Inside: Interview with Douglas Silas – Education lawyer of the year 2014
The Devil’s
Advocate
Issue Number 11 May 2016
The Lawyers’ Gallery: be inspired by law
The
Emotional Child in the Court Room Being Human: Helping Others
A Being Human Festival Event
International conference
in Dubrovnik, Croatia
Editor’s letter It is an honour to present the spring edition of The Devil’s Advocate, the law magazine of LSBU’s Student Law Society. Three editors have made this work possible, and Judith has got the magazine off to a great start. This edition covers two major events, the first Inspired by Law event which recognises the achievements of lawyers who work for social justice and the protection of human rights, and the Being Human conference, discussing the moral and legal obligation to help others.
Specialist opportunities for lawyers
There is also an interview with Alan Birbeck and Douglas Silas, a LSBU law graduate who established his own law firm. We are delighted to include an article by a recent LSBU psychology graduate. This concerns the perception of child
With expertise in Crime and Litigation, International Criminal Law and Procedure, International Commercial Law, Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution and International Human Rights and Development, LSBU is a popular choice for London lawyers looking to specialise.
witnesses by the jury from a psychology perspective. We look forward to further co-operation with students from other subject areas within LSBU. Needless to say, many thanks to the support of the Dean of the School of Law and Social Sciences, the Head of the Law Division, the various contributing writers and most of all Kim Silver. We are very grateful for the support of the Marketing Department, particularly Clare LarsenBurnett, who has designed this new look magazine for us. Enjoy the articles as they are the words written by legal professionals and students. Matthew Quigley Editor
This Issue 2 4 6 9 10 12 14 16 17 Being Human: Helping Others – A Being Human Festival Event
Why study at LSBU? • A local Southwark campus with excellent transport links • Full-time and part-time course delivery offered • LLMs delivered by experienced academics and guest leading practitioners including Imran Khan, Solicitor, Joel Bennathan QC and Roger Smith, former Director of Justice • An excellent scholarship package for postgraduate students
lsbu.ac.uk | course.enquiry@lsbu.ac.uk | 0800 923 8888
Editoral team
Interview with Alan Birbeck
Editorial team Matthew Quigley, Judith Dela Cuesta, Glenda Gapare Contributors Aminata Barrie, Claire Bradford, Brendan Fitzsimons, Claire Hood, Lyssa Johnson, Leasha Newman, Matthew Quigley, Raveena Theodore Consulting editor Kim Silver Marketing Chris Mitchell Printing LSBU Print Services Graphic designer Clare Larsen-Burnett
Law Society officers President Ayorinde Victor Ongungbe Vice president Helen Itsagwede Treasurer Simrajit Digpal Secretary Danderstrands Chi Ndikum Welfare officers Joy Johnson – Babatunde, Caroline Marshall Fundraising liaison Janine Cassells – Airley, Musu Nayamba Mary Wright Street Law and events liaison Aminata Barrie Drama and debating liaison Suliat Ayobami Abdullahi
The Lawyers Gallery— be inspired by law Law Society news Great Ormond Street
The Emotional Child in the Court Room – An Investigation into Perceived Credibility by Jurors International conference in Dubrovnik, Croatia
Interview with Douglas Silas
Bristol University Intervarsity Moot
Law Division News
The Devils Advocate | 1
Being Human: Helping Others – A Being Human Festival Event 2 | The Devils Advocate
The event was open to the public and a part of a larger sequence of events in the festival which took place at universities and other academic establishments across the country. The focus at LSBU was on the duty to assist others. In English law we have duties to not harm others but there is no general obligation to assist unless a special relationship of care has been undertaken such as a parental relationship, a carer or a doctor. The conference discussed whether the idea of laws and ethics based on a duty to not harm others was out of date and whether or not we should have or recognise individual or collective legal and moral obligations to assist strangers. Topics covered included economic and social rights, the welfare state, the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of UK GDP on economic aid, the UN responsibility to protect doctrine and the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean. The event was introduced by our own Professor Max Weaver who spoke about the development of economic and social rights beginning all the way at the Magna Carta in 1215. Max left those in attendance with a few questions that captured the ideas of the festival. Examples of these being ‘why are we as we are?’, ‘who influences how we are and who we are?’, ‘who as a group affects the way we are?’, and arguably the most important for the event, ‘Who are we responsible to?’. These are questions to which there are many answers and I will leave you to formulate your own response to them. The keynote speaker at the event was Mr Graham Fisher who is the Chief Executive of Toynbee Hall. Toynbee Hall is located in east London and works for its local community to give some of London’s most deprived communities a voice through free advice and support. Graham told us the long illustrious history of Toynbee Hall and the work it is doing today. It opened its doors in 1884 and still operates to this day. In its 130 or so years it has had its highs and lows but stands today as the longest running advice service in the world and serves large numbers of people annually still while employing 320 volunteers and 80 staff. Before closing off Graham raised some very strong concerns that from his experience London is returning to Victorian values of equality; those of the deserving or undeserving poor, highlighting the alarming rate at which legal protection
is diminishing and asked us “where are the next philanthropists?” Following this there were presentations about the duty to assist from different approaches. Firstly, Max Weaver spoke about the legal approach to the duty to assist, using examples from case law. A 2009 case about a prison officer’s strike preventing prisoners from free association, who sued for false imprisonment but failed as the police had only omitted and there was no liability for their omissions (Iqbal v Prison Officers Association, [2009] EWCA Civ 1312, [2010] QB 732). This accurately captures the presumption in law relating to the requirement for a positive duty to act. Another case was the House of Lords case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789; [1993] 2 WLR 316 which will be familiar to medical law students. It concerned the disconnection of a feeding tube and the issue of ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. It was held in this case that active steps have to be made and simply disconnecting the tube was not enough. More evidence of the current legal approach was shown in the case of Smith v Littlewoods [1987] AC 241 which should be known to most law students and concerned the liability for a fire caused by vandals. Max proceeded to compare the position in the UK to other continental systems where ‘good Samaritan’ statutes exist, which impose a duty to assist unless the steps to perform that duty are unreasonable. Most startling about these is that a failure to do so is a criminal offence! This can be compared directly to our system which is fair to the rescuer and even fairer in comparison to those who are guilty of omissions. Whilst the system in the UK is not perfect the imposition of such an onerous and wide duty like that to assist would be in my opinion on the whole unenforceable. There do exist, like all good legal principles, exceptions to the rule that there is no duty to assist. These are logical ones such as preexisting care responsibilities, assumption of responsibility, knowledge of the risk and creation of the risk. The final question that was raised was the status of the police, and whether they get a soft ride or not. In the case of Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 involving the Yorkshire Ripper it was held that the police are not required to be everywhere or to protect everyone but that is a question worthy of a separate piece of writing. The second speaker in this segment was Dr Adrian Budd who was speaking about the welfare state, its origins and its problems today. He spoke about the five giant evils, these come in the form of want (poverty), disease (poor health), squalor (poor housing), ignorance (no education), and idleness (unemployment). Statistically the welfare state in the UK does not compare well to other rich countries or to its past self with
dips in investment of education, health care and social protection. The ‘pension crisis’ was also discussed here because one of the failings of the welfare state lies not in its failure but its success. People are living longer and this is a significant strain on the welfare state, as accurately described by Gosta Epping Anderson ‘advanced societies cannot afford a welfare state but cannot afford to live without one’. Coupled with all round declining birth rates there are significant limitations of the welfare state. While thre is no easy solution to fixing the welfare state, many measures can be taken such as improving the labour market via immigration or by raising the pensionable age but the ways of doing this will no doubt be met with clear opposition. Dr Margaret Clegg, a biological anthropologist who works for UCL, spoke about the evolutionary perspective on human rights. much of which Matthew Quigley and I wrote about when reviewing the 2014 conference in The Devil’s Advocate (February 2015 issue). The final speaker at the event was Professor Craig Barker speaking about international law and the UN’s responsibility to protect (R2P). This was discussed with regards to the global refugee crises. The R2P in its simplest form imposes a duty on states to protect its people from atrocities like those seen during WW2 as well as the duty on other states to collectively assist with the efforts to protect members of other states from such crimes. This is however limited by the fact that this cannot be enforced against countries outside of the UN such as the Republic of China (Taiwan). The government’s approach is that it is better to serve those not displaced already whereas the problem currently lies in those who are displaced seeking refuge. This is something that is often criticised but one approach which was raised in response is to look at the effects on the countries post acceptance of refugees. This concludes my spotlight on the Being Human: Helping Others conference which was a very interesting and immersive event that covered many of the relevant issues in light of the developments in Europe and the world with regard to refugees and topical human rights issues. Brendan Fitzsimons, year 3, LLB
s pu am -C On
On Friday 20th November 2015 I had the pleasure of attending a conference hosted by the university where the issue of human rights and the duty to assist others was discussed. Before I review the topics discussed I would like to thank those involved in arranging this very interesting and enlightening event.
Printing Service for Students! Official LSBU dissertation printing and binding
Professional results, quick turnaround >Dissertation > Binding and Printing >General > Printing
>Competitive > prices >Pay > online via card
>Poster > Printing
Order online at www.lsbu.ac.uk/studentprint The Devils Advocate | 3
Interview with A lan Birbeck
Leasha: Thank you for taking the time to do this interview. Alan: You’re welcome, thank you for inviting me. L: I understand that you are a former student of LSBU, What prompted you to study here and how did you find your experience? A: When I was 19 I came to London and worked for a 5* hotel, I worked in the restaurant, it was miserable and I hated it. But it gave me a chance to grow up and get away from home which is Bristol. I came to LSBU aged 20 knowing I wanted to do law. By this time I had escaped the hotel work and was working for American Express trading currency. I started the degree as a part-timer in the September. In the October I didn’t get a promotion and spoke with a couple of my lecturers (Paul Wynell-Sutherland and Dr Jill Wakefield) who said why not do it full time and give it all your focus? I went from there really and worked all the way through my degree parttime to fund my studies. I got a first here. I worked for a solicitors from year 1. In year 2 I qualified as a police station rep which was very good experience and an opportunity to earn money to support myself. L: How did you find studying here? A: I really enjoyed it. The key thing here, which I think is still true, is that you have got some very good teachers who teach law to people of all abilities, all backgrounds, all walks of life and they treat everyone just the same. They are dedicated to what they do, they care about what they do and I think that it’s a really well taught law degree. People (in no particular order) like Nina, Tracey, Louise and Andy really stood out as excellent teachers from whom I learned a great deal. I will never forget the revelation from Nina showing me the skill of answering essay and problem questions. She also told me to think about what the marker wants. At this point I had read about four textbooks on Criminal Law and Nina’s direct advice changed the way I approached my studies significantly. Tracey’s supervision of my project was outstanding, as indeed was, and continues to be, her incredible combination of hard work, intelligence, common sense but above all humanity. L: What made you choose law as a career? A: I really like speaking up for others. I am often better at speaking up for others than myself. I like being an advocate. And that’s probably the one thing that came more easily to me. From a young age I was always being told to be a barrister. I really enjoy it as it’s challenging: from a volume of work
4 | The Devils Advocate
perspective, from an intelligence perspective and from the perspective of dealing with real people (clients and juries). It is hard work but speaking up for someone else, whether prosecuting or defending, is a privilege. L: Why did you choose to specialize in criminal law? A: I like the idea of using hard work and skill to tell somebody’s story. Whether that is prosecuting a domestic violence case where you are telling the story of what the case is about and then for the jury or judge to make a decision on whether the person is guilty. Or if you are defending, you are representing the man or woman who is on trial. They need a voice, they need someone to speak up for them to see both sides of the story. The client may have many barriers of different forms, such as language, subjectivity, intelligence and skills. They may not know how to present their case, or they may not know what is the best thing to do in terms of their case. They rely on advice. Usually an advocate is their ethical mouthpiece bound by professional rules and ethics but critically giving voice to their client’s concerns. So it is a fun, interesting, challenging privilege. L: What is the most interesting case you have been involved in? A: There are too many war stories. I did about 20 of the London riot cases from 2011 and they were some of the most interesting ones from a sociological and evidential perspective. One of them was a young man in South East London, accused of assaulting a police officer in part of a group. He was a shy urban youth with poor communication skills. In colloquial terms he was very street and not very good at expressing himself. But you built up a rapport, you understood what his case was. He was in custody for about 3 weeks and we fought very hard and got him bail. None of the other defendants secured bail. It was 6 months on from the offence when the trial came up. On the day of the trial, we had secured sufficient evidence so that the case was not only dropped on the day of the trial. Our representations and investigation had led in part to a disciplinary hearing for the police officers and an action against the police for their misconduct. On that occasion the way the police had behaved was outrageous. In the other nineteen cases I had, all the defendants pleaded guilty as there was strong evidence. But it was an example of a young man who, I think, needed a good solicitor and barrister to speak up for him. There are lots of cases, that is just an example. Both prosecuting and defending I have dealt with cases, where they have been important and interesting, not necessarily hugely dramatic but to those involved they have been absolutely critical.
L: What do you prefer, defending or prosecuting? A: I like to do a bit of both. I think it’s important to do both because if you just defend you only really see one side of the coin and the same if you just prosecute. And I don’t agree with offending. John Mortimer’s character Rumpole always says to the effect ‘just because I defend murderers doesn’t mean I agree with murder’. Serious offences have dreadful real or potential consequences but until you know the individual facts of the case, and until there has been a fair presentation by the prosecution of the evidence and a forceful persuasive presentation of the case from the defence, you don’t know. Many cases that seem completely overwhelming on the face of it, change in court. And sometimes also cases that on paper seem a bit weak, can come to life in court. So there are serious cases where the victim might not be on the face of it credible. here are often cases where a prisoner, a T prostitute or a drug dealer gives evidence. On the face of it the community may think them less worthy of belief, but they may and often do have a totally credible story to tell of what happened to them. One case that stood out to me was a case on the rape of a prostitute. On the face of it, she was a prostitute with drug problems and multiple convictions. She gave an account which, on the face of the papers, some people may have said was less credible because of her position in life. But when she got to court and had her opportunity to robustly tell her side of the story, it became evident that her account was the obvious truth of the matter and the defendants a clear lie. I t was critical her voice was heard. It required a skilful prosecutor to allow her to tell her story to be told. It required a skilful defence advocate to test it. It required a fair judge to summarise the law and evidence before the jury. It is obvious but the most difficult thing you can do as a prosecutor is get a witness through the front door and ensure their voice is heard. Giving people a voice in court whether prosecuting or defending is a public good. he other question criminal lawyers T constantly have to answer is the perennial ‘How can you defend someone you know to be guilty?’ The answer is: i ) If I know the defendant is guilty through personal knowledge, or accept they made an admission to me, this limits my conduct in court. I cannot actively put a defence case but I can force the prosecution to prove their case. In such circumstances I could not do anything which would mislead the court. ii) If I suspect the defendant is guilty based
on provable evidence that a jury will be sure on, I will advise my client of the strengths of the case and to consider their options. They will make the ultimate judgment call and I will fight their case based on their instructions. i ii) If I have instructions from my client which are that they are not guilty, I will use all my best endeavours within the bounds of my professional code of conduct to defend them. The critical decision on the facts as to whether a case is proven so they are sure is ultimately for a jury (with guidance on the law from the judge). L: Why did you choose to become a lecturer? A: I had lectured here (and privately) part time for seven years before turning full-time in September 2014. I have been at the bar or working for solicitors for about fourteen years on and off. I did my Masters at Oxford and did my dissertation on criminal evidence and abuse of process. As long as I have been in practice legal funding has been under constant attack. Legal aid really matters for both civil and criminal cases. It is only way of ensuring everyone has a voice and protects the rule of law from becoming a hollow concept. wo main reasons for swapping my balance T from full-time barrister and part-time lecturer to full-time lecturer and part-time barrister: i ) I enjoy teaching, academic study and enjoy the potential to influence the policy environment. i i) I want to finally ensure a book on criminal evidence and advocacy which has been brewing for about three years but has been on the back burner while I have been running around in practice and teaching is hopefully accepted and published. L: Following on from that; I understand you are currently writing a book, so can you tell us a bit about that? A: Yes. My area has always been about criminal evidence and advocacy and that combination, I think, wins cases in court. Being on top of the rules of evidence is essential and then having the skills in terms of being an advocate to present a case is essential. And some combination of those two (and the merits) usually wins out on a case. Usually the evidence itself is the most important thing, but if you have a very persuasive advocate who knows the rules it can make a significant difference. Equally the reverse can make a significant difference as well. So my book focuses on a practical approach in the rules of evidence and the skills of advocacy. It is about trying to make sure that the right decisions are
Post-script: Alan will take over the role of Course Director for LLB in the next academic year.
made because evidence cannot be hard and fast rules - it always depends on the nuances of the factual nexus of the circumstances in that case. In the area of evidence students and lawyers often misunderstand the guiding principles of evidence and fail to see the necessary flexible discretionary nature of the rules. L: When will the book be published? A: The aim at the minute is that I will get the pitch and the offer by the publishers hopefully by the summer and probably published 2016-2017, I would imagine. It has been a long time coming so when it does come it will be good to see it. The problem with writing a book is that it takes so much time and you have to dedicate all your time to it. When you are a barrister or a lecturer you’re running around trying to deal with everything else. L: As someone who achieved a first class degree, what advice would you give to students? A: Three things. I tell this to all my students so they know this well. F irstly, hard work; being organised, prepared and hardworking is the absolute bedrock of what you are doing. Also enjoy what you are doing, law is the critical foundational bedrock of a fair society. econdly, be honest and act with integrity. S This is crucial if you are going to be a lawyer. Treating your colleagues and lecturers with equal respect is really important. It does not mean being soft. It often means being direct. The best advice given is often the one you least want to hear. If a lecturer gives you advice, listen, take it on board as constructive comment to push you forward. hirdly, take things step by step, day by day. T In year 1 you would never have believed the destination you have reached now in year 3. You may not be able to see it as a year 3 student but the difference between you starting out and you now is a massive development. Take it day by day, week by week and make sure everything is ready for the next day so that then you turn up you are prepared. If you do that and do your best, no one can criticize you. If you don’t prepare, you are shooting yourself in the foot. So preparation, integrity and building skills week by week are the core pieces of advice. Also think about what you are doing, why you are doing it and how you are doing it. You also need a balance between work and life, which is not easy but it is important. If you have any tips let me know…. L: Thank you for your time by Leasha Newman (graduated 2015)
The Devils Advocate | 5
The Lawyers Gallery— to be inspired by law 6 | The Devils Advocate
The project was the brain child of Senior Lecturer, Dr Mike Rodney and it was supported by a team of university lecturers keen to counteract the negative image of “fat cat lawyers”, and, in doing this, shed light onto the unsung heroes practising law to support social justice. The aim was to have a physical gallery of photographs and short biographies on the Law Division corridor in the Keyworth Centre and an online gallery. LSBU law students nominated a longlist of lawyers. After much discussion, eleven lawyers were eventually shortlisted for their work. These lawyers practised in a variety of areas and countries, where some of them carried out their work under constant threat. The lawyers nominated come from across the globe, and the work they conduct is arguably more important as we enter challenging times in which the concepts of justice and the rule of law need to be upheld. In November 2015 the inaugural awards event was launched when LSBU was delighted to welcome the Inspiring Lawyers either in person or by representative organisation to receive their award and talk about their valuable work relating to human rights, the rule of law and social justice. The lawyers in attendance included Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, a distinguished human rights lawyer; Professor Akua Kuenyehia, formerly a judge of the International Criminal Court; Diana Nammi, an outstanding campaigner for women’s rights; Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, a human rights lawyer and former President of the Law Society; and James Thornton an environmental lawyer and campaigner. Each lawyer was introduced by their nominating student.
Najiba Ahmadi was nominated for her services to women’s rights in Afghanistan, and was one of the country’s first female paralegals. Since then she has done work to combat violence against women and has run a shelter for women who have suffered violence and abuse. She has carried out this work under constant threat and a campaign of intimidation, and refuses to cease her important work. She was represented by ActionAid.
Dame Linda Dobbs is of dual heritage. She studied Russian and Law at the University of Surrey, before doing a Masters and Doctorate at the London School of Economics. She practised in criminal and regulatory law and became a QC, along with being an editor of Archbold, the leading text for Criminal Practice. She was a High Court Judge from 2004-2013. She is committed to equality and diversity both at the bar and on the bench, and continues to promote such diversity throughout the legal profession and judiciary. The Head of Equality and Diversity at the Bar Council, Sam Mercer, attended to represent Dame Linda.
Our Inspiring Lawyers are: Shami Chakrabarti w as nominated for her services to the promotion of human rights. She joined the charity Liberty in 2001 as in-house counsel and has been the director since September 2003. By campaigning, lobbying parliament, taking test cases and providing advice to the public, Liberty has challenged the attempts to undermine civil liberties and human rights in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Helena Kennedy QC is one of the country’s most distinguished lawyers practising criminal law, and has taken a variety of high profile cases. Also Baroness Kennedy has championed law reform in relation to women, concerning sexual and domestic violence. She has been a Labour peer in the House of Lords, where she has sat on a variety of committees and is currently the Chair of the EU sub-committee. She has committed herself to criminal justice, social justice and women’s rights.
Professor Akua Kuenyehia was born when it was virtually unknown for women in Ghana to become lawyers.She studied law at the university of Ghana and Oxford. She was a member of the International Criminal Court until 2015. She was one of the only female African judges at the ICC. She is inspiring for her model of education, empowerment and equality.
Raphael Lemkin qualified as a lawyer, and first served as secretary to the court of appeal in Warsaw and then became a public prosecutor. When Poland was invaded in 1939, he participated in the unsuccessful defence of Warsaw, but he managed to escape capture and arrived in Sweden before gaining entrance to the United States in 1941. Following the war, he was instrumental in assisting bringing the war criminals to justice, advising Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. He defined genocide and this was incorporated into the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide, which he drafted. He succeeded in introducing the concept of genocide as an international crimeand he had received various awards in recognition of his contributions. He was represented by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust.
Khalil Ma’touq I s a human rights lawyer from Syria, detained without charge or trial in Syria since October 2012, despite many Human Rights organisations calling for his release. His career has focused on providing legal assistance to political opponents, journalists, peaceful protestors and prisoners of conscience. He continued his work until his imprisonment in 2012, despite the difficulties he had faced and constant harassment by the state security apparatus. Dedication such as this has helped protect human rights in the most difficult of circumstances.
Adil Jose Melendez Marquez is a lawyer who lives in the Colombian city of Cartagena, where he practises as a prominent human rights activist. In 2005 he joined the Movement for the Victims of State crimes, and in the following year protective measures were put in place, considering lawyers are being murdered without warning. He continues his work despite threats to his life and a failed attempt to assassinate him, and suffering a campaign to discredit his work. He has also been successful in prosecuting corrupt highlevel officials.
The Devils Advocate | 7
The law society has so far held two successful fundraising events during this academic year, the first was raising money for Great Ormond Street Hospital and the second was raising money for the Red Cross appeal to help Syrian refugees.
The panel discussed the importance of the rule of law and that trying to maintain it is difficult in countries where lawyers work under the constant threat of violence. One of the other underlying issues outlined by the panel was that in many cases, this is entrenched within the culture and that upholding the law is not enough and certain traditions need to be challenged to bring about real progress.
The panel discussion was chaired by Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, and it explored the various challenges that face lawyers, such as the current proposal for a British Bill of Rights and that should it be passed the various issues that would face human rights in the United Kingdom.
Lucy Scott-Moncrieff w orks in mental health and human rights law, and founded the solicitors’ firm Scott-Moncrieff & Associates. She has undertaken a variety of important roles, such as President of the Law Society and Co-chair of the Legal Aid and Access to Justice Committee of the International Bar Association. One of her clients was the first person to obtain a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act, which altered the discharge criteria affecting all those detained under the Mental Health Act. She continues to promote human rights and mental health, securing justice for vulnerable people.
8 | The Devils Advocate
There was also an interesting question put to the panel in relation to the nature of judicial appointments and diversity within the judiciary, and Lucy Scott-Moncrieff as part of the judicial appointments committee stated that diversity in the judiciary was expanding but there was still work to do to improve it, especially within the Supreme Court and that in a few years’ time the composition of the Supreme Court could be completely different from what it is now. Also a good point was put forward, in relation to the work of Ralph Lemkin, about the various atrocities committed by tyrannical governments and that nothing has really been learnt from the holocaust, and that it is worrying that genocide has been facilitated by these states using legal mechanisms to commence these atrocities. Therefore, work needs to be done in order to prevent genocide in the future.
In February 2016, one of our Inspiring Lawyers Dame Linda Dobbs came to LSBU and delivered the Inaugural Lecture on ‘The Changing Legal Landscape - Legal Futures’ and launched the website version of the gallery www.lsbu.ac.uk/schools/law-andsocial-sciences/subjects/law/inspired-by-law.
The trip to the European Courts in Luxembourg and Strasbourg went ahead, and there will be coverage in the next edition of the Devil’s Advocate.
We are now seeking nominations from our students for 2016 – see the Moodle Employability site for full details. If you are not a student, but have a suggestion, please do email Kim Silver on silverk@lsbu.ac.uk. by Matthew Quigley (3rd Year LLB)
This year, the London South Bank University Law Society has been actively involved in fundraising for some very worthwhile causes. The first event was held on 17th December 2015 in aid of Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital with the support of staff, fellow students and local businesses.
Fundraising
James Thornton G raduated from Yale and practised law in New York, he was also professor of Environmental law at New York University. He is also qualified as a solicitor in the UK. He uses law to promote environmental consciousness, forming the NGO ‘Client Earth’ and has taken action in the High Court, that forced the UK government to admit that it was in breach of air pollution limits. He champions the protection of the environment through the law, and continues to tackle issues such as pollution, climate change and the loss of biodiversity.
Two teams were sent to external mooting competitions, one to the Bristol University Intervarsity moot and the other to the National Speed Mooting Competition hosted at Salford University.
Law Society News
Diana Nammi Has been campaigning for w omen’s rights since she was a teenager, and she eventually arrived in the UK as a political refugee. She founded the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation. Playing a pivotal role, Diana Nammi has been involved with many important campaigns; such as securing the first conviction in the UK for a murder that was recognised as an honour killing. Despite various threats and opposition to her work, she continues to work tirelessly until all women can enjoy safety and equality.
The elections for a new executive team for the Student Law Society were held and the new officers are listed on page 1.
Great Ormond Street Hospital provides inspirational and world-class care to hundreds of children every day. They rely on donations from the public to help give hope to seriously ill children and their families. In order to host a successful event, the Law Society was supported by local businesses who were very generous in donating prizes for our raffle and tombola. The Law Society would like to thank Boots (Walworth Road), WHSmith (Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre) and Tesco’s (Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre) for their donations of vouchers, gifts and books. The event would not have been as successful as it was without their support. We are truly thankful and hope to build on this very vital and supportive relationship.
The Devils Advocate | 9
The Emotional Child in the Court Room – An Investigation into Perceived Credibility by Jurors 10 | The Devils Advocate
I asked for this article to be written by a recent psychology graduate from London South Bank University to explore the law in the wider context, and the issues addressed in the article need to be considered for those wishing to pursue a career where they have to deal with tribunals. In the judicial system, the jurors’ perceptions of witnesses has a huge impact on whether the defendant is seen as guilty or not guilty. Should the witness be seen as a victim and trustworthy, a juror is more likely to give a guilty verdict to the defendant than if the witness seems blasé and uncaring1. Though many people believe that children should be kept away from criminal proceedings in any stance2, children are increasingly being used as witnesses in judicial proceedings3 and need to be treated correctly. In a courtroom setting, a lawyer holds incredible power over how the child is acting, and how they are perceived. Certain types of questions can have a negative impact on children’s testimony, and studies have shown children change their responses when cross-examined, and this can increase anxiety levels4 and possibly perceptions of reliability. However, the accuracy and suggestibility of children, regardless of emotional state, are topics that have been widely debated over the years. One study compared the effect of tag questions (e.g. ‘Amy touched your arm didn’t she?) and direct questions
1
Calhoun, L. G., Cann, A., Selby, J. W., & Magee, D. L.
(e.g. Did Amy touch your arm?) on children’s reliability, and found that when asked tag questions the percentage of correct answers and details given by the children was no higher than chance levels; however, when asked direct questions, the correct answers and details had high reliability levels. Tag questions are particularly problematic for children to disagree with if questioned in court5. A study conducted on 3rd and 6th grade children and college students, concluded that younger children, while more susceptible to suggestion than their older counterparts, could be just as accurate in their recall as older children and young adults6. In a similar study, children listened to a story and then watched a clip of either a child, credible adult or discredited adult answering questions about the story. The responses were not always entirely accurate. The participants were then questioned themselves; it was concluded that the recall accuracy was high, and was only negatively affected when inaccurate information was relayed by the credible adult7. A literature review into child suggestibility and recall accuracy concluded that, while younger children were generally more susceptible to suggestibility – especially when coming from a credible or trusted adult – and had a higher chance of answering incorrectly when asked misleading questions, they have a very high accuracy rate when interviewed with direct questions8. The majority of previous research agrees that while misleading questions, and the presence of misinformation from credible sources
5
Krackow, E. & Lynn, S. J. (2003). Is There Touch in the
has the potential to reduce accurate recall, children can be highly reliable witnesses, when interviewed and questioned correctly. Therefore, it is not unjust to suggest that every effort should be made to ensure that young witnesses and victims are dealt with in the most age appropriate way, with as little misleading information, leading and other inappropriate questions as possible, to increase their validity. Regardless of the conclusion that child witnesses can be reliable when interviewed in an objective, non-leading way, they are not always perceived as such by external parties. One study conducted research on Canadian judges and found that the judges were more likely to believe that child witnesses were less credible than adults and make more errors in their statement9. There are other studies that also support this finding – an investigation into how 277 actual jurors perceive children, concluded that the jurors interpreted the children as having difficulty answering questions and were overall less confident and credible10. However, there have also been studies that suggest that jurors do perceive young children as credible – a mock child sexual abuse trial found that jurors saw the younger witnesses (5 years old) as more credible than their older counterparts (11 or 16 years old)11. Since it has been concluded that, when interviewed in an objective, non-leading fashion, children can be as reliable as
9
Bala, N., Ramakrishnan, K., Lindsay, R., & Lee, K. (2004).
adults, we can start investigating the effect their emotions have on an external party’s perception of them. There is a large amount of research into how different levels of crying that a child displays can affect juror’s perceptions of said child. One study, where participants read a transcript of either an emotional child or a calm child, concluded that crying children were seen as significantly more credible than calm children12. Additionally, a 133 participant study concluded that “teary” children were seen as more believable and credible than calm or hysterically crying children, and that the “teary” children were more likely to elicit a guilty verdict than the other categories13. Though these studies, among others, conclude that crying children are seen as highly more believable than non-emotional or overly emotional children – perhaps because it reveals the effect the incident has had on them, but still allows them to be seen as capable of giving testimony – however there is little research into the effect of other emotions. A recent investigation into other emotional displays, conducted as a final year empirical project by a university psychology student, explored the effect of a calm, crying and angry display of emotion on a child’s perceived reliability14. This study involved participants reading a real transcript that was manipulated for the child to either be calm, crying or angry. Overall, it was concluded that there was no significant difference in perceived reliability as a result of the different emotions. This research
12
Game of Twister®? The Effects of Innocuous Touch and
Judicial Assessment of the Credibility of Child Witnesses.
Witness Demeanor on Perceived Credibility and Trial
reaction to victims of rape. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 17–21.
Suggestive Questions on Children’s Eyewitness Memory.
Alberta Law Review, 42, 995.
Outcome in Sexual Abuse Cases. Journal of Family
Law and Human Behaviour, 27(6), 589-604.
10
2
Berliner, L. & Barbieri, M. K. (1984). The Testimony of the
Child Victim of Sexual Assault. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 125-137. 3
National Statistics. (2012) Court Statistics Quarterly:
October to December 2012. M inistry of Justice Statistics Bulletin 4
Bettenay, C, Ridley, A, Henry, L, & Crane, L 2015,
‘Changed Responses Under Cross-examination: The Role of Anxiety and Individual Differences in Child Witnesses’, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, (3) 48 5-491
Trials: A Survey of Juror Perceptions. Crime and Justice
13
Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, 102,
A. (2003). Big girls don’t cry: the effect of child witness
and Human Behaviour, 4(3), 201-210.
1030-1046
demeanour on juror decisions in a child sexual abuse
7
Cohen, R. L. & Harnick, M. A. (1980). The susceptibility
Lampinen, J. M. & Smith, V. L. (1995). The incredible
11
Holcomb, M. J. & Jacquin, K. M. (2007). Juror
Golding, J. M., Fryman, H. M., Marsil, D. F. & Yozwiak, J.
trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1311-1321.
(and sometimes incredulous) child witness: Child
Perceptions of Child Eyewitness Testimony in a Sexual
14
eyewitnesses’ sensitivity to source credibility cues.
Abuse Trial. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 16(2), 79-95.
Child Witnesses. L ondon South Bank University, Unpublished.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 621-627 8
By Lyssa Louise Johnson (BSc Hons) with a Foreword by Matthew Quigley
Violence, 13(2), 187-195.
of child witnesses to suggestion: An empirical study. Law
6
Combining previous research and investigations, it can be concluded that children can be highly valid witnesses when their testimony is extracted in ethical and suitable ways – direct, nonleading questions and the absence of misinformation. With the rising number of children being used as witnesses3, they are a valuable resource in a court room, and should be treated in an age appropriate manner and without harsh comments fired their way. Additionally, the previous research concludes that, while emotions displayed by children have minimal impact on how they are perceived by jurors, a small amount of crying has the potential to increase their perceived credibility.
Regan, P. C. & Baker, S. J. (1998). The Impact of Child
(1981). Victim emotional response: Effects on social
Cashmore, J. & Trimboli, L. (2006). Chid Sexual Assault
is not consistent with previous research, perhaps due to the fact that the participants were students of psychology and, as such, were highly aware of children’s credibility, regardless of emotion.
Johnson, L. L. (2015) Juror Perceptions of Emotional
Ceci, S. J. & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child
witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403-439.
The Devils Advocate | 11
International conference in Dubrovnik, Croatia 11th - 13th June 2015 12 | The Devils Advocate
The opportunity to attend the international conference had arisen after completing my twelve voluntary sessions at the Legal Advice Clinic as well as post completion of my second year law and psychology summer examinations. It was around this time when our Clinic leader, Alan Russell, emailed all the volunteers of the Legal Advice Clinic explaining that two of us had been invited to come along with him to an international conference in Dubrovnik, Croatia on Civil Justice and Legal Education. He explained how academics and students from all over the world would gather every year to discuss and debate these matters and that we had been invited to talk about our clinic here in London South Bank University. The organisers wanted Alan to talk about how clinics can help avoid unnecessary litigation. They also wanted two volunteers from the Legal Advice Clinic to sit on a panel to discuss their experiences of working in a Clinic with students who also work in Clinics from different parts of the world. As only two of us from the Legal Advice Clinic were to go, Alan had asked us to kindly send him our CV and a one sided A4 summary of our clinic experience within the next two days as part of the selection process. We were told that Andy Unger, Head of Department for Law, would make the final decision. As the opportunity was a rare and beneficial one, many of us did apply despite the short notice. I wrote my summary in detail explaining how I felt the legal advice clinic experience benefited me in terms of skills enhancement and how it helped me to decide that as a combined degree student, I most definitely would like to work in the legal sector as well as the type of lawyer that I would like to become. I even tried to involve some of my personal ideas of what I felt could be improvements for the clinic to make sure my summary covered a lot of varied aspects. We heard back from Alan not long after the deadline with both his and Andy's final decision. It was here that I was both surprised and pleased to see that I had been selected to attend the conference, along with third year LLB Law student Lauren Bateman. We were both excited for the opportunity and as soon as the flight had been confirmed, we exchanged contact details and began preparing for our talk together on the panel almost instantly as we had a presentation to prepare for everyone at the conference in regards to our Legal Advice Clinic here in London South Bank University. We arrived in Croatia on the afternoon of Thursday 11th June 2015 where we promptly made our way to the Inter University Centre in Dubrovnik which was where the conference was to be held. As we arrived, we joined the conference and
academics straight away began to discuss various topics. These included topics such as outsourcing in relation to the quality of justice, legal aid, and overall how the running of clinics can help contribute to reducing civil litigation. On the Friday morning, students were scheduled to speak of their own personal experiences volunteering at these dropin clinics. This allowed us to obtain an in-depth insight in regards to the way in which drop- in legal advice clinics are run in other European countries such as Croatia and Norway. This in turn gave us the opportunity to compare and evaluate by looking at the contrasting differences between the clinics. As representatives of London South Bank University, we presented an overview of our own personal experiences working in our drop-in legal advice clinic. We expressed our view that it is not only beneficial to the surrounding public as the ones receiving free legal advice but to ourselves as students willing to learn and help our community. Due to our free advice service being run very much differently to the way in which the clinics in both Croatia and Norway were run, I found the other participating students to have remained very much engaged and interested throughout our talk with them as we were then asked many questions in regards to the running of our clinic afterwards. This lead to a very lively and informative discussion which I believe everyone had been able to gain something new from. A student from Norway had been especially interested in the way we were able to give advice in one hour only. He explained how in their clinic, advice is not normally given straight away, but within a two to three week time period instead and was wondering if we felt we were able to give efficient advice in such a small time frame, or if we ever felt rushed and pressured while doing so. During the talk of our clinic here in the UK, we also explained how we deal with a large range of areas in regards to aspects of the law but how we strictly did not give advice on immigration. The other students found this to be of interest as they did deal with that legal area. The students of Croatia even explained further how they did so. They were also interested to know whether we rejected clients for any other reason and how we dealt with the clients who came in with problems that didn't actually require legal advice when we had our time limit. Here, we went on to talk about how we try to make the system as fair and available to all of the public as much as possible, therefore we would not turn away client for any other reason than if they required immigration advice or if we had reached our maximum intake of clients for the session.
Even in the instances where we could not specifically help with their problem, we explained how we would do our best to refer them elsewhere. Another way in which our clinics differed which both myself and other students found to be interesting had been the way in which we decided upon the advice given to clients. During our talk of the clinic in Southwark, we explained how we worked in two teams of two which included two student volunteers and one supervisory solicitor. We then went on to explain how we would use websites and programs such as Advice Guide and Advisor Net to quickly gather information in a time frame of 15-20 minutes. The other students of both Croatia and Norway on the other hand explained how they would discuss the advice that were to be given in large groups of perhaps 8 or 9, obtaining everyone's input to form the advice given all together. Once the advice is given, they would then contact the client themselves by phone for example and orally deliver their advice.
many students get to experience. As a second year combined law degree student, I found it to be very eye-opening and informative which I am most grateful for. It allowed us both to practise our public speaking and team working skills which I believe us both to have greatly improved upon as a result. It certainly was an intriguing experience to be able to listen to the various ways in which countries across Europe deal with very similar issues using contrasting methods. It really gave us a chance to think more deeply and outwardly about what improvements we all might want to consider making, or what aspects really work well for an efficient and smooth running legal advice service, which I believe to be most important for everyone involved. Raveena Theodore Combined Law with Psychology student
Other students were also particularly interested in our evening sessions as the volunteers’ role in this session had been purely to observe. The other students saw this as a good learning experience which it very much was and they went on to explain how they did not get such opportunities externally to give them that experience as specialist solicitors were not as willing. This meant that they mostly did everything on their own and learnt for themselves as they worked and learnt through personal experiences. It was also very interesting to hear that the runnings of the clinic in Norway had been very much influenced by the clinics in Croatia and how the other students hadn't actually had a supervisor with them while giving advice. This generally meant that they had much more responsibility than we do as students working at the Legal Advice Clinic in Southwark since we are constantly observed and supervised throughout the the entire process of taking instruction, researching and delivering advice. This led us to question them on whether clients were comfortable with receiving advice from students as we know in the UK, some clients may feel more sceptical about the idea that they are receiving advice from students. However, they explained how this is not usually an issue as clients usually have a lot of confidence in them despite being students since they have support from the Ministry of Justice which we found to be very impressive. Overall, the experience was most definitely both a valuable and rare one as the opportunity in itself to even attend an international conference is something not
The Devils Advocate | 13
Interview with Douglas Silas
LSBU law students meet award-winning lawyer and LSBU alumnus Douglas Silas, who is making a difference to the lives of children with special educational needs. ouglas Silas, a former LSBU law student, D established his own firm in 2005, having worked as a lawyer specialising in special educational needs for many years. He is the recipient of many awards (29 at the last count!). These include the 2013 ‘Outstanding Achievement’ award at the Modern Law Awards and being named Education Lawyer Of The Year 2014 in both the Corporate International and ACQ Global Awards. Douglas has also twice been shortlisted for the Law Society’s ‘Solicitor of the Year Award’ in 2011 and 2014. Through his charitable work, by cycling a specially-modified recumbent trike across countries like Sri Lanka, Madagascar and Israel, Douglas has also raised more than £100,000 for Norwood, a charity which helps children and young people with disabilities. He was named an ‘Unsung Hero’ in 2012 and received a ‘Points of Light’ award in 2014 personally from the Prime Minister. It can easily be said, that despite his physical disability in the form of a rare condition called Cerebellar Ataxia, Douglas has achieved more than most people and is firmly at the top of his field. Yet as much as Douglas appreciates the recognition that he has received for his work, what matters most to him is being able to help individuals to gain access to special educational provision that is right for their needs, as Claire Bradford and Judith Dela Cuesta found out... 1) How did you find your time as a law student at LSBU? I found the course very accessible and very hands on. It’s important to always try things you have never done before, even if it seems scary, as one only learns by trying and trying again. You can then either fail or succeed, but if you don’t even try, you’ve already failed! It was this opportunity to try things out and to have access to opportunities that I may not otherwise have had, that I appreciated most when studying at LSBU. 2) You didn’t go straight into law, but rather pursued careers as a musician and then sign-language interpreter first. How did you find the course when you first started? I came to LSBU because it was the only university which accepted me without having done an access course, as I did not have any ‘A’ levels. I was initially rejected also by LSBU when I applied, but I went into the law faculty on the day of clearing and spoke with Professor Lew Lewis, the predecessor to Mike Molan. I told him my story and the fact that I wanted to
14 | The Devils Advocate
become a lawyer who could help people with disabilities. He accepted me through clearing and we joked that if I succeeded then I would buy him a pizza! It is strange now to look back and realise that he had faith in me and was willing to give me a chance, Well, I did succeed and right from the start, from the first piece of coursework to my final degree classification (I actually came top of my year), I found that law was something that I was good at and had a real passion for.
and be committed to charity work? T here is a saying which is ‘if you want something doing, ask a busy person to do it’. I truly believe that if you set your mind to doing something, you will usually do it. Most people think of reasons why they cannot do something or say they will try to deal with something later. I always try to deal with something as soon as I can, provided that is possible. Keeping lists also helps me to keep organised and stay on top of both my charitable work and casework.
3) It is a very significant achievement to set up your own law firm, what gave you the motivation to do this?
7) What do you think drives your firm’s success?
I set up my own firm for two reasons. Firstly, I have very particular ways of doing things and like to ‘think outside of the box’. I often joke nowadays that I am probably ‘unemployable’ now as I often do things which I probably wouldn’t be allowed to do if I worked for someone else! A lot of firms measure success by making money. I measure success by how many people I help and I wanted to create a firm which had helping people as its ethos. Secondly, a year before I setup my firm, I received a diagnosis of Cerebellar Ataxia, a rare, degenerative and incurable neurological condition, which means me now having to use a wheelchair to get around. I guess that there are many people who may have simply given up at that point, but rather than giving up, I decided that I wanted to take control of my life and establishing my own firm enabled me to do this. 4) What advice would you give to current law students? y advice is simple. Keep focused and M work hard because you don’t get anywhere without putting in hard work. And, if at first you don’t succeed, pick yourself up, learn from your mistakes and try again. Anyone who gives up the first time they try something and fail, will usually never succeed in the long run. 5) What is the most difficult aspect of running your own firm? firm isn’t just one person, it is lots of A people. The challenge of running your own firm is managing people and getting the best out of them. I like people to manage themselves. I will let people make mistakes but only once. It’s always about helping people believe in themselves and feeling that they can do something, no matter what the odds. I try and instil confidence in my staff and often believe in them more than they believe in themselves initially. 6) You have a very clear commitment to charitable causes, how do you find the time to be an award winning lawyer
I like to have a personal involvement in all of the cases that the firm takes on which means that we only take on between 100150 cases in any year. The cases that we do take on always receive my whole team’s absolute commitment and expertise. I try to always give more than what is required of me because I care deeply about ensuring that children with learning difficulties and disabilities have access to appropriate educational services that are right for them, whether that is in a mainstream day school or a special residential school. The work we do really makes a difference to children and young people’s lives and we are very often the last resort for parents who have exhausted all other avenues without success. They can always be certain of our commitment and professionalism and know that we will always do the very best for them that we can. Also, we are unique in that our website (www. SpecialEducationalNeeds.co.uk) has lots of free information on it for both parents and professionals - we usually have 50-100,000 pages downloaded every month which is an incredible figure. In fact, in 2015, we had a record 1 million page downloads. The intention, at first, was simply to give back to the community by providing free information, but this has actually raised our profile and boosted our reputation. This was a totally unexpected bonus, since the purpose of providing the free online information was just to help people, regardless of their income. 8) What has been the most rewarding moment of your career? I frequently have parents inform me of the difference that I have made to their children’s and family’s lives, which is undoubtedly rewarding. However, there was one particular case which always stands out for me, where I helped the parents of a 12 year old girl with severe physical disabilities who came to me as they wanted their daughter to attend a residential special school. This was expensive and was therefore contested by their local authority. I helped them to appeal to a First-Tier Tribunal but this failed
at first. But then there was a successful appeal to the Upper Tribunal. In the end we were ultimately successful after a series of hearings. The reason I remember this though is because it was a very hard case and they had to put their entire faith in me as, at one point, the only option the local authority was giving them was to take their child into care rather than provide her with specialist residential education. To get such a great result in the end was fantastic and the girl has gone on to do really well at school, so the work done in achieving this outcome was really worthwhile. 9) You deal with cases which often involve a great deal of emotion, how easy do you find it to separate yourself from the emotions involved and personal circumstances of the case? F or a start, you have to remember that you are not the parent but just the lawyer so by being one step away, you can be objective. I find it is always important to tell the situation exactly as it is and to be absolutely honest with the client, even if that means being blunt. Whilst I am objective, I do also take a very personal interest in each of the cases we do because it is important to me that children and young people have their
educational needs met, as I know this has such a huge impact on the rest of their lives. I enjoy helping people and getting positive results for them; we have a success rate of over 90 per cent which I know may seem highly unusual for a firm, but I think this is demonstrative of our level of commitment and expertise. 10) Do you have any goals for the future? I didn’t expect to have received the number of awards that I have! Whilst it is great to have my work recognised, as I say, what really matters to me is helping people so awards, as nice as they are, are not what it is all about. I came into law with the purpose of helping people and this is what I hope to still be doing in years to come – also empowering people to do things themselves by providing free and up to date information on our firm’s website in addition to achieving results for parents and making a difference to their children’s lives by ensuring they have the special education which is right for them and their individual needs.
Look, Book, Learn Skills for Learning
Workshops: Academic Skills / English / Maths
Skills for Learning Drop-ins and one-to-ones ins: Academic Skills and English: Monday – Friday: 11.00–13.00 (LRC 203) Maths Support: Monday – Friday: 1 1.00–13.00 (LRC 202) 14.00–16.00 (LRC 203)
The Devils Advocate | 15
Claire Hood, Paul Wynell-Sutherland and Alex Varga There is nothing quite like being thrown in at the deep end-and that is exactly how I felt embarking upon my first ever moot. Set in the imposing but rather splendid surroundings of the Wills Memorial Building at Bristol University, the Bristol University Intervarsity Moot is now in its third year with LSBU entering for the first time. Having had little more than a week to prepare and with only four teams out of thirteen progressing to the semifinals we knew that the competition would be tough and had adjusted our expectations accordingly. Our faltering nerves were not helped by the fact we were pitched against Bristol University (winners of the inaugural competition and runners up last year) for our first moot. Upon seeing their skeleton argument, we knew they were going to be a hard act to beat. However, our legal arguments were strong, we handled judicial intervention extremely well and we managed to hold our own against them. The feedback was that our confidence was lacking but I accepted that fully as confidence is something that grows with practice. And with this being my first time and Alex’s first moot in a good few years we knew that our confidence was bound to be lacking. That was the first lesson learnt from this moot experience - that confidence is key to winning a moot. It’s not solely about the legal argument and to that end practising is a key ingredient of success when it comes to mooting. It was a huge relief to get the first moot over and done with because I realized we were not too bad at mooting after all! For the second moot we were pitted against City Law School. The poor chap from on their team had been abandoned by his mooting partner so he was immediately
at a disadvantage. However just as he was about to begin the competition organiser burst in dramatically (but apologetically) to let us know that there had been a mix up and that we would now be swapped with another set of mooters. However further complications arose in that in the new moot we would have been judged by our very own Paul Wynell-Sutherland! A conflict of interest sprang to mind! Once we were reassigned to a new mooting team, BPP, we felt pretty confident upon seeing their skeleton as our skeleton was much stronger. Indeed, their court etiquette was slightly lacking as they twice tried to interrupt our moot for a right to reply. Thus the second moot was far more enjoyable. Alas we did not make it into the semifinals but we came 6th out of 13 and got some very positive feedback. For a first time mooter it was an invaluable experience. As far as mooting goes teamwork is key to success. I could not have managed it had my wonderful partner Alex not been there for me every step of the way both for educational and moral support. Also to have support there in the form of a lecturer from the University was most helpful. But the biggest lesson of all is that confidence is key to winning a moot. Bristol University went on to win the moot. Their legal arguments were not significantly stronger than ours but their confidence was. You could have the required legal knowledge but if you cannot relay that with an air of confidence you will not succeed at mooting. The only way to build this confidence it to keep on mooting. The old adage of practice makes perfect certainly does ring true for mooting. by Claire Hood (PGDip, part time second year)
Law Division News
Bristol University Intervarsity Moot 16 | The Devils Advocate
The Law Division started the year with some very good news. In January, our Professor in Clinical Legal Education Sara Chandler was awarded an Honorary Queen’s Counsel (QC), one of eight new appointees in England and Wales. The title QC (Hon) is awarded to lawyers and legal academics who have made a major contribution to the law of England and Wales outside practice in the courts, which has not been recognised through other forms of honours. Sara was recommended for her work on pro-bono and human rights cases. Everyone in the Law Division sends Sara the warmest of congratulations. We were also delighted to welcome Alan Russell back on to the staff. Our second Being Human conference was held in November, on the duty to assist. These conferences are part of a national celebration of the humanities and we are proud to participate. We worked with colleagues across the School of Law and Social Sciences and with external speakers to produce a conference set against the worsening refugee crisis in Europe. You can read all about this and the first, very successful, event to celebrate eleven Inspiring Lawyers elsewhere in the magazine. When you are next in the Keyworth Centre, take time to look at the photographs and read about these lawyers or go onto the Law Division website and see the information wherever you are in the world. Be inspired!
It was a great honour to have a lecture by Dame Linda Dobbs, one of the Inspiring Lawyers, in February. There will be further coverage of this event in the next magazine. Keep an eye open for further events and do support them. You can learn a lot and they are great for networking! Law staff and students continue to contribute in the local community, both by our work in the legal advice clinic and Lambeth County Court, but also by working with local schools and colleges. The StreetLaw project continues to prosper and in the autumn, local Access students were invited to LSBU for two days of sessions to help them prepare for their Extended Project. They heard from staff and students from various parts of the University, but the event was led by the Law Division. Four members of staff spoke at the Association of Law Teachers conference in Newcastle. We are pleased to announce that a poster about this magazine won the Stan Marsh prize for best poster! The theme of the conference was collaboration and the poster was an excellent example of just that, as it was designed by Clare LarsenBurnett from Communications. Don’t forget about the Legal Walk through London on the evening of Monday, May 16th. The Law Division will be out in force raising funds for the Legal Advice centre and the Lambeth County Court Help Desk - we welcome all walkers (and all sponsors). Andy
The benefits of collaborating to produce a student magazine
How does the mag azine foster collabora tion?
•
•
•
The Student Law Socie ty at LSBU produces a student newsletter. Over the last five years , the Law Division and centr al University services have collaborated with the students to devel op this publication into a 24 page colour maga zine, The Devil’s Advocate, printed in glossy forma t in-house within the University and onlin e.
What are the bene fits for
Students work in a team as editors, writers and reporters. Staff and students work together (staff contr ibute articles and news items and help with editin g and production). The editorial team and University central servic es co-operate (digital traini ng, marketing and desig print services). n,
students?
Work with others and as part of a team. Develop interperson al skills: interviewing, negotiation, time management. • Develop and exercise academic skills (especially researching and writin g). • Research topics of their choice. • Work as part of a legal community . • Learn or encou nter new skills in desig n and production, or bring existing skills to bear in their new environment. • Develop confi dence. • Apply and demonstrate skills in practice. • Enhance empl oyability. •
•
What is in the mag azine?
Interviews with majo r figures: Baroness Hale, Lord Reed, Joshua Rozenberg, the President of the Law Society, the Chairman of the Bar Council. Articles on the law from staff and students. • Articles on international law and practice by overseas students and external contributors. • Interviews with staff and stude nts: past and present students, teaching staff, Dean. • Student Law Society news. • Reports on extra-curricular activi ties: mooting, Streetlaw, Legal Advic e Clinic. • Reports on Law Division events: Being Human conferences, Inspired by Law project. • Links with the South London Law Society. • Advice on study skills. • Ads for LSBU student servic Learning, Learning Resou es (Library, Skills for rce Centre).
The Devil’s Advocate
•
•
What are the bene fits for the Law Divi sion and the University? Pedagogical tool to reinfo rce skills and develop legal knowledge. Creating a community . • Increased student engagemen t. • Communica tion channel to and from the student body. • Marketing tool. • Creating and maintaining links with external legal community. •
•
•
Showcase for the Law Division: students, event s,
people.
www.issuu.com/daed itor1 Kim Silver silverk@lsbu.ac.uk
The Devils Advocate | 17
o t s e s t e a r u g o d r a P r
g t s o P
y d u t s
te a u e d a r em G he Sch t th lty i w ya Lo
As an LSBU graduate with a 2:1 or higher, you may be eligible for:
25%
discount on your postgraduate degree when you progress directly onto an LBSU postgraduate course in September 2016 or January 2017, plus an additional:
5%
early payment discount when you pay your fees in full at enrolment. We're a top 10 London university for postgraduate starting salaries* Become what you want to be
Applying is quick and easy from your LSBU email account.