Reducing the use of pre-trial detention in the Chinese criminal justice system

Posted on

By Dr Tom Smith

In February 2019, Dr Tom Smith spent a week working in China as an expert consultant for a research and training project, entitled ‘Reducing pre-trial detention through improved defence and non-custodial alternatives’. The project forms part of a broad reform programme aimed at improving pre-trial detention practice in the Chinese criminal justice system, by lower detention rates; improving defence rights for suspects; and widening the use of non-custodial alternatives (such as conditional bail). A significant part of the reform programme is the introduction of pre-trial detention hearings (known as ‘official arrest hearings’). These can be most closely compared to a defendant’s first appearance in a Magistrates’ Court in England and Wales (although with a number of distinct differences). At present, these hearings are being piloted in a number of cities across China, with the aim of increasing the participatory nature of proceedings; improving the transparency of the process;  and enhancing scrutiny of detention decision-making. The project is being co-ordinated by the Great Britain China Centre (based in London), in partnership with academics from the Centre for Criminal Justice Reform at Renmin University of China (Beijing), and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China (the national agency responsible for regulating criminal prosecution and investigation).

Tom Smith and Luke Meyer at Shenzhen Procuratorate training day

Tom’s primary role in this phase of the project was the design and delivery of training sessions for a variety of Chinese criminal justice professionals, including procurators (whose role is comparable to both a Magistrate and a prosecutor); defence lawyers; and police officers. The purpose of the training was to improve the professionalism of the procurators, lawyers and officers in two pilot cities (Shenzhen, in Guangdong province; and Hefei, in Anhui province). In addition, the training aimed to influence their approach to considering the protection of human rights in criminal justice proceedings by introducing perspectives on best practice in England and Wales, whilst providing a critical insight into our pre-trial detention system. The training sought to equip defence lawyers with knowledge and skills applicable to their role in pre-trial detention hearings, which is essentially an adversarial one. Tom was accompanied by criminal defence lawyer Luke Meyer, a Partner at Tuckers Solicitors in Kent. Together, they co-designed the structure of and materials for the training sessions (lasting a day in each pilot city), combining both academic and practical perspectives. The training covered topics such as the current structure of English and Welsh law on remand (i.e. court bail and pre-trial detention of defendants); insight into day-to-day practice in police stations and courts; a review of existing research on pre-trial detention in England and Wales (largely based on Tom and Professor Ed Cape’s report, ‘The Practice of Pre-trial Detention in England and Wales’); and a series of thematic sessions examining criminal legal aid, the use of video-link technology, alternatives to detention in custody, and impact on vulnerable groups of defendants.

Tom Smith and Luke Meyer at Shenzhen Procuratorate training day

Tom and Luke delivered the first training day in Shenzhen on February 22nd and 23rd, alongside sessions by leading Chinese academics and senior figures from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate. On February 25th, they observed an official arrest hearing in Hefei, via video link technology. This offered first-hand experience of the practical implementation of the reform programme, involving a real-life criminal case. The figures involved included two procurators (acting in a similar capacity to Magistrates); a defence lawyer; two police officers (acting in a similar manner to prosecutors in England and Wales); and the defendant (who appeared via video-link). After the hearing concluded, Tom and Luke were invited to ask questions of the deciding procurators in the case as well as the participating police officers. This was a rare privilege: this might be equated to the opportunity to question a bench of Magistrates and a prosecutor about their handling of a remand decision, directly after completing it – something that simply would not happen in England and Wales. This underlines how unusual and important this opportunity was, and provided a significant and unique insight into the progress of the reform programme on the ground. The second day of training was then delivered in Hefei. During both training days, and during associated networking events, Tom and Luke met with procurators, lawyers, academics, and senior local and governmental officials, and answered a variety of questions about English and Welsh law and practice. They were also invited to offer recommendations for continuing the progress of the project.

Tom Smith at Hefei Procuratorate training day

The opportunity to be involved in this highly significant reform programme was an undoubted privilege. The processes being introduced in China are novel to its criminal justice system, which does not have the same legal traditions and adversarial roots as English and Welsh criminal procedure. The energy and effort that is being directed towards the programme by the various parties involved was impressive and engaging. It is worth remembering that these were two of several pilot cities across the country, involving and effecting thousands of people. Above all, the programme has clear potential for positive impact on the lives of criminal defendants in China, emphasising the protection of human rights, increasing the scrutiny of decision-making, and working towards reduced use of detention before trial. Such goals are shared by many jurisdictions, particularly in light of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), one of which (SDG 16) includes reduction of unnecessary pre-trial detention. This is therefore likely to be part of the long-term agenda for reform in China and beyond. The chance to contribute to this project, by sharing knowledge and understanding of pre-trial detention practice in England and Wales, was a very positive experience. It is hoped that there will be further involvement in this project, as well as a wider strengthening of ties between UWE and China.

Featured researcher: Dr Thomas Smith

Thomas is an in Law and member of the Centre for Applied Legal Research. His research areas include pre-trial detention and bail; disclosure of evidence in criminal proceedings; criminal defence lawyers; access to justice and criminal legal aid.

Email: Thomas8.Smith@uwe.ac.uk Phone: +4411732 84617

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.

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.

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!

2018 Environmental Law Student Conference

Posted on

In March UWE Bristol participated with students (and staff) from Cardiff University and Swansea University at this annual Law Conference.

a photo of a green hedgerow in the sun with orange flowers  a teaching room with students in discussion whilst sitting at tables arranged in a horseshoe

Elena Blanco, Associate Professor and Acting Head of the Environmental Law Research Unit, worked with an extremely committed group of students of Environmental Law from UWE’s undergraduate (LLB) and postgraduate courses (LLM and PhD) to organise and run this year’s conference. Now in its fourth year, the Environmental Law Student Conference provides students with an opportunity to present on topics featured in their studies of environmental law, globalisation and natural resources law. The conference also provides the opportunity to network, socialise and share ideas with students from different law schools in the region.

The organising student committee at UWE was integrated with Cleverline Brown (PhD student), Siti Binti  Rosli (LLM) and Saluuga Hassan (LLB 3rd year). The students selected the different panels: Human Rights and the Environment; Climate Change and Trade, Technology and the Future of Environmental Challenges. A variety of students from UWE and Cardiff University participated by giving excellent, provocative and confident presentations and engaging in an open and lively discussion with the audience. Students from Swansea chaired panels and contributed to the discussion.

The day was inspiring and engaging with a wide range of topics featured in the presentations including pollution caused by business activities, environmental pollution, access to water in Israeli occupied Palestinian territories, the need for supranational governance on Climate Change and, the legal implications of alternatives on environmental discourses. From the practical and topical to the conceptual our students showed a keen interest in environmental and sustainability matters as well as being ‘part of the solution’ to environmental challenges from a variety of political and conceptual points of view.

This year a prize was offered to the best presentation by the United Kingdom Enviornmental Law Associaton (UKELA), Wales Working Party. The presentations will be judged by members of UKELA WWP who are legal professionals from Cardiff-based chambers and law firms. The winner will be granted a year’s free membership of this organisation!

The twenty four participants found the event extremely valuable, well organised and run, fun, fluid and well spaced out with a great balance of time to share views and informal discussion and some more formal presentations. Individuals commented (on the feedback sheets returned to the organisers) on how much they enjoyed the opportunity to present in public beyond the classroom and beyond their own university but among such a friendly and welcoming like-minded group of people.

Thomas Neill, a final year LLB student at Swansea University, said: “I found the conference really enjoyable, there were a high quality and varied set of presentations which lead to some really interesting debates. It was also good to be able to network with students from other law schools and hear their thoughts on the issues facing environmental law and enforcement. I found it refreshing to have a wider discussion on environmental law rather than focusing on the issues relevant to my own course”.

Tobechukwu Kanayo Okonkwo, another final year LLB student who attended, said: “My time at the Environmental Conference was an enlightening experience. It allowed me to meet like-minded people and open my mind to different perspectives concerning the environment”.

I personally have enjoyed the experience enormously and plan to continue to work with our talented students further in organising other events and in taking and showcasing our fantastic work further.

Elena Blanco, Associate Professor
Acting Head Environmental Law Research Unit, Bristol Law School (FBL) UWE