practical conversation where seventeen carefully selected contributors from Europe, America and Australia, coming from a range of disciplinary and practice-based backgrounds brought together stories, insights and perspectives. Theorists learnt from practitioners while practitioners were exposed to some imaginative, world-shifting thinking in contemporary scholarship. The relationship between modern capitalist law and the commons was subject to questioning while exploring creative legal hacks capable of inaugurating new patterns of resistance and constructive institution-building for commons-based alternatives.

Areas explicitly discussed included: the relationship and tensions between commons and indigenous cosmovisions; property forms and relations—including relationships concerning land, intellectual effort and the process of ‘invention’; contract as relationality and new rules of exchange, sharing and dissemination; the search for commons-normative market relations and alternative currencies of eco-social engagement; re-imagining law and generating legal hacks to reflect and facilitate each of the foregoing—including the redesign of the corporate form.

The two day workshop was followed by an open lecture by David Bollier – ‘Free, Fait and Alive: The Insurgent Power of the Commons’ on the evening of the 6 September as part of the Bristol Festival of ideas.

This workshop builds on an ongoing research agenda on the operations and legal forms of green governance within the Environmental Law Research Unit, especially a previous “The Future of the Commons” workshop (The Future of the Commons, Blanco, Feb 2018); and Elena Blanco and Razzaque “Natural Resources and the Green Economy”.  A third ‘Local Commons/Green Governance/Circular economy’ event focused on initiatives in Bristol will take place in 2019.

 

Showcasing undergraduate student law research at UWE Bristol.

Posted on

We are pleased to introduce the inaugural issue of the UWE Bristol Student Law Review (UWESLR), edited by Dr Tom Smith.

The future of legal research is, like the legal profession, dependent on our current students. As such, it is essential to both encourage the efforts of young scholars and to assist in the development of their research and writing skills. This publication intends to do so by showcasing outstanding examples of research by undergraduate Law students at UWE. This fulfills twin objectives: to reward their endeavours by sharing their work with a wider audience, and to demonstrate to both their peers and others the quality of the research produced by our future academics and lawyers.

This issue includes three articles; these are based on the submissions of undergraduate students as part of the final year Dissertations module for the Law and Joint Awards programmes. Annie Livermore writes about the use of surgical and chemical castration in the treatment of sex offenders; Amber Rush writes about the regulation, reintegration and rehabilitation of child sex offenders; and Georja Boag writes about the identification, protection, support and treatment of victims of human trafficking. All have produced excellent and engaging pieces of research, and should be congratulated for their efforts.

The Review represents part of an ongoing effort to make students a part of the academic research community within the Department of Law at UWE. The research culture of any university should reach beyond the individual and collective activity of professional researchers; students should feel part of the scholarly environment in which they are learning. It is hoped that the Review will help to create an unbroken chain between academic and undergraduate research. In doing so, researchers can pass on their expertise and experience to the next generation of scholars, and students can better develop their skills.

We hope you enjoy reading it. The full  UWE Bristol Student Law Review (UWESLR) is available to read and download here.

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons workshop with Professor Dan Joyner at UWE Bristol.

Posted on

By Dr Noelle Quenivet.

On 10 September 2018 the International Law and Human Rights Unit had the pleasure to welcome Professor Dan Joyner of Culverhouse School of Law of the University of Alabama (USA) for a workshop on the newly adopted Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Prof Joyner is a renowned specialist in nuclear non-proliferation law who has extensively written on the subject and is currently penning a book on the new treaty. He also curates the widely known blog Arms Control Law.

The workshop started with a lunch to give participants the opportunity to meet with Prof Joyner in a less formal manner as well as to get to know each other as they came not only from UWE but also from the University of Reading and the University of Bristol. Participants included scholars well-versed into nuclear weapons and disarmament law as well as students on our LLB in European and International Law programme.

The aim of the workshop was to examine the new treaty from a variety of perspectives, such as human rights, armed conflict, use of force, security, environment, non-proliferation, organised crime, etc and it no doubt succeeded in doing this.

After a round of introduction, Prof Joyner started with a couple of key facts. The treaty was negotiated amongst 123 States and almost unanimously adopted (The Netherlands voted against whilst Singapore abstained). It will enter into force upon the receipt of the 50th instrument of ratification. Although at the time only 15 States have ratified the treaty and 60 have signed it, Prof Joyner forecasted that it would soon enter into force. Prof Joyner then brought us back in time, to the 1960s when all discussions relating to nuclear weapons were focused on non-proliferation rather than a blanket prohibition. In 1968 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was adopted at the height of the Cold War with the twin aims of stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons (with a view to full disarmament) and promoting cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. A distinction was made between nuclear and non-nuclear States. A quid pro quo was found: the nuclear powers (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, also commonly known as the P5) could keep their nuclear weapons but would ensure their non-proliferation (Articles I and II), work towards disarmament (Article VI) and submit themselves to the monitoring of the International Atomic Energy Agency (Article III) whilst the non-nuclear States would receive support in acquiring nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article IV). To support the disarmament process some States agreed to set up nuclear weapons free zones. Later, in 1996 the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was adopted but it failed to gather enough ratification instruments to enter into force. That being said Prof Joyner explained that he believed all these treaties had helped eliminate, or at least, reduced the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. This general movement towards disarmament was further buttressed by a series of bilateral agreements between then Soviet Union and the United States of America.

The three pillars of the NPT are non-proliferation, the peaceful use of nuclear energy and disarmament. Prof Joyner observed that over the years the rhetoric had changed in the various review conferences that brought all State parties together. More and more lip service was paid to non-proliferation whilst a coalition of States whose focused had always been on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and on disarmament grew increasingly frustrated. Such States complained that the nuclear States were not working towards disarmament and that little had been achieved over the years. In reply the nuclear States would point out that the number of nuclear weapons had clearly diminished. Yet, to the non-nuclear States the aim was complete disarmament and not a reduction in number. Also they pointed out that nuclear weapons were still part of the military strategy and that such weapons were continuously being not only maintained but also modernised and upgraded.

Around 2014-2015 talks started about a humanitarian initiative led by NGOs working in the field of gender, the protection of the environment, international humanitarian law and human rights law. This eclectic group of NGOs managed to gain the support of some States to organise a conference whose aim was to show that nuclear weapons were amoral. Yet, to do so they used the law. Such initiative was not new and Prof Joyner admitted that he had not imagined at the time that it would be successful. So, surprisingly, this coalition of NGOs managed to persuade the United Nations General Assembly to approve a negotiating conference for a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. In other words, the treaty would be drafted under the auspices of the United Nations. The idea was that of establishing a comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons and to treat such weapons in the same way as other banned weapons such as chemical and biological weapons or landmines. The thrust was that some moral taboo should be attached to the use of such weapons.

The success of the negotiations can be partly explained by the fact that the negotiators tapped into the view that the nuclear States had got away with too much in the past. There was indubitable resentment that the NPT had not achieved what it was meant for, i.e. full disarmament. The nuclear States boycotted the treaty negotiations on the basis that it was just idealistic talking and that nuclear weapons were imperative for military strategy purposes. In particular they reminded the negotiating States that they were in fact benefitting from the nuclear umbrella themselves. The treaty in their opinion would be useless because the prohibition would only apply to States that did not have nuclear weapons and, in a grander scheme, might in fact lead to a delegitimation of the NPT. The reply of those in favour of the treaty was that they had waited too long under the NPT for disarmament to happen. Also, using the example of the Ottawa treaty (Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction) banning landmines, they expressed the view that it might be possible to create a customary international rule via a treaty (though Prof Joyner explained that it might be difficult owing to the specially affected States doctrine under international law) or that at least the treaty would become part of nuclear diplomatic talks and thus become a commonly used instrument raised in deliberations relating to nuclear weapons.

Prof Joyner finally shared his thoughts on the ratification process and potential State parties. He drew the audience’s attention to the fact that the treaty had been so phrased that States which did not have nuclear weapons but allowed other States to use their territory to station or deploy such weapons would not be able to become State parties unless such weapons were being removed from their territory. The application of this specific provision (Article 1(1)(g)) means that NATO States on whose territory US nuclear weapons are stationed, installed or deployed would not be able to become parties to the treaty. This explained The Netherlands’ vote against the treaty. Other non-nuclear States in Western Europe concerned by this provision are Italy, Belgium and Turkey. As a result such States are faced with a tough choice because Article 1(1)(g) clashes with their NATO commitments. A further issue is that of States such as South Korea or Japan who benefit from the US nuclear umbrella and find it difficult to side with the US.

The presentation was followed by an engaging discussion and critical analysis of the treaty. One of the first questions related to organised crime and in particular the black market in nuclear weapons. Prof Joyner explained that in the 90s after the fall of the Soviet Union efforts were made to secure its nuclear stock. Yet, nuclear materials still turn up but what is in fact more dangerous in his view is the dual use of such materials. Also he observed that there was a shift in the illegal nuclear market from fizzle materials to intellectual property (designs and data) which has its own challenges as there are non-tangible goods. He also pointed out that an elaborate set of shell companies may be set up to launder such illegal activities.

A second issue examined was that of the link between the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for the crime of aggression and the treaty and notably problems relating to whether States that were not a party to the treaty could see their nationals being prosecuted for using nuclear weapons. This led the group to examine the concept of jurisdiction as understood in a range of nuclear weapons treaty.

A third point related to the interrelationship between the NPT and the new treaty. Prof Joyner highlighted that the new treaty was meant to be in harmony but yet separate from the NPT. This was particular visible in the choice of words and concepts used in the treaty. As he explained, to some extent it is possible to treat the new treaty as an implementation of Article VI of the NPT.

The conversation then moved back to analysing the individual policies of States that have links to the US. For example, Japan, the only State that had suffered from the use of nuclear weapons, was struggling to explain why it was not able to become a party to the treaty. Similar debates were being held in Germany. During the discussion it was mentioned that the US had sent rather stern letters to its NATO partners informing that they should not sign or ratify the treaty. The new treaty had definitely changed nuclear diplomacy. Until then, the combination of the NPT and the work of the IAEA was the best of both worlds: it could keep its nuclear weapons whilst being ensure that no further States would gain access to the pertinent technology.

A reference to a declaration made by India that it did not believe that the treaty would eventually become customary law launched an interesting debate on whether India had proffered its first utterance with a view to becoming a persistent objector under international law. A wider discussion on the formation of customary international law and the doctrine of specially affected States that was first mentioned in the Nicaragua Case ensued.

Parallels with other treaties such as the Ottawa Convention on landmines and the Convention on Cluster Munitions were also drawn as some provisions of the new treaty seemed to have been heavily influenced by (or even copied/pasted from) the wording used in previous conventional weapons conventions. Also the fact that this treaty was the fruit of a concerted effort by NGOs was noted as another example of bottom up initiatives in the field of disarmament and weapons prohibition, much alike the current Ban the Killer Robots campaign. Prof Joyner observed that without the support of this eclectic group of NGOs the treaty would have never existed. Yet, it was also their engagement with the process that had led to a long preamble that at times read like a list of loosely connected items.

Plenty of other issues were debated at the workshop and there is no space here to go into details. There was certainly plenty of food for thoughts for Prof Joyner’s forthcoming book on the new treaty!