The Eagle: Trinity College Law Gazette

INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Is Article 41.2 Beyond Repair? The Constitutional Provision Keeping Women in the Home (p. 8) Global Swarming: Bee Conservation Efforts in the United States and Ireland (p. 19) The Eagle: A Year in Review (p. 37)

Table of Contents Letter from the Editor by Samantha Tancredi (Page 3) Volume 7, Issue 5: Foreward by Incoming Editor in Chief, Matthew O’Shea (Page 5) Frontex and the Consequences of Expanding Remit of the European Union by Ted Halligan (Page 7) Is Article 41.2 Beyond Repair? The Constitutional Provision Keeping Women in the Home by Casey Meade Maloney (Page 8) Reflections on the Rivonia Trial: “If needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die” by Blake Stephens (Page 10) The Dual Pandemics: How a Gendered Response to Covid-19 exposes Systemic Barriers to Justice for Women by Beatrice Campbell (Page 12) Direct Democracy: Facilitating Discriminatory Policies in Switzerland by Doireann Minford (Page 15) A Revolving Door at the Top of Turkey’s Central Bank by Cillian Diskin (Page 17) Global Swarming: Bee Conservation Efforts in the United States and Ireland by Ellen Hyland and Samantha Tancredi (Page 19) A Mediation Should Never Occur Online - or Should It? COVID -19 has Forced a Rethink of Online by Luke Gibbons (Page 21) Charlie Flanagan Interview by Rory Anthoney-Hearn (Page 24) Intersectionality in Law: Colour-blindness, Western Feminism and the Marginalisation of Minorities in Legal Interpretation by Eoin Jackson and Lucy Lu (Page 28) The Rule of Law Deferred: Begum v Home Secretary by Dominic Bielby (Page 30) FLAC: A Year in Review by Chloe Dalton and Nadine Fitzpatrick (Page 34) TCD Law Society: A Year in Review (Page 36) The Eagle: A Year in Review by Olivia Moore (Page 37) Interview with Emma Sheehy and Paul McNamee, the Maples Group Associates: the Path to Becoming a Corporate Solicitor by Orla Murnaghan (Page 39)

Photo courtesy of Matthew O’Shea, JS Law and Business

Page 3

Letter

Letter from the Editor Some of my most vivid childhood memories lie in the times spent tucked in bed with my stuffed animals outlining my figure while my dad read various bedtime stories to my older brother, Daniel, and me. We started with Curious George and Winnie the Pooh, with dad putting on hilarious accents for each character and changing certain lines for our entertainment.

One day, we branched out to a new, more intense read – To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Nightly, we dove into the story of Atticus Finch, his children Scout and Jem, the accused Tom Robinson, and the elusive Boo Radley. Without spoiling the classic for any who have yet to read it, my dad wanted to teach Daniel and me the importance of respect, fighting for what is right, and justice. While young Samantha appreciated the one-liners by Scout that dad read in a comical voice, I have since reread the book several times, each one garnering new meanings and messages. To Kill a Mockingbird has a spirit of its own, which pushed my desire to pursue a legal education – to recognize social wrongs and fight to make them right. While it feels sinful to select a singular quote from an all-time favorite of mine, the message presented in the following phrase has really shaped my view of leadership: “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.” For my final “Letter From the Editor,” I want to reflect upon this quotation and its meanings.

What a powerful, timeless sentence. Whether this applies to a controversial trial as is seen in the novel or to simply having an unpopular opinion, one’s own morals are the ultimate deciders. To put everything on the line to pursue justice is an incredible thing; To defend what you think is right despite outside criticism and the potential associated downfalls; And to do right by oneself regardless of who stands beside you, which is certainly far more difficult than it seems. As we examine the contemporary political climate, I am inspired by my classmates and peers who are dedicated to abiding by their own moral compasses that do not always apply to majority views. You are willing to challenge the status quo and commit to fighting for what is right, giving a voice to previously voiceless victims of antiquated justice systems.

As a US citizen, I have witnessed my fair share of injustice sweep across our news channels, yet it also inspires protests and demands for change. Living in Ireland, I have felt unfortunate injustices of my own or have borne witness to them, with my friends and myself addressing these in whatever capacities we can. To me, this is what it means to be a leader – to stand up.

Sometimes this process is not graceful, but I think there is something overtly more special and powerful in trying to do right by others and oneself, and then having to apologize for the mechanism of doing so, than to sit silently in compliance. Atticus Finch taught me this at the tender age of eight, and I was lucky to have two parents dedicated to instilling this principle in my brothers and me throughout our childhoods.

Leadership is not always popular. To stand alone is a scary, daunting thing, yet it is also where the most monumental change has the potential to take place; if one chooses to do right by oneself, then he or she cannot go wrong. If instead he or she chooses to live for the satisfaction of the majority, then the opinions of others win, and societal pressure takes precedent over addressing the given “right versus wrong” debate. This academic year has been a difficult one for everyone, and I can speak to the personal chaos I have felt with different things going on outside of college, the pandemic, or work. No one can predict how overwhelming life becomes, let alone prepare you for the grit required in standing up for yourself. Yet, I find such comfort in remembering that even when we feel alone, for whatever reason it may be, if we let our conscience guide decision-making, not having a crowd behind you does not matter.

I feel blessed to have had a team supporting me as I guided The Eagle this year – I was not alone despite pursuing a different vision for this year’s publication. We were able to “print” issues that address injustices, we partnered with other Trinity societies to do the same, and we provided several mediums for students to voice their passions. Atticus Finch would be proud of each of you. I know that my leadership as being the Editor in Chief of The Eagle was uncommon with past years, and I demanded significant involvement, time, and engagement from all board members. However, with the utmost confidence I can say that it was worth all of the hard work—look at what has been done! My experience started as an uphill battle as I was an outsider to the gazette, and it took me a while to learn how things operated and how I wanted to lead the group.

With the benefit of hindsight, I am unbelievably grateful to the team who stood with me throughout this academic year. I am indebted to no end to each of you – Blake Stephens, Doireann Minford, Dylan Krug, Ellen Hyland, Emma Bowie, Eoin Gormley, Jacob Hudson, Kat Neumann, Lucy Mockler, Matthew O’Shea, Michael Archer, Muireann McHugh, Olivia Moore,

Letter

Page 4

Orla Murnaghan, Rory Hearn, Scott Murphy, and Zoe Timmons. I will brag about each of you until the end of time – thank you for your hard work and tenacity, even when I drove you crazy with messages or eagle puns. To Professor Neville Cox, thank you for your undying support and help; without you, I worry that I would have created “The Vulture.” Joking aside, your kindness and generosity throughout this academic year has saved me on multiple occasions, and I am so grateful for everything you have done for both the publication and for me.

I set out wanting to give The Eagle a new life, and I am both proud and humbled by the success reached—The Eagle has been redesigned, revamped, and re-envisioned, and I am excited to see where next year’s team takes it! Though I cannot determine my legacy in being involved with The Eagle, I am hopeful that this year is remembered by one that pushed the bounds, one committed to improving the gazette both inside and out, and one that took to heart not standing by the majority. I did not follow suit with last year’s team, nor the one before, but instead leapt into the deep end with new ideas. I hope that next year’s team pursues The Eagle with its own vision and departs from mine—to make The Eagle their own and transform it however they please. Just like the law, The Eagle should not be stagnant. Perspective is absolutely everything, a tenet entrenched in To Kill A Mockingbird, and I hope you find this last issue of The Eagle full of exciting, engaging, and inspiring perspectives as well.

Thank you for your readership and your support this year—I am humbled and honored by this experience, and leading The Eagle will forever mark my third year at Trinity.

Best regards, Samantha Tancredi Editor in Chief The Eagle: Trinity College Law Gazette

The Eagle staff strives to practice ethical journalism and to promote integrity in its work.

The editors and staff reserve the right to publish only those articles which they consider accurate and not injurious. All articles must meet these criteria in their inception and execution. The opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views of the entire staff, faculty, students, or administration of TCD.

Editor in Chief Samantha Tancredi Public Relations Officer Zoe Timmons

Copy Editor Olivia Moore

Editorial Board Blake Stephens, Doireann Minford, Dylan Krug, Ellen Hyland, Emma Bowie, Eoin Gormley, Jacob Hudson, Katharina Neumann, Lucy Mockler, Muireann McHugh, Matthew O’Shea, Michael Archer, Rory Hearn, Scott Murphy

Connect with Us: Facebook: The Eagle: Trinity College Law Gazette LinkedIn: The Eagle: Trinity College Law Gazette Instagram: tcdeagle Twitter: tcdeagle Website: https://eaglegazette.wordpress.com/

The Eagle wants to be inclusive of the entire Trinity College Dublin community, and we welcome submissions from students, faculty, and alums. If you would like to contribute, please contact us at our email. We do not guarantee that every article will be published. Every article sent is subject to be edited for content and size.

All of the opinions expressed are that of the author and not of The Eagle.

Design and Layout

by Samantha Tancredi Cover image by Matthew O’Shea

Page 5

Foreward

Volume 7, Issue 5: Foreward by Incoming Editor in Chief, Matthew O’Shea

By Matthew O’Shea, JS Law and Business “Great things are done by a series of small things put together” Vincent Van Gogh For me, this quote represents so much about how we live, work and learn. As we come to the end of a year spent entirely online, I feel it is important for us to reflect on what has been achieved through the putting together of these small things. When it is all put together, and we look at what we have achieved over the past year, I feel proud of what we, as a student community, have achieved.

One thing I admire about this quote is its versatility: what today seems like a monumental feat may in a year seem small. The scale of time we use is what determines the many small things that contribute to that one great thing. As students, it may at times have felt like a great task to keep on top of things, but through each lecture, we have made it through another year. It may have seemed like an enormous undertaking to release an additional issue of The Eagle, but we have released five this year. What is a big thing today may indeed seem small over time.

This is what I think Van Gogh meant when he said it - if we continually complete those tasks that seem small (or indeed seem big at the time), we can achieve something great.

For The Eagle, this quote holds particularly true. In the final issue of our seventh volume, it is inspiring to see how far we have come as a publication. From our relatively humble beginnings seven years ago, we have grown into an informative and inspiring outlet for students to express their ideas about the world around them. This perfectly exemplified by this year, where we have more than doubled the number of issues for a given volume to date. Through a series of smaller actions - from our regular blog posts to essay competitions and themed issues, it is clear that something great has been done. I am optimistic that in time, even these great feats will in turn, seem small when compared with The Eagle’s overall success.

To borrow an idea from Professor Neville Cox, 2020 (and the start of 2021) has, in a number of ways, been a tremendously successful year. It brought into the spotlight our ability to adapt and learn in unfamiliar territory, and to continue our pursuit of knowledge and progress in the face of unknown challenges. We are still doing the small things in pursuit of something great.

This year, The Eagle has given students from a wide range of backgrounds and disciplines the opportunity to learn from each other, and to better understand the world in which we live. The publication has shed light on real issues facing people around the world, and has done so in a manner that welcomes all views and perspectives. For me, a particular highlight has been each of our themed issues, exploring matters facing women in law as well as the environment and the law respectively, which each gave our authors a unique and engaging platform to express their views. These accomplishments were made possible through the repeated efforts and small actions of our writers and editors this year, and have accumulated into something greater than anyone could have predicted.

Foreward

Page 6

As I look ahead, for us as students and for The Eagle as a publication, I am filled with optimism. I am endlessly grateful to Samantha, Orla, Zoe and Olivia for guiding The Eagle this year, and for laying the foundations for something with such huge potential. I have learned so much from each of them. Without them, and their unrelenting commitment to doing the small things in the pursuit of something great, I know that The Eagle would not be what it is today. Next year, I am excited to join such a fantastic team to continue what they have begun, and to watch The Eagle soar into the future by putting the small things together.

Photo courtesy of Matthew O’Shea, JS Law and Business

Page 7

EU

Frontex and the Consequences of the Expanding Remit of the European Union

By Ted Halligan, JS Law and Political Science Frontex is the European Union’s Border and Coast Guard Agency, in charge of guarding the external borders of the EU’s internal border-free Schengen Area. It provides an interesting case study on the expansion of the EU’s powers and the consequences of this as it has recently received approval to have a standing force of border guards independent of member state governments. Its budget has grown substantially in the last ten years from €118 million spent in 2011 to a projected €543 million this year. Frontex has gradually grown into one of the EU’s largest agencies by funding size over the previous decade. With this expanding remit comes increased responsibilities; it is not yet clear the organisation is ready to shoulder them.

The precursor agency to Frontex was set up in 2005 and concisely named the “European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders”. Its original remit was to further cooperation between EU Member States in relation to the Schengen Area’s external borders. It also assisted Member States in the training of their border guards, carrying out research, and offering operational assistance. However, its role was extremely limited in its early years; its personnel seconded from other Member States’ border agencies with no standing force of its own.

The first major expansion of Frontex came during the European migrant crisis of 2015. The stress placed on national border agencies as a result of the arrival of tens of thousands of migrants led to European governments agreeing to a significant increase in the agency’s funding. In 2016, the organisation was renamed “Frontex: The European Border and Coast Guard Agency”. However, regardless of the agency’s expansion, the European response to the crisis was largely seen as inadequate. This can partially be attributed to Frontex not having the legal remit to operate independently, relying heavily on member states to provide personnel and equipment, and not having the mandate to carry out search and rescue missions.

Its remit was further broadened in 2019, providing it with a standing corps of border guards, the power to return migrants, and to set up satellite offices. This year, the organisation has begun to train its own standing force of border guards, some of which are armed, and has begun buying equipment directly instead of borrowing from EU member states. As part of this mandate, it can create a force of up to 10,000 border guards; this would give it more manpower than the Irish Defence Forces. Although it has gained power in recent years, it is important to note that the Frontex border guards will remain answerable to, and act under, the command of national border agencies.

However, there are several areas where Frontex has gained powers to act independently. It will be running the screening system for authorising the entrance of all non-EU citizens who wish to enter the Schengen Area. This system is called the European Travel Information and Authorisation System. It also runs the European Border Surveillance System, Eurosur, which uses drones, aircraft, and offshore sensors to track migrant flows into the EU. Frontex has further working arrangements with 18 non-EU countries to allow for increased cooperation and monitoring of migrant flows before they reach Europe. Frontex will also man the border between Spain and the British territory of Gibraltar, as the British government objected to the use of Spanish border guards in the Brexit

EU

Page 8

negotiations.

However, along with this increased remit and increasing bank balance, there has also been increased criticism of the agency coupled with several investigations. These investigations highlight how the agency may not yet be up to the task of defending Europe’s borders while also respecting fundamental rights.

The current executive director of Frontex, Fabrice Leggeri, is facing pressure to resign from the European Commission. The Commission claims that Leggeri has acted unlawfully misleading MEPs. MEPs have questioned him as to his failure to recruit 40 members of staff, so-known fundamental rights officers, who would make sure the agency protected fundamental rights; in doing so, he gave misleading evidence.

Frontex is also currently under investigation from the Office européen de lutte antifraude (OLAF) – (The European Anti-Fraud Office). OLAF is looking into allegations of harassment, misconduct, and unlawful migrant pushbacks. Although Frontex denies any malpractice, Der Spiegel has published reports alleging that Frontex was involved in operations along the Greek-Turkish border, which involved refugees and migrants being forced out of EU waters. This action is claimed to violate Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy. This has led to criticism from the EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson and led the Parliament to establish the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group, which has identified deficiencies in the monitoring and reporting systems. The internal working group also criticised the agency’s culture stating that changes “in which failure is acknowledged and addressed in order to create awareness of and sensitiveness towards possible misconduct” are needed. The internal working group also looked into 13 allegations of migrant pushbacks, including the aforementioned one on the Greek-Turkish border, but found no evidence of violations of fundamental rights. It is arguably not unreasonable to take this report with a grain of salt, given the current allegations against the executive director and conflicting media reports.

The expansion of Frontex’s mandate comes with great responsibility for the agency. The increased cooperation between Member States in border security is welcomed; however, Frontex must respect the fundamental rights of all people, particularly refugees. The allegations that the agency was involved in illegal migrant pushbacks are deeply concerning due to the vulnerable position of migrants. It is clear that as a result of failures in management and reporting that Frontex is currently not prepared to carry out such a delicate task. There is a need for increased external oversight, particularly as it will be commanding a large standing corps of its own in a few years. With the increase in the agency’s remit, the possibility of violating fundamental rights also increases along with the need for additional oversight.

Is Article 41.2 Beyond Repair?

The Constitutional Provision Keeping Women in the Home

By Casey Meade Maloney, JS Law Since its enactment in 1937, the Irish Constitution has undergone extensive change in attempts to reflect modern Irish society. Before such changes, elements of our Constitution have been described as sexist and outdated.

For example, before 1996, the Irish Constitution expressly forbade divorce, with a woman’s only options being a consensual separation agreement or judicial separation in very limited circumstances. Moreover, until 2018, the

Page 9

Ireland

emphasis on the right to life of the unborn prevented women from accessing adequate healthcare relating to the termination of pregnancy, even in cases where a woman’s life may have been in significant danger.

Through referenda and changing societal values, the Constitution has made significant progress in becoming a more welcoming, accommodating document for women living in Ireland. However, this is not to say that our work here is done, as sexist elements still remain. Of these remaining provisions, perhaps the most divisive are those concerning the woman’s place within the home. Article 41.2 states that: In particular, the State recognises that by her within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.The state, therefore, guarantees to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

On first reading, it is clear to see why this provision has proved so controversial. Though it does not directly state that the woman’s place is within the home or that the role of homemaker should be her priority, the language may be construed as inferring otherwise. In justifying the language, it has been said, for example, that it is “a product of its time”, reflecting the conservative Catholic culture of 1930s Ireland. However, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission writes that the Article was shrouded in controversy even at the time of its drafting, subject to significant debate both inside and outside the Dáil. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there have been calls for its removal from our Constitution ever since.

While there has been very little litigation surrounding it, cases which have been brought forward demonstrate that the provision has had no positive effect in protecting litigants. In fact, it has done quite the opposite.

In Dennehy v Minister for Social Welfare in 1983, as well as in Lowth v Minister for Social Welfare in 1998, the Article was used to justify gender discrimination against single fathers seeking deserted wives’ allowance, with the rationale of the Court referring to the differing percentages of men and women in the workforce. Moreover, in the 1992 decision of L v L, the Supreme Court illustrated that not even the best interests of the family home could be protected under the Article. Here, the claimant sought to establish a right for homemakers to have an interest in the family home. This argument failed, however, with the Supreme Court deferring the responsibility to create such a right to the legislature.

If the provision cannot be used to aid litigants, what exactly is it doing? One does not have to look far to find criticism. In a 2017 report by the Irish Human Rights Commission, it was held that the provision is a significant cause for the perpetuation of gender stereotypes in Irish society. Denham J has argued that this was not the Article’s intention, with its original purpose being to recognise the caregiving role within the home. Though such an aim would be an attractive starting point for reformation, the notion that it was the original aim is arguably unlikely, nor is it strictly supported by the above case law.

This was also the consensus of the Convention on Constitution in 2013, with 98 per cent of those in attendance supporting the replacement of the Article with a gender-neutral alternative. However, in February 2021, the Citizens’ Assembly on Article 41 was in agreement that the Constitution was in need of amending, but there was division on how it should be done. In backing a gender-neutral alternative, the National Collective of Community Based Women’s Networks (NCCWN) argue that such a replacement would have a significant impact on Irish attitudes towards caregivers. This would dismantle the current norm, where men are seen as incapable of taking on a full-time caring role within the home.

Some would take this to mean that the provision is not entirely redundant, and that the Constitution should be altered by way of amendment rather than abolition. Though simply repealing the clause is more straightforward,

Trial

Page 10

it may be dismissive on efforts made by the primary caregiver within a family. With a gender-neutral replacement, Denham J’s interpretation of Article 41.2 as a recognition of the role of the caregiver in the home is insightful.

With such a change, Article 41.2 would provide a blanket recognition regardless of gender, preventing misogynistic interpretations such as those we have seen before in Dennehy or Lowth. Therefore, it is possible to remove the offensive undertones of the provisions and simply alter it to recognise the efforts of all who provide a caring role within their family.

In conclusion, though it remains to be seen how Article 41.2 of our Constitution will be amended, there is considerable agreement that the provision consists of sexist, outdated language which no longer reflects contemporary Irish society. With no place in our current Constitution, we can hope to see a referendum in the near future.

Whatever change it brings, I suspect it will be very welcome.

Reflections on the Rivonia Trial: “If needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”

By Blake Stephens, SF Law and Political Science Quotation in title by Nelson Mandela, June 1964 Albertina Sisulu recalled how, on a damp day in June 1964, these concluding words of Mandela’s three-hour speech pleading his case, stunned the Palace of Justice in Pretoria, South Africa. At the time, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was cognisant that he and his fellow defendants stood on the precipice of unparalleled judicial change, with repercussions that would fundamentally transform many of the underlying principles of South African society. The case of State Versus N. Mandela and Others was, as instructing defence attorney Joelle Joffe described, “the trial that changed South Africa”.

Each of the eleven defendants was resolutely convinced of their ideals, despite facing serious charges which carried heavy penalties, including acquiring materials for the purpose of violent revolution. According to a former anthropology professor to many resistance leaders including Mandela, Professor ZK Matthews, “the whole of South Africa on trial”. The apartheid system, built on the concept of “separateness”, cruelly subjugated millions, including the defendants, to institutionalised and legislatively supported segregation. Black individuals within South Africa were subjected to limited and controlled movement only condoned with “passbooks”; separate and inferior schools which intentionally imparted little information or skills outside of manual labour; and specified resource deprived residences on poor quality land, far from city centres or places of work. For all the defendants, this unique intersection of a “black man in the white man’s court” was a singular chance to put the Apartheid system - and its inherent flaws and injustices - “in the dock”, even if this were to endanger their own lives, as Mandela himself stated. Similarly, the prosecution was equally determined to attain an outcome ratifying the legitimacy of the apartheid regime. For the state, this case represented an opportunity to demonstrate the sovereignty of the incumbent government.

The Rivonia trial was framed by the state as a “major breakthrough in [South Africa’s] fight against terrorism”, as it enabled the state to demonstrate that any threatened terrorism will never triumph over the status quo. This steadfast and public commitment to the apartheid regime was best demonstrated by Chief Prosecutor, Dr Percy

Page 11

Trial

Yutar. His notorious reputation as a “relentless opponent of the anti-apartheid struggle” - noted by Guardian commentator Gerald Shaw - was forged in his intimidating cross-examinations and the blatant refusal to accept that discrimination and violent prejudice existed under apartheid.

The Rivonia trial was a watershed moment for both apartheid loyalists and detractors. It was in this ground-breaking environment of political tension that Nelson Mandela declared that freedom, for all under subjugation, was an ideal for which he was willing to die. Mandela was acutely aware that his closing remarks needed to strike a balance between demonstrating an unrelenting resistance to apartheid and presenting himself as a sympathetic defendant to white citizens within South Africa and the international community. Chief defence advocate, Bram Fischer, urged Mandela to abandon the last sentence in his speech, “it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die”, fearing that the judge would recommend a death sentence. While Mandela refused Fischer’s advice, he added the qualifying statement “if needs be”.

The speech, like the trial, attracted divergent reactions. Nadine Gordimer, who had carefully crafted the closing speech with Mandela, considered his delivery evidence of Mandela’s restraint and hesitance, while others viewed the closing speech as the pinnacle of Mandela’s career. However, his final memorable line is revered universally.

Gordimer considered that “only at the end did the man come through”. Fellow defendant Denis Goldberg remarked that “[the line was delivered] not as a challenge in anger, but there was a hoarseness in [Mandela’s] voice.

[The statement] was not shouted but said with determination.” Furthermore, Goldberg recalls that when Mandela returned from the stand a collective sigh rose from the audience. In Goldberg’s view, although Mandela was unthreatening in his approach, he clearly implied, while never explicitly expressing, a challenge to the presiding judge, Quartus de Wet, “hang me if you dare”.

The world watched the highly-publicised legal interaction between the state and leaders of anti-apartheid groups within South Africa. For the first time, South Africans citizens were exposed to several leaders of influential resistance groups like Umkhonto we Sizwe, who operated covertly to avoid detection or capture. To many South Africans, Mandela and his fellow defendants appeared as enigmatic and foreboding characters who “spoke of blood and flame”. For others, the eleven defendants were icons and heroes of the community. Even the prosecution was acutely aware that if a death sentence were handed down for Mandela or the other defendants, they would be considered martyrs against apartheid.

Quartus de Wet, who was assuredly convinced by the prosecution’s evidence of wrongdoing, found eight of the eleven defendants guilty on all counts, but the burden of sentencing hung heavy on his conscience. He delicately balanced the outspoken criticisms of the death penalty with the inevitable backlash and recognised the necessity in handing down a sentence appropriate for the crimes. Ultimately, Mandela and the seven other defendants were convicted of sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment on the 12th of June 1964.

The trial of State Versus N. Mandela and Others served as a defining moment for South African history. Had the defendants been sentenced to the death penalty, tensions could have driven South Africa into escalating conflict with devastating results. Instead, the judiciary stood firm, considering the enormity of its decision, and pronounced judgment which, while controversial, was broadly accepted as the best outcome on balance.

The influence and importance of the judiciary’s role in South Africa was forever galvanised by this complicated decision which determined the path of a precarious South Africa in 1964. As the Rivonia Trial approaches its 60th anniversary, it continues to cast a legacy which cannot be underestimated.

Essay

Page 12

The Eagle - FLAC Essay Competition Winning Essay: The Dual Pandemics: How a Gendered Response to Covid-19 exposes Systemic Barriers to Justice for Women

By Beatrice Campbell, JS Law Editor’s Note: This article contains discussion of domestic violence and physical harm, which may be distressing for some readers.

The Imkaan Charity emphasised in its 2020 report that whilst no one is immune to Covid-19, structural gender inequality is reproducing, the pandemic exacerbating existing inequities.1 Herein lies the “dual pandemics”: public health and public interest. Women have been disproportionately negatively affected by the coronavirus pandemic across all spheres of their lives. Fundamental to this essay is the hypothesis that Covid-19 has exposed barriers to accessing justice for women as symptomatic of reproduced inequalities. Exploring the inadequacies of the Irish state civil legal aid system, symptom one addresses its statutory inaccessibility in employment tribunals. Symptom two, its financial inaccessibility for many victims of domestic violence. The Irish Government announced a review of the civil legal aid scheme, proposing reforms by September 2021. To inform this review, there is a striking lack of gendered discourse on the impact of Covid-19 in identifying systemic barriers to accessing justice. This essay attempts to supplement the latter lacuna in addressing major accessibility obstacles for women to civil justice, augmented by the pandemic but symptomatic of endemic gender disparity.

Symptom 1: Civil Legal Aid for Employment Tribunals and the “She-cession” Ireland’s state civil legal aid scheme is service deficient in excluding aid for those going before an employment tribunal. This essay identifies the disproportionate victim of that deficiency to be women, accentuated by the surge in female employment issues during the pandemic. The Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 confirmed sixteen restrictions on legal aid for civil cases. Legal representation for those facing welfare appeals or employment tribunals being entirely inaccessible. An amendment to the Bill providing legal aid in cases going before the Employment Appeals and Social Welfare tribunals were rescinded at the report stage. Today, civil legal aid remains unavailable for employment and anti-discrimination claims before the Workplace Relations Commission, regardless of circumstantial complexity or vulnerability. Using the exposure of gendered employment concerns during Covid, this essay examines two criticisms of legal aid’s inaccessibility in employment tribunals; the public interest being stymied by resource concerns and tangentially, the need for legal aid to prioritise family cases.

Page 13

Essay

Accessing State Civil Legal Aid: The Person versus the Pound Amidst oscillating discourse on the person versus the pound, the last thirty years has consistently seen marginalised people left without legal representation in complex employment cases. Senator Lee in the Seanad debate on the 1995 Act’s amendment argued for the public interest as independent of resource reallocations. He rejected the macrocosm of the financial implications of diverting legal aid to employment tribunals as against the microcosm of cases in which aid is needed.

The flaw in the Seanad’s rescission of the 1995 amendment arose from their failure to observe a gendered legislative approach. Both historically and contemporarily, women face disproportionate difficulties in the workplace. The widening gender pay gap, growing number of women working alongside care-giving responsibilities and no legal aid for employment tribunals are inescapably linked. The Equality and Human Rights Commission recognised the latter in their analysis of the UK LAPSO Act which removed all employment cases from civil legal aid’s scope, except those involving discrimination and victims of trafficking and slavery. Crucially, the 2016 report endorsed the adverse connection between the service aperture for employment tribunals and women lacking legal representation. This connection existed pre-Covid. This essay calls for a holistic review of the relationship between legal aid’s exclusion for employment tribunals and its disproportionate impact for women in Ireland. One predicts that the Irish Government’s September 2021 review of state civil legal aid is likely to come to similar, albeit amplified, conclusions.

The 2021 Irish review will examine austerity as exacerbating pre-existing inequalities. The pandemic has facilitated an aggravated version of the asymmetry between resources and service deficits. FLAC outlined that legal assistance in employment issues is crucial during times of economic distress. Covid’s global economic fallout is identified as having a regressive impact on gender equality. Dang and Nguyen’s 2020 study on Gender Equality during the pandemic found women to be 24 per cent more likely to permanently lose their jobs than men during the pandemic. Whilst representing only 39 per cent of global employment, women suffer 54 per cent of job losses.

The efflux in women’s employment issues in Ireland during Covid is demonstrative of fundamental gender inequalities in the workplace. The PwC Women in Work Index reported a concerning rise in pay disparity between men and women to 7.5 per cent in 2018. The pandemic has augmented this symptom of inequity in Ireland, the gap widening beyond 14 per cent. Furthermore, the Financial Times’s research observed an intensified negative bias to - wards females in positions of power in the workplace during austerity. The gender segregation of Ireland’s labour market also leaves women overrepresented in jobs at the nucleus of Covid’s economic impact, in sectors such as retail and hospitality. The US coined the “she-cession”, with the unemployment rate 1.1 per cent higher for women than men in July 2020. Likewise in Ireland, female unemployment increased by 1.4 per cent while the male equivalent, only 0.7 pe rcent. As obstacles to female employment rise during the pandemic, so too do the calls for women to have access to civil legal aid in employment tribunals.

Accessing State Civil Legal Aid: Against Dissociating Employment and Family Law The 1995 Seanad debate on the amendment to the Civil Legal Aid Act propounded that 95 per cent of the Legal Aid Board’s resources are directed to family cases. Crucial to this essay is Senator McGuiness’s dissent, highlighting the nexus between employment and family law, “cases before the Employment Appeals Tribunals...are the most vital family law cases.” The intimate relationship between employment and family has intensified to the point of amalgamation for many women during the pandemic. Pre-Covid, a study by Beghini et al found the burden of unpaid caregiving responsibilities actively impedes employment opportunities for women. This essay identifies the contemporary challenge raised for women working from home, often caring for children and home-schooling as significantly increasing the need for accessible representation for uniquely female employment issues.

The right to “disconnect” will likely be subject to dense review as female employees continue to work from home. The complexity in balancing work and home life is not revolutionary but has escalated during the pan-

Essay

Page 14

demic, inevitably infiltrating female employment status. Joeli Brearly from, Pregnant Then Screwed, illuminated the pregnant woman’s renewed fear for job safety during Covid. Campaigners predict job losses will begin with pregnant women.19 The pandemic spotlighting the striking connection between a woman’s employment and her family, the legislature can no longer hide behind archaic dissociations of the family unit from the income that supports it. State civil legal aid for employment tribunals must be provided to acknowledge the co-dependent, now often homogenous, relationship between family and employment law for women.

Symptom 2: Means Testing Victims of Domestic Abuse for Civil Legal Aid In 2019, Women’s Aid identified women in Ireland to be twice as likely to experience severe physical abuse than men and seven times more likely to suffer sexual abuse. Domestic abuse is indiscriminate but it is certainly gender preferential. There has been a global domes tic violence surge during the pandemic. The Gardaí and Women’s Aid helplines recorded a significant increase in calls concerning domestic abuse. The stark figures are not unique to Ireland. Strikingly, fourteen women were killed in the UK during the first twenty-one days of lockdown. Domestic violence was thus magnified by UN Women as the “shadow pandemic”.

The Irish Government’s reaction to the statistical surge has been praised for promoting resources to ameliorate the pandemic’s effect. Alongside public awareness campaigns and increased funding, a Legal Aid Board helpline was created and promises made to prioritise legal aid in domestic violence cases. Despite leading organisations embracing the resources, their inadequacy to address the fundamental inaccessibility of legal services for domestic abuse victims is palpable. Prioritising legal aid for victims is the subsidiary fix to the parent problem. Beyond the Covid vacuum, the issue is the provision of legal aid itself rather than its prioritisation. Access to legal aid is an unparalleled lifeline for domestic abuse victims, empowered by the information and control facilitated by representation. This essay echoes the UK Law Society’s calls for non-means tested legal aid for domestic abuse victims.

Accessing State Civil Legal Aid: The Draconian Means Test Two criticisms of means-testing domestic abuse victims for legal aid are forwarded. Firstly, the outdated financial eligibility requirements. FLAC’s pre-Covid review of Irish civil legal aid observed the stagnant financial requirements since 2008. By ignoring variables such as Consumer Price Index, inflation and the average industrial wage, potential litigants are excluded from legal aid’s scope. FLAC tritely held that the Irish courts are accessible only to “paupers and millionaires”. The 2018 promise of a review by the Department of Justice and Equality on the means test is yet to be manifested. Amidst exponential growth in the number of women affected by domestic violence during the pandemic who are neither millionaires nor paupers, the draconian means test renders civil legal aid inaccessible by financial exclusivity.

Accessing State Civil Legal Aid: ‘Means’ as a Vehicle for Female Abuse Pecuniary control is endemic to domestic abuse. Women’s Aid identified 198,000 Irish women financially abused by their partner in 2019. 77 percent of domestic abuse victims citing economic dependence as their obstacle to safety. This paper submits that means testing victims, financial status being a primary vehicle for domestic abuse, perpetuates the injustice. The tactless connection between financial means and access to civil legal aid for domestic abuse victims was observed in the English High Court in November 2020; victims will not be denied legal aid due to “trapped capital” in the home. Propelled by the pandemic, the English courts were awakened to the economic barriers to justice faced by domestic abuse victims. However, the English Court failed to endorse the Law Society’s Report, affirming non means testing domestic abuse victims for legal aid as crucial to resolving systemically inaccessible courts for victims. More progressively in Northern Ireland, MLAs supported an amendment to the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill in late 2020, enabling the discretionary waiving of financial eligibility requirements in private family cases where the applicant has been the victim of domestic abuse. Therein lies a positive step towards viewing financial barriers to accessing legal aid for domestic abuse victims as idiosyncratic to gender neutral barriers.

Page 15

Essay

Ireland falls behind its counterparts. The 2017 amendment to the Domestic Violence Bill waived the fee for legal advice/aid for survivors. The Bill was promoted as empowering victims and, “removing the scourge of domestic violence in our community”. This essay observes the amendment as a paper promise, facilitating Ireland’s ratification of the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combatting violence against women and quelling criticisms of Ireland’s legal aid services for domestic abuse victims from the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Bill supplemented one shortfall but neglected the most destructive deficit. Amidst Covid guidance to ‘stay home to save lives’, 15 per cent of women in Ireland have been trapped at the nucleus of severe violence from their partner. The Irish 35 Government’s 2021 report must recognise means testing domestic abuse victims as endemically obstructing women’s access to justice. Their inertia is more dangerous than ever.

Conclusion The UN Covid-19 response globally echoed, “We are all in this together.” This essay examined the latter hypothesis, recognising the pandemic as an indiscriminate disease with a discriminant impact on women’s access to justice. Covid has aggravated the gender imbalance. The impact of excluding legal aid in employment tribunals has been amplified by the wave of female employment issues in Covid-19. The disproportionate impact on women’s access to justice is further demonstrated in the obsolete means testing of domestic violence victims for civil legal aid. The Irish Government has failed to observe these barriers during Covid as systemic rather than emergent.

Such a failure will bring the “shadow pandemic” to an apex and controvert the pandemic’s global mantra; we are, in fact, not all in this together.

Direct Democracy: Facilitating Discriminatory Policies in Switzerland

By Doireann Minford, JS Law and Political Science Direct democracy is commonly referred to as the “purest form of democracy” by many political commentators.

It typically denotes direct participation of citizens in democratic decision-making, usually through referendums and citizens assemblies. In Switzerland, men, as citizens, were granted universal suffrage in 1848 to vote up to four times a year on both local and national issues.

There are three pillars of Swiss direct democracy. Mandatory referendums require a double majority to amend the constitution. Popular initiatives can be launched by any seven citizens and, after receiving 100,000 signatures in under 18 months, can establish a referendum to amend the constitution. The Swiss Federal council and Parliament can recommend their view on whether a proposal should be accepted or not. Finally, optional referendums allow citizens to oppose laws voted in by the federal parliament and other cantonal and municipal decrees.

A modern government must cater to the modern era, yet the Swiss system simply is not equipped to protect the interests of minorities and women. As James Madison said in his Tenth Federalist Paper, policies are not based on principles of justice, but on “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority”. In the past, the system has been used to suppress women, and most recently, it has acted as a tool through which Islamophobia has been legitimised by discriminatory legislation.

Democracy

Page 16

In Switzerland, education for all was pursued with a feverish pace from 1830, yet universal suffrage was not. Despite increasing levels of literacy for women, they were still presumed to be incompetent in terms of country-wide decision making. Post-World War I, several referenda were held on the issue, both at cantonal and municipal levels. However, all failed to pass. All men had a vote to liberate women, but they chose to hold onto their power, subjugating half the population. This did not change until just fifty years ago. Although suffrage for all citizens was a step in the right direction in Switzerland, it is not the be-all and end-all to inequality.

Fifty years on, women continue to be underrepresented in the Swiss labour market, due to a scarcity of childcare options. The canton Appenzell Innerrhoden did not allow women to vote in local elections until the Supreme Court recommended the administration to do so in 1990. While the 2019 Swiss Elections were known as the “women’s” elections, as more women than ever were elected to the two houses of parliament, direct democracy continues to allow some to climb to the top and pull the ladder up behind them.

Long after women have received the right to vote, the issue of citizenship still plagues modern direct democracy. Swiss citizenship is notoriously difficult to acquire under direct democracy. One must be resident for 12 years to apply for naturalisation, and then wait 3-5 years for the final decision as to whether or not they can be naturalised.

Language skills, financial status, as well as the level of integration are all considered in deciding to confer citizenship. In the reformed system under a representative democracy, candidates were, shockingly, 60 per cent more likely to be naturalised. The low level of government within the Swiss system has allowed such discrimination to continue unchecked until systematic reform began.

Political systems and legislation, no matter how legitimate, can still be discriminatory. Evidence shows that citizenship is a catalyst to the social integration of immigrants. This integration is hindered under direct democracy.

When a citizen has the right to bring forward proposals, especially considering the increasingly (apparent) farright politics in Europe, it is not surprising that blatantly discriminatory laws will pass. In 2004, the constitution was amended so that violent criminals would be imprisoned for life, a backward step for criminal justice reform in Switzerland. While critics argue that Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is enshrined in Switzerland, the 2004 law is clearly difficult to reconcile with Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to regular judicial review, which troubles Switzerland’s place in the international protection of rights.

A further example of how Switzerland’s direct democracy has produced discriminatory effects is the banning of minarets by popular initiative in 2009. A ban was sought on the construction of the tower that is usually built-in, or adjacent to, mosques. While the Swiss government opposed this ban and recommended that citizens reject it, the initiative passed by 57.5 per cent of votes. The United Nations and governments across the world condemned the ban, which remains in effect today. It is worth noting that no such ban has ever been proposed or imposed on Christian Church steeples.

Discriminatory laws can be proposed much more easily, and issues inflame more quickly through the power of popular initiative. The Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a conservative, Christian, right-wing party, is both the best-organised and best-funded party in the country currently. Following the minaret ban, there has been a move to further restrict religious freedoms in banning religious face coverings in public - a proposal which the SVP put forward. Despite only 5 per cent of the Swiss population being Muslim, the SVP use fear-mongering slogans such as “Stop Extremism” to further their far-right agenda. A study by the University of Lucerne found that virtually no women wear burqas, and only about thirty women wear the niqab in the entire country. Islamophobia is being normalised within the political sphere. Women, now specifically Muslim women, bear the brunt of this flawed system. The power of the many has amplified the voices of the few.

Page 17

Turkey

It cannot be denied that the current system in Switzerland has for many years facilitated discriminatory laws against women and minorities. As long as the definition of “citizen” remains so narrow, and difficulty continues to allow minorities to bring forward citizens’ popular initiatives, underrepresented groups will have no place in a state built upon the pillars of direct democracy.

A Revolving Door at the Top of Turkey’s Central Bank

By Cillian Diskin, JS Law and Business On 20th March 2021, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ousted Naci Agbal as Governor of the Central Bank. Agbal had taken a far more hawkish approach to monetary policy than had been associated with Erdogan’s regime in the past, hiking interest rates to 19 per cent in a bid to slow down inflation. This marks the fourth head of the Central Bank to be removed since Erdogan took office in 2014 - a trend that can potentially be attributed to the President’s consolidation of power over Turkey’s institutions and his unorthodox approach to monetary policy. He has become notorious for his belief that high interest rates cause inflation rather than stifle it, contrary to popular economic theory.

In November 2020, the Turkish lira was in a freefall, a trend which had been in motion since the 2008 financial crisis. The country was in its second currency crisis in the two years since Berat Albayrak, Erdogan’s son-inlaw, had been appointed Minister for Finance. Albayrak bowed to his father-in-law’s idea of interest rates being “the mother of all evil” and burned through approximately $100 billion chasing economic growth through an easy-money policy (giving investors and businesses inexpensive access to capital). He had also garnered some animosity by refusing to meet with senior business executives and curbing flows from foreign investors into the Turkish markets.

Some hope was restored when Albayrak announced his resignation on 8th November 2021 and Lufti Elvan was appointed his successor, promising a more market-friendly approach. Along with Elvan came Agbal as the new Governor of the Central Bank. While sceptics recognised that there still existed the real possibility that the new regime would remain somewhat powerless under Erdogan, the markets reacted positively to the change. This positivity continued through the last four months, with the lira rallying 18 per cent against the dollar. While inflation remained in the double-digits despite interest rates reaching 19 per cent, the consensus was that results would materialise in the coming years - and in the meantime, some credibility had been restored to the Central Bank.

On 20th March 2021, the President issued two Saturday-morning decrees. The first fired Agbal as Central Bank Governor, and the second withdrew Turkey from the 2011 Istanbul Convention on the preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Agbal’s dismissal triggered a sell-off of Turkish assets, with the lira falling 14 per cent. Deutsche Bank also estimated foreigners to have dumped between $750 million and $1 billion in Turkish equities and between $500 and $750 million in local bonds. In the past, some commentators, such as the Interpreter, have pointed out the concerning reference Erdogan has made in speeches to an “interest rate lobby”.

Erdogan’s political and ideological mentor, Necmettin Erbakan, a former prime minister, saw this “interest rate lobby” as part of a deeply anti-semitic worldview. He thought that zionists controlled all governments through their institutions, and controlled their economies by driving them into economic crisis and then lending to governments at exorbitant rates. In 2013, Erdogan blamed the protests in Gezi Park on this “lobby”, seemingly hinting at a darker conspiracy. However, the likely reason for the move in March was simply that Erdogan was becoming

Turkey

Page 18

increasingly unhappy with rising rates, and saw no change in the rate of inflation to contradict his own beliefs.

Supporting this likelihood is his choice of successor, Sahap Kavcioglu, an academic and newspaper columnist who has expressed his support for the theory that high interest rates drive inflation. While he has indicated that he does not intend to upend the work of his predecessor immediately, it is fully expected that pressure from the President will result in a more dovish approach sooner rather than later. Goldman Sachs remarked that “the latest personnel shifts at the [Central Bank] have increased both our and investors’ concerns of a premature cutting cycle and less orthodox monetary policy in Turkey.” The bank’s analysts are predicting a further fall in the lira of 15 per cent over the next year.

The economic controversy is arguably far less significant than the decision to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, of which Turkey was the first signatory a decade ago. With little explanation, Erdogan lifted protections for women in a country in which at least three of whom are murdered every day, according to activist Berrin Sonmez, who can only estimate given that the government stopped releasing data on gender-based murders in 2009. It is difficult to discern the exact strategy being taken by the autocratic leader. Erdogan is struggling to regain political control of Istanbul and Turkey’s two major cities, but is seemingly pandering to his Islamic and ultra-nationalist base, who opposed the Convention on the basis that it damaged family unity. The repudiation of the Convention is likely to alienate much of the electorate, with thousands of women having already taken to the streets in protest.

Furthermore, the move is also in direct conflict with Erdogan’s own promises of a major human rights rehaul as Turkey seeks to get its EU accession back on track. The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, acknowledged in a recent report that Turkey has “shown a calmer, more constructive attitude on various issues”, but recognised that this process of de-escalation remains fragile.

Fiscally and socially speaking, Turkey is crying out for stability and leadership. Erdogan’s consolidation of power has resulted in the position of Central Bank Governor becoming the proverbial ‘Professor for Defence Against the Dark Arts’. Anyone who takes the position is subject to pressure to conform to Erdogan’s mistrust of interest rates, which can only suggest the Turkish lira will continue to weaken along with the national equity and debt markets. Coinciding with this is a confused approach to human rights issues, appealing to a certain conversative subset of voters, likely harming Turkey’s hopes of EU accession as well as Erdogan’s next re-election campaign. Turkey has been in internal conflict with Kurdish insurgents for the last four decades, has seen a horrific surge in violence against women in the last twenty years, and its currency has been in decline since the financial crisis. Voters should demand stronger leadership from Erdogan if the country is to see an economic and social recovery.

Page 19

Environment

Global Swarming: Bee Conservation Efforts in the United States and Ireland

By Ellen Hyland, JS Law and Political Science and Samantha Tancredi, JS Law and Political Science In the Bee-ginning Though often unnoticed, bees have many lessons to teach us. They work together, doing what is good for the hive instead of the individual bee. It is not just the hive that benefits; bees are a vital part of the world’s ecosystem as they are responsible for pollinating 70 per cent of the top human food crops according to Greenpeace. In return, through urbanisation, intensive farming practices, and pesticide usage, humanity has taken away much of the wild growth that bees need to pollinate. As a result, an estimated 25 per cent of bee species observed in 2006 were gone by 2015.

Though these statistics may sting, they are worsened when examining the history of bee migration; the bees themselves reflect our increasingly connected world yet themselves are victims of globalization. The very bees that pollinate crops in the US are in fact foreigners. While there are an estimated 25,000 various bee species, the European bees entered the Americas in the 17th century with colonization, and the insects’ ability to be domesticated allowed for beekeeping and the growth of their populations. These invisible hard workers remain behind the scenes yet account for the world’s food production; this makes their increasing death toll a necessary evil to address - one with massive consequences for all living organisms.

With countries relying on the import and export of goods and crops significantly influenced by pollinators, many have responded by formulating breeding programs with huge hives, which paradoxically, only exacerbated the issue. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “We are creating the ideal conditions in the man-made hives that promote pests, chemical contamination and other factors. This is the irony and [it is] not just confined to bees — one thinks of natural forests versus plantations and monoculture crops.”

These pesticides are the perfect lethal cocktail with globally catastrophic potential. Thus, we want to highlight our two corners of the world that have taken action and made proposals for the sake of protecting the bees. The law may actually act as the only viable chance bees have to be saved in the long term.

What’s the Buzz: United States The United States has made significant effort to save the bees, but just as conversations of global warming dictate, time is running out—we cannot simply rely on bee populations to always exist when we are harming their very being. While there are particularly famous hives across the US, such as the ones atop the White House and the Colorado Convention Center, there are over 2.98 million registered honeybee colonies according to the US Department of Agriculture. Many cities have taken to action and contributed to this growing hive count through the provision of rooftop gardens; buildings in places such as Chicago and New York provide rooftop spaces for pollinators to land and grow safely. However, there is concern over the viability of this plan, and it is surely difficult to guarantee any success if pesticides are not outlawed.

However, there are ways that policy helps. For example, in 2014, the Obama administration pushed for a

Environment

Page 20

federal strategy to promote the health of honeybees and other pollinators. The presidential memorandum itself called for funding to be specifically allocated to furthering research on bee populations, as well as to instate pollinator-and-agriculture education programs in schools and universities. The final prong of the plan was to create a task force that would act between the public and private divide and encourage bee-friendly workspaces and architecture, as well as provide funding and mechanisms to improve pollinator habitats.

Despite the progress made through this memorandum, the issue is persistent, and in 2019 US lawmakers reviewed alternate policies to consider in the Save America’s Pollinators Act, introduced by Representatives Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan in 2013. The bill has been supported by researchers and scientists and was referred to the Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research. Though it has not been officially passed in Congress, its contents are still worth discussing.

The Save America’s Pollinators Act was introduced to address colony collapse disorder, the massive decline of honeybees referenced in our introduction. In saving the bees, the bill calls for a combination of environmental, political and legal action through a joint initiative by the US Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior to monitor the bee species. In addition, it proposes changes to the EPA’s pesticide review process by providing a board of beekeepers, farmers, and scientists with the power to review research. Most legal remedies to saving the bees take aim at pesticides; however, although the bill’s intention is to protect the honeybee, other pollinators may react quite differently to new measures. The inter-webbed nature of the environment is difficult to monitor using the law given the rampant repercussions, but with the proper research, it is worth a try.

The EPA has also been involved in protecting the bees, having recently published new measures to safeguard pollinators from pesticide exposure. In 2017, they introduced a policy that protects bees from agricultural pesticide spray and dust applications while the bees are under contract to provide pollination services. Additionally, it stipulates that states should develop pollinator protection plans and best management practices.

Ultimately, the mission to save the bees does not end at US borders. With the collectivization of global research and health data on bees, there is opportunity to create better policy initiatives. The effects of doing so successfully has bearing on the environment as a whole, and in this regard, saving the bees must be viewed as an international effort.

What’s the Buzz: Ireland In 2015, Dr Úna Fitzpatrick of the National Biodiversity Data Centre, and Trinity Botany Professor Jane Stout launched the first All-Ireland Pollinator Plan (AIPP), aimed at reducing the risk of extinction of one-third of the 98 bee species native to the island of Ireland. The plan was innovative in its approach; it identified 81 science-based actions that would help with conservation and then spread these actions among government, business, and other organisations such as schools and sports clubs in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. In their final review last year, they achieved 84 per cent of their goals, with a further 14 per cent underway. Due to their success, another plan was launched this year with even more ambitious aims and more organisations willing to take part.

Perhaps the most intriguing part about their plan is their collective approach. Much like the bees they want to save, they recognise that a myriad of small actions from different groups is more effective than working alone.

The AIPP’s success has not gone unrecognised outside of Ireland, as NatureScot, for example, reference the AIPP in their Pollinator Strategy for Scotland. It has also attracted the attention of the European Commission, where its work was acknowledged in preparation for the EU Pollinators Initiative. This initiative will set long-term objectives for Member States regarding increased awareness of pollinator decline, along with tackling its causes.

The AIPP’s contribution to conservation efforts for bees is therefore admirable, as it has not only encouraged an

Page 21

Environment

approach that cuts across all sectors in society, but also encourages a non-partisan conversation, illustrated by its all-island method and its effect on domestic and international endeavours abroad. This is exactly what is needed from environmentalism; it should not be a question of who or what inspires the change, but when and how it is implemented.

In spite of this, it would be interesting to see what kind of legislation the Dáil may promote should they want to solidify the ongoing conservation efforts. The Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000, which amended the 1976 Act of the same name, seeks to conserve “wildlife… and for that purpose to protect certain wild creatures and flora.”

Section 11(2)(b) of the Act allows the Minister to get involved in the management or supervision of any land that is “desirable in the interests of wildlife,” subject to an agreement with the owner of the land. An act for bees and other pollinators may benefit from such a provision, as it would allow for the government to better maintain wild growth, while also acknowledging the help needed from land owners. While this is merely one area in which the government may intervene, it would allow for more formal mechanisms to be put in place in order to contribute to the continuing work by organisations such as the AIPP, and would recognise that pollinators are vital to the preservation of Ireland’s biodiversity and environment.

Even in the absence of legislation, Irish institutions have made a valiant effort to protect bees and other pollinators through science-based, community action. Perhaps their biggest success, however, has been the inspiration they have provided to those off the island, and the hope that they give for future generations to blossom.

“Bee” End Henry David Thoreau wrote, “The keeping of bees is like the direction of sunlight.” As trite as this phrasing may seem, there is tremendous significance to this statement. If we have bees, we have life - the same principle of course applying to the sun. Though legal and political tools are not ultimate healers, we must use them to protect the vulnerable species around us. Given the impact bees have on the global markets and our everyday, this is a fight that impacts every single human being across the world. Ultimately, both the US and Ireland show signs of promise that the bees are no longer invisible and may actually find themselves at the forefront of our laws quite soon.

A Mediation Should Never Occur Online - or Should It? COVID -19 has Forced a Rethink of Online Mediation

By Luke Gibbons, Contributing Writer, BCL Candidate at the University of Oxford “Never Say Never” Given the rapid expansion of the internet, and as COVID-19 has spread, it is no surprise that interest in online mediation (“OM”) has increased. While supporters of traditional mediation argue that OM is ineffective and should never occur as it is devoid of the essential aspects of physical presence, others profess that OM embodies distinct advantages in terms of cost and accessibility. Although traditionalists and the progressives make valid points, it is this article’s contention that the analysis of whether face-to-face contact is crucial for mediation and whether mediation should ever be conducted online is far more nuanced than this dichotomy. As generally ac-

Covid-19

Page 22

cepted, there is no the mediation that can be applied as a model to every dispute. Thus, it is argued that whether OM should be conducted will ultimately be circumstance specific.

What is Online Mediation ?

While algorithmic programs exist to assist in disputes, this is not the focus of this article. The mode of OM herein adopted is that of traditional neutral third party mediation conducted online. What is meant by this is that a mediation will occur as normal between parties with a mediator acting as a neutral third party, but instead of each party being at the physical table, technology such as video conferencing (i.e. Zoom) and instant messaging will be used to mediate the parties dispute.

Why and When Online Mediation is Appropriate Under Two Frames – The Communicative Frame – Negatives Much information is derived from non-verbal communication in the form of body language in that this is often a more powerful depiction of someone’s position than what is said. However, much is lost in the form of non-verbal cues when OM is employed. In this regard, many contend that OM is no substitute for the ability of face to face conversations. It is true that the physical distance created by OM may lead to more miscommunications in that positive body language can alter the “frequency” with which a message is received. Further, positive, open body language may assist the building of trust and make parties more receptive and arguably less susceptible to reactive devaluation of a counterpart’s offer. Moreover, if text is used in place of video conferencing for certain messages, the loss of variability of tone can have the same effect insofar as the sender sends the message on one frequency that is interpreted differently by the receiver. Specifically, in emotionally-fuelled conflicts, this may be so egregious that communication breaks down to the effect that the conflict escalates - and ultimately, impasse occurs.

Moreover, the benefits of small talk at the commencement of mediation are well documented as building rapport between the parties from the outset. While this element is not always missing in OM, it is evidently more strained and may feel awkward. Furthermore, while the text medium of OM can assist communication in that such is often more pointed at the issues and parties tend to not interrupt each other, as video technology has become more prevalent, the lack of physical cues as to noticing when someone is ready to speak can lead to interruptions which may not occur in person. This can not only waste time but can also lead to raised voices and conflict. However, this is where a mediator must ground some process principles insofar as clarifying that, for instance, the hand function should be used if the mediation is facilitated over Zoom. While this may stifle organic group discussion and thus creativity to a certain extent, it is argued that in contrast to assertions that OM may make it more difficult for a mediator to control the mediation, technology has now developed innovative ways around this, such as the facilitative powers a “host” has on Zoom.

The Communicative Frame – Positives While from these points one may be forgiven in contending that OM should never occur, it provides communicative benefits, desirable as a case so requires. Body language, for one, is not always helpful, in that it may lead to polarisation and distraction from interests. Furthermore, in relationships where an imbalanced power dynamic is evident, for example during an employee harassment claim, the lack of physical presence in a room with said person exhibiting dominant body language may lead to more open communication from the weaker party and thus facilitates a more balanced dispute settlement. This greater equality arguably occurs for many reasons for example, in OM, each party is reduced to the same square on a screen and thus a structural form of equality is at least induced. Furthermore, the mediums of communication present in OM can assist weaker parties in feeling more comfortable to express their views through live text rather than in front of a party they fear. This can be compounded by the fact parties often feel more comfortable in their homes, rather than in a formal venue.

Page 23

Covid-19

More generally, the fact that OM can efficiently combine video conferencing and live text can lead to less reactionary and aggressive responses and thus, on this ground at least, lessens the potential for conflict escalation.

Many frame the inability to effectively communicate emotions in OM as a negative in that affiliation for example may be harder to build between the parties. Conversely, the inability to readily communicate emotions, if they are negative, may allow for more focused and constructive discussion on key issues. This can be assisted by innovative visual tools that OM allows such as mind maps of each parties’ interests. While this may be very different from traditional face-to-face mediation, it is not necessarily worse, and may be beneficial in certain contexts not limited to the examples as outline above.

The Practical Economic Frame – The Accessibility/Inaccessibility of Online Mediation One positive of OM is that from a practical perspective, it is more cost-effective and convenient than traditional mediation to participants. This may be accurate for cross-border low-value disputes, such as business-to-consumer, in which the value of the dispute would not merit the travel expense. Furthermore, many authors have outlined that complex jurisdictional issues of cross-border disputes can be alleviated by OM. While in this regard it is agreed that OM increases the accessibility to principled dispute settlement and should be pursued, it is argued that in contrast to perpetuating equality in imbalanced power dynamics as above noted, inequality can also be compounded here. While younger generations are comfortable with technology, older people may feel extremely alienated if mediation occurred wholly online. This may lead to a lack of participation and unfair results.

Furthermore, with regards to cross-border disputes, OM may perpetuate further inequalities as some nations may not have the adequate internet infrastructure to partake effectively. This is something that has been highlighted during the pandemic with the move to online teaching, with students in the global south – and certain areas of the global north - having connectivity issues. Nevertheless, for individuals with physical disabilities, OM may create a more equal environment when considering that physical spaces are not often conducive to those who suffer from disabilities. By being able to participate from home, OM may make mediations accessible to those who otherwise may be hesitant to engage in such a process. In this sense, OM once again breaks down the “physical barrier” placed around traditional mediation as discussed by digital justice scholars Einy and Katsch.

Never Say Never …..BUT!’ This article has outlined that there are broad positives and negatives to OM under two selected frameworks.

In so doing, the article has mentioned situations which may and may not benefit from OM and thus the definitive never arguments against OM have been refuted. However, while these broad assertions can be made, it is prudent to stress that as party autonomy is a key principle of mediation, OM should only be conducted when all parties agree to it. An OM should never occur when parties are not in unanimous agreement on this forum. A mediator should suggest the possibility of OM for parties in cognisance of the above positives and negatives. Ultimately, the best process will be tailored to their needs - which may be a wholly in-person mediation, a wholly online mediation, or a combination of both - as a case so requires.

Interview

Page 24

Charlie Flanagan Interview

By Rory Anthoney-Hearn, SS Law TD Charlie Flanagan (Fine Gael) has served as one of Ireland’s most seasoned statesmen, his political career spanning in excess of 30 years since his election to the Dáil in 1987. To list but some of his most notable positions, Flanagan’s roles include Chair of the Oireachtas Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee (2020-present), Minister for Justice and Equality (2017-2020), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (2014-2017), Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (2014), and Vice-Chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body (1990s).

Having worked as a public representative within Government throughout challenging periods in the State’s history, Mr. Flanagan has contributed meaningfully to Irish life and society in the roles listed above. In this interview, I ask Mr. Flanagan about such contributions in his more recent capacity as Minister for Justice and Equality, and Minister for Foreign Affairs as we discuss the place of the special criminal court within Ireland’s criminal justice system, his work on Anglo-Irish peace talks including North-South reunification following Brexit, and achieving equality within Irish society.

In your capacity as former Minister for Justice & Equality, you ensured a review of the non-jury Special Criminal Court in 2020, which will soon be carried out under Minister McEntee in 2021.

Do you think the review’s outcome will have a bearing on the non-jury aspect of the court, or will it be a repeat of the 2002 Hederman Report?

I favour the Special Criminal Court. Over the last 50 years, I have seen ample reason as to why the State should have a special, non-jury court regime. As well as being non-jury, it could also be described by some as a “fast track” or “designated terror court” where you have specially designated judges who have gained experience, as well as expertise. But I believe it is important in any democracy, especially a democracy like Ireland that subscribes to such international treaties as the European Court and European Convention on Human Rights that we would have periodic reviews. That is why I ordered such a review last year as Minister for Justice. On an annual basis, the Dáil is asked to continue the operation of the Special Criminal Court after a debate. I think that is essential having regard to the special nature of the court. Over the years, I have seen first-hand as a public representative the need to have the Special Criminal Court, with particular reference to the intimidation or likely intimidation of jury members, likely intimidation of witnesses, and that the court would be regarded as different to what might be described as the “ordinary criminal courts”.

I was opposition spokesman in 2009 when the new range of criminal justice measures were introduced following a series of gangland killings. At that time, I warned of the importance of the Special Criminal Court being a designated court for terrorist type offences, be they domestic terrorist offences - we’ve had lots of that with the Provisional IRA and others over the years - or international terrorist offences in the context of Al Qaeda, or the type of terror that luckily was not visited upon Dublin but was a feature of life in Paris, Brussels and Madrid over the past number of years. In 2009 I warned against the Special Criminal Court straying into what might be described as “ordinary criminal matters”, that the court would be used to fast track or to short circuit organized criminal cases.

I believe therefore it is important that the review looks at that. In the first instance, is there a need for the court?

Once that question is answered, if it is answered in the affirmative, then you move into what offences are tried in the court, be they political / terrorist offences, or organized gangland crime, or crime that might be regarded as ordinary non-political crime. That is a very difficult question having regard to the fact that we have seen - particularly since the Good Friday Agreement or cessation of violence among terrorist organizations - the inextricable link between organized crime and former Republican dissidents. So these questions are complex questions, and that is why I’m pleased that Judge Michael Peart and his team of experts are getting to work. I expect them to report by the end of this year (2021), and I am sure that report will be the subject matter of Dáil debate.

Page 25

Interview

It is the prerogative of the Executive to review the Special Criminal Court on an annual basis.

The Court is clearly not going anywhere - surely the time is ripe to provide for the court in ordinary legislation in lieu of anchoring its existence under the auspices of emergency legislation?

I said at the outset that I favoured the existence of a Special Criminal Court within our jurisdiction. I also look at the residue or the legacy of paramilitary activity, and see such groups including the continuity IRA, the real IRA, and the way that paramilitary activity has morphed into organized criminal gangs, drugs, extortion, diesel laundering, alcohol smuggling. If you look at international comparisons, it is quite clear that where there has been a cessation of terrorist activity, there has been a trend towards organized crime on the basis that those who have embraced the peace process don’t all suddenly decommission or scuttle their arms and live their lives as law abiding citizens - they don’t. They tend to go into organized crime. Because of that, I see a real need for the Special Criminal Court. I would have been privy to regular security briefings. I am satisfied on the basis of those briefings that the legacy of parliamentary activity is still very much continuing, particularly in the border area in Northern Ireland, but also here within our own jurisdiction.

You were the incumbent Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs during Brexit. Juxtaposing Leo Varadkar’s recent support on Claire Byrne Live for reunification on the basis of consent under the Good Friday Agreement against Loyalist violence in the North, do you think reunification is viable?

I am a member of the Fine Gael party, the title which is “Fine Gael, the United Ireland party”. We don’t often put that on our headed paper, but I do believe in a United Ireland. I’m not sure if you can see behind me (on Zoom), but there is a portrait of Michael Collins in my office! I also come from the Constitutional nationalist wing of my party, the old John Redmond Irish Parliamentary party tradition which is still strong in Fine Gael. While I believe in a United Ireland, I do not see it in the next decade. I do not see it in the next decade because I don’t believe that we have done enough by way of preparatory work. I see Brexit as being a real setback, a setback because over the past 45 years since Ireland and Britain were members of the European Union the whole political, social, economic program has been about bringing people together under a European umbrella - Ireland and the UK, adversaries for hundreds of years - joining together into a larger European Union. The fundamental basis of the European Union is solving differences by bringing people together, sitting around the table to resolve issues, whether you’re from a former Soviet state of either the Baltics or the former Yugoslavia in Croatia, or the age-old tensions between France and Germany, or on the western side the adversarial nature of the relationship between the UK and Ireland. The fundamental common thread was bringing people together, and of course Brexit sundered that because Brexit is about tearing people apart. it’s about taking down markets, leaving the single market, leaving the European Court of justice, leaving the whole European regulatory framework. So Brexit it is the direct opposite, it is the antithesis of the European Union and that is a challenge that we have to deal with here in Ireland more so than in any other European country. If you were to stand on the Grand-Place in Brussels and look west, within the European Union, Ireland was described as “an island behind an island”. Now the challenge is even more stark because we are an “island behind an island” that is not a member of the European Union. So these are difficult days. I do not believe therefore, that a debate on the United Ireland is helpful in the circumstances. In fact I go further and say that the talks of an early border poll are in fact provocative to 1,000,000 people in Northern Ireland - almost half the population in Northern Ireland. What we need to concentrate on now is building and maintaining positive relations, and that will not entail a border poll. Obviously, the protection of the single market is the top priority for the European Union. This is a red-line issue for the European Union and that is why the Northern Ireland Protocol is so important. I do not believe the Protocol will be scrapped. I do not believe it can be scrapped - it was agreed internationally. But what I think we can do is consider how aspects of the Protocol can be tweaked. For example, Unionists tell me that food products from Great Britain cannot be imported freely into Northern Ireland. That presents them with a problem. Northern Ireland is famed for the Ulster fry - I believe there’s a place for the great British sausage within the Ulster fry! Unionists told me last weekend that one of the practical difficulties is the importation of

Interview

Page 26

food products and meat products from Great Britain freely into Northern Ireland. They see that as being totally unacceptable on the basis that they are part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These are issues that I firmly believe can be worked out, and there is a committee doing that within the framework of the UK and the European Union. I think we can make practical adjustments to the Northern Ireland Protocol. I firmly believe that putting deadlines or dates on a border poll is provocative. A border poll is provided for in the Good Friday Agreement - I accept that, but only when in the opinion of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that a majority would favour a United Ireland or Constitutional change. I do not believe the time is right for that now.

I do not believe that we can force the Unionist community into a Constitutional framework that they do not want.

That is a very interesting perspective - I was expecting something more akin to what Leo Varadkar said on Claire Byrne Live?

I have done a lot of work as Minister for Foreign affairs. I was also vice-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body (BIIPB) back in the 1990s. I was Fine Gael spokesman in Northern Ireland under former Taoiseach John Bruton. I feel passionately about the relationship between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I also feel that we cannot force people against their will. For example, if we had a border poll and 51 per cent of the people in Northern Ireland voted for a United Ireland, you’ve got 49 per cent who didn’t. You cannot replace one aggrieved minority with another. We’ve got to work with all the stakeholders and work all of the institutions under the Good Friday Agreement of which there are many. I agree very strongly with [Taoiseach] Micheál Martin’s approach of a shared island where we would continue to build on very positive relations on - for example – health, education, the environment, energy, tourism, and jobs. There is lots of work that we can do in those areas which need to be done first, before we embark on Constitutional change. I think we can do that to very good effect. Many people in the South have never been to Northern Ireland. We need to get to know each other, and we can only get to know each other by building positive relations, and much of the language of Sinn Fein is exclusive, provocative, and deeply unhelpful. In the run up to any border poll, how are we going to deal with the question of tax? How are we going to do with the question of pensions? How are we going to deal with the question of income? We have two currencies, we have two corporation taxes, we have different sets of regulations, one EU and one UK. That’s all before we get into the legal systems. I am not sure that I would like to live in a society where there are hundreds and thousands of Irish Unionists living on an island in a legal and Constitutional framework against their will.

In the case of reunification, do you foresee an amalgamation or comity between the Southern Special Criminal Court and an iteration of the former Northern Diplock Courts to counter subversive and organised crime on an island-wide basis?

I think it is far too early to get into frameworks like that, they haven’t even been discussed [within Government]. It is difficult therefore to see what kind of shape would be put on it. When I was Minister for Justice I was very keen to see a greater level of activity between the Law Society in Northern Ireland and the Law Society in Dublin, between the Bar Council in Northern Ireland and the Council of the Bar in Belfast, between the judges in Northern Ireland and the Judiciary in Dublin. There needs to be a series of conferences, workshops, and an arrangement to see what kind of shape might be put on that. None of that has been done, it is too early. I think it’s about building positive relations before any talk of a border poll, or before any talk of any further Constitutional settlement. We need to continue to bring people together. For example: school exchanges, health workers meeting together, representative bodies, trade unions. Again, I was very keen as Minister for Justice to see the Gardaí and the PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) working together, introducing exchanges. We have a number of former PSNI people at a very senior level in the Garda Síochána right up the Commissioner Drew Harris. I very much welcome that, I was delighted to propose his appointment to my Government colleagues - we need far more of that. While we have many PSNI people working for the Gardaí, I don’t think we have any Gardaí who have gone to the PSNI. You and I are from Portlaoise, we see the importance of the prison service to our lives where we grew up with big prisons in our community. I would like to see a greater level of contact between prison officers and prison management, north and south. Unfortunately, there is very little of that. That all needs to be worked on

Page 27

Interview

before we can even contemplate a change in the Constitutional structures. That is why 23 years after the signing of the Belfast agreement, I still believe that the Agreement is the foundation stone, or the rock upon which we have got to continue working.

Private citizens earn disparate salaries, belong to different social classes, and equality of opportunity in higher education is sometimes an issue. In your capacity as former Minister for Justice and Equality, do you think egalitarianism or equality can be achieved either in Ireland or globally?

I do. I want to acknowledge the progress that we have made over the past 30 years in assisting in that endeavor.

Ireland is now a developed economy, it is a progressive society. We are a very rich country – we do not like to acknowledge that, in fact we’re very slow to acknowledge it. I have been a member of the Dáil for 34 years and I have witnessed and lived through great changes in Irish society. When I was elected to the Dáil in the late 1980s, the country was ravaged by unemployment and immigration. We then lived through an Ireland of the Troubles and terrorist violence, ending with the Good Friday Agreement, or at least the violence came to an end with the Good Friday Agreement. We then had the financial crisis of the last decade. We now have the twin challenges of Brexit and Covid-19. I think the key is in education. I was the first member of my family to attend college. My father left school when he was 15 and my mother did a Leaving Certificate, completing a domestic economy course thereafter. She was the only one in her family who did any post-Leaving Certificate studies. I look at my two daughters who are both graduates. So I think the key is in education. Unlike other international countries - indeed unlike other European countries - Ireland is a leader in terms of third level education. Between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of all Irish students do some form of post-leaving Certification studies. That is a fantastic achievement, and that is the key to equality of opportunity. I have never been Minister for Education, but I believe it’s important that we continue to invest in education. If you look at the massive foreign direct investment in Ireland both currently and over the last decade, what multinationals look for in the Irish worker is education, adaptability, and flexibility.

We do that to a very good effect.

I accept that we have a housing crisis at the moment. I bought my first house at 25 years of age. I have two daughters now, the youngest of whom is 25 years of age. I do not see them having the same opportunity of buying a house. I believe affordability in house prices is one of the real issues that must be tackled by the current Government over the next 18 months. To answer your question, I believe that the fundamental tenet of government policy must be to promote equality of opportunity, and that is through education, through the minimum wage, thereby ensuring we continue to move towards a fair society. I’m an optimist and see the glass as half full rather than half empty, and I think that we don’t acknowledge the amount of progress that we have made over the last 35 years, much of which we must put down to our membership with the European Union and the opportunity that has brought.

Law

Page 28

Intersectionality in Law: Colour-blindness, Western Feminism and the Marginalisation of Minorities in Legal Interpretation

By Eoin Jackson (JS Law) and Lucy Lu (SF Law and French) Intersectionality is a tool for exposing interlocking structural systems of systemic discrimination. As conceptualised by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, it embodies the oft-ignored reality that many marginalised groups face multidimensional categories of exclusion. For example, as Crenshaw has stated, society and the legal system have a problematic tendency to treat race and gender as mutually exclusive strands of experience. Thus, the hardships related to these are deemed to be mutually exclusive, and ignored in dealing with the overlapping systemic problems a person may face.

The unfortunate truth is that, more often than not, the meandering intricacies of legal systems across the world are ignorant towards issues of intersectionality. This article will aim to address some of these issues by providing a glimpse into the multifaceted issues of intersectionality in law prevalent today.

Colour-blindness of Law and the American Example One problematic concept which has arisen in realms of social justice and law is that the legal system can be considered colour-blind. The starkest examples of ignorance regarding a lack of knowledge of intersectionality in law can be seen through numerous US cases on this matter. O’Connor J once stated in Brown v North Carolina: “[w] e ought not delude ourselves that the deep faith that race should never be relevant has completely triumphed over the painful social reality that, sometimes, it may be.” In order to bring about true equality in our legal system, we must strive towards a system which acknlowedges all facets and all overlapping aspects of structural systems of discrimination.

In DeGraffenreid v General Motors, a group of Black female employees sued General Motors under the Civil Rights Act 1964, alleging that the company’s industrial policies discriminated against Black women. The Court refused to acknowledge that Black women encountered combined race and gender discrimination in stating that: “[t]he prospect of the creation of new classes of protected minorities, governed only by the mathematical principles of permutation and combination, clearly raises the prospect of opening the hackneyed Pandora’s box.” Evidently, the Court was concerned about opening the legal “floodgates” of litigants claiming that they were being discriminated against on the basis of more than one facet of their identity.

In Moore v Hughes Helicopters the plaintiff alleged that Hughes Helicopters engaged in race and gender discrimination in promoting employees to upper-level positions. The Court in this case held that the plaintiff did not show her “ability to adequately represent white female employees”.

Page 29

Law

The above are examples of the many cases where instances of overlapping discrimination faced by Black women were dismissed by the courts. Intersectionality, however, concerns the dominance and subordination of systems of racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism. It revolves around the multi-dimensional discrimination of any marginalised persons.

Western Feminism and The Absence of Intersectionality: The European Perspective European jurisprudence has also struggled to come to grips with the need for intersectionality. This is best illustrated through an examination of the approach of the European Court of Human Rights in considering whether so-called “headscarf bans” are a proportionate limitation on the European Convention Article 9 right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

In the case of Leyla Sahin v Turkey, the Court was asked to consider whether a Turkish university’s refusal to admit a student who refused to remove her headscarf was a legitimate restriction on her Article 9 rights. The Court found in favour of the university, noting that it was “difficult to reconcile the principle of gender equality” with the wearing of a headscarf. It linked the headscarf with “oppression” and “equality of men and women”, making no reference to the race, class or background of the applicant. Thus, the applicant was denied access to the university and was forced to move abroad in order to obtain a higher level education.

The Court’s approach to gender equality is problematic for three reasons. Firstly, it applies a binary conceptualisation of a “Muslim woman” and applies restrictions on their agency that ignore any other elememts of their identity. Miss Sahin had the economic means to study abroad, but the same might not be said for Muslim woman of a lower socio-economic class or those from migrant backgrounds. Secondly, it assumed any Muslim woman must be wearing a headscarf because she is “oppressed”, and that it cannot represent an expression of her identity.

The same approach has never been used to justify restrictions on, for example, a Catholic woman wishing to wear a piece of jewelry with a cross. Finally, there is no acknowledgement of the cultural influences that may be at play where a woman makes the choice to wear a headscarf. Thus, the Court compounds existing barriers to women’s education by forcing them to reject cultural factors which would otherwise co-exist within the marketplace of ideas that is a university.

The Court’s view of Muslim women as homogenous and disempowered results in the further disempowerment of those lacking the social capital to overcome this binary perception. The result is the increased marginalisation of minority groups through a blind adherence to western feminism. In fact, as noted by Bleiberg writing for the Cornell Law Review, more than 2,000 women have been denied access to education for refusing to remove their headscarves since the Sahin ruling.

Positive Example of Acknowledgement of Intersectional Discrimination: Canada It has been demonstrated that an anti-intersectional approach to jurisprudence compounds barriers. It transposes one form of discrimination onto an individual without considering the further impact such discrimination has on the other marginalised elements of their identity. Thus, we must examine what an intersectional approach to legal interpretation would look like in practice.

Such an intersectional approach is evident in the Canadian legal system, wherein numerous Supreme Court decisions have acknowledged the overlapping boundaries of the varying social contexts and life experiences of a person who is discriminated against. In Canada v Mossop, the Supreme Court considered equality rights for gay people. Although the Court found against the claim of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, L’Heureux-Dubé J’s dissent showed that the Courts are recognising the importance of intersectionality: “...categorizing such discrimination as primarily racially oriented, or primarily gender-oriented, miscon-

Law Page 30 ceives the reality of discrimination as it is experienced by individuals. Discrimination may be experienced on many grounds, and where this is the case, it is not really meaningful to assert that it is one or the other. It may be more realistic to recognize that both forms of discrimination may be present and intersect”.

In Egan v Canada, L’Heureux-Dubé J, once again in a dissenting opinion, reiterated that categories of discrimination cannot be reduced to watertight compartments, but rather will often overlap in significant measure.

Awareness of, and sensitivity to, the realities of those experiencing discrimination is an important task that judges must undertake when evaluating the impact of the discrimination on members of an affected group. In Law v Canada, the Supreme Court recognised that a discrimination claim can entail an intersection of different aspects of discrimination. In Corbiére v Canada the Supreme Court noted that Aboriginal women were being discriminated against on the basis of “both sex and race”. L’Heureux-Dubé J stated that these women were “among those particularly affected by legislation…because of their history and circumstances in Canadian and Aboriginal society”.

The direct acknowledgment of intersectionality in law as seen in Canadian courts provides for a glimpse of hope into the formal, judicial and perhaps legislative recognition of this unwavering issue.

Conclusion Intersectionality provides recognition that discrimination is multi-faceted. Its absence from the legal system results in narrow judicial interpretation that exacerbates rather than solves existing issues of inequality. While Canada is a positive example of progress, intersectionality remains in its infancy when it comes to judicial interpretation. We should strive for an approach to equality that acknowledges the intersection of race, gender, class, ability and sexuality across all measures and systems of law in order to reconcile institutionalised discrimination with the need to achieve true and fair justice for all.

The Rule of Law Deferred: Begum v Home Secretary

By Dominic Bielby, Contributing Author, Law at the University of Cambridge On 26 February 2021, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) handed down its unanimous judgement in the cases of Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The cases concerned Shamima Begum, who left the UK at the age of 15 to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a militant Islamist group. In Syria, Ms Begum married an ISIL fighter and remained in ISIL-held territory until at least February 2019, where she was discovered living in the Al-Hawl displaced-persons camp.

During her time in Syria, Ms Begum gave birth to three children, all of whom had died by March 2019. On 19 February 2019, the Home Secretary informed Ms Begum that he would be depriving her of British citizenship under s 40(2) British Nationality Act 1981, as it would be “conducive to the public good”. S 40(4) of the Act requires that the Home Secretary cannot deprive a person of citizenship if it would render them stateless; however, the Home Secretary stated that he believed Ms Begum was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Ms Begum challenged the decision and applied for leave to enter the UK (LTE) on the basis that she could not raise a fair and effective appeal against the deprivation decision from Syria. The Home Secretary rejected the application. Thereafter followed a series of intertwined appeals to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), the Administrative Court, the Court of Appeal and, eventually, the UKSC. Ultimately, the UKSC was tasked with determining two key issues: whether the deprivation decision was lawful, despite the fact that Ms Begum could not mount a fair and effective appeal against it; and whether the LTE decision was lawful, despite the same concerns as to the fairness of the deprivation appeal.

Page 31

Case Law

I. The Judgment Regarding the deprivation decision, the UKSC accepted that Ms Begum would not be able to mount a fair and effective appeal from Syria. However, the Court rejected Ms Begum’s argument that where an appeal cannot be made fairly and effectively it should automatically succeed. As the Court noted, this would have led to the illogical result that appeals could automatically succeed without an analysis of their merits. Moreover, the Court emphasised that fairness is a two-sided coin: although it may have been fairer to Ms Begum to allow her appeal automatically, it would, conversely, have been unfair to the Home Secretary to have his decision overturned. Despite the severe impact that the decision would have on Ms Begum, the national security concerns at the heart of the case supported the rejection of the argued automatic success of her appeal. According to the Court, “it would be irresponsible… to allow the appeal without any regard to the interests of national security…” (para. 94).

On the LTE decision, the UKSC comprehensively rejected the findings of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had dealt with two technically separate but substantially identical matters: (1) an appeal against SIAC’s decision regarding the LTE decision within SIAC’s statutory framework and (2) a judicial review directly against the LTE decision. Applying common law principles concerning a right to a fair hearing, the Court of Appeal determined that Ms Begum had to be afforded LTE to ensure she could mount a fair and effective appeal against the deprivation decision. In the balancing of national security concerns and the right to a fair hearing, the latter took priority.

As to point (1), the UKSC determined that, within SIAC’s statutory framework, an appeal against an LTE decision existed only where there was an alleged violation of the Human Rights Act 1998. As Ms Begum had not advanced any human rights-related arguments, the SIAC appeal was rejected. As to point (2), the Court of Appeal had accepted that the lack of a fair and effective appeal had to be remedied by allowing Ms Begum entry to the UK. This was incorrect, according to the UKSC: the lack of a fair and effective appeal, as already established, did not require automatic correction. Furthermore, in the Court of Appeal’s weighing of the factors to determine whether Ms Begum should be allowed to return to the UK, it had acted without evidence, as a detailed analysis of national security concerns had not occurred before SIAC or the Administrative Court. Lastly, the Court of Appeal had got the balance between national security and Ms Begum’s right to a fair hearing wrong: the right to a fair hearing did not necessarily overcome national security concerns. In determining that the right to a fair hearing had overcome national security concerns, the Court of Appeal was imposing its own view as the strength of the national security argument for keeping Ms Begum outside the UK, usurping the Home Secretary’s competence in this area.

II. Analysis In Begum, the UKSC was obliged to consider significant clashes between conflicting constitutional principles.

In some respects, it seems to have struck the right tone, specifically with regard to parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. The former states, in brief, that Parliament may make or unmake any law it chooses and that no-one may make superior laws to it. In Begum, Parliament had determined that SIAC’s statutory framework allowed appeals against the LTE decision only where the Human Rights Act 1998 was engaged. Accordingly, to have allowed the Court of Appeal to undertake its own analysis of the case on common law principles would have ignored Parliament’s will that the matter should have been left to SIAC, considering only human-rights grounds.

The separation of powers doctrine requires that each branch of the state remains broadly within its constitutionally=defined area of responsibility. The UKSC was therefore correct in reminding the Court of Appeal that it had meaningful institutional differences compared with the Home Secretary. The courts have a vital role in ensuring that the law is followed, and they may keep decision-makers in check through the comprehensive body of public law principles available to them in judicial reviews. However, it was the Home Secretary that had been enfranchised by Parliament and was democratically accountable to the British electorate to make the deprivation and LTE decisions, both of which concerned politically sensitive questions of national security and public safety. In addition, compared with the courts, the Home Secretary had the resources and means to better assess those questions.

Case Law Page 32 However, despite these appropriate affirmations of constitutional principle, the UKSC appears to have struck an imperfect balance in Begum when a third keystone of the constitutional order is considered: the rule of law. Broadly speaking, the principle requires that the courts retain the ability to ensure compliance with the law by other legal actors, namely the government. From this perspective, Begum falls short in two areas. First, although the UKSC was arguably right in its determination that the lack of a fair and effective appeal does not mean said appeal should automatically succeed, it was wrong to accept that nothing proactive should be done in order to facilitate a fair and effective appeal. What use is the ability to appeal against a possible unlawful action of the state when the appeal is unfair and ineffective? It would not be novel for the UKSC to use broad constitutional principles to challenge the executive over a measure which substantially robs an individual of the genuine ability to seek justice. For example, in UNISON v Lord Chancellor, the UKSC found that fees to access employment tribunals were unlawful; even though the tribunals were technically accessible, the fees rendered them realistically off-limits for many low-earning workers. Similarly, although Ms Begum had the technical right to an appeal, by allowing the LTE decision to remain in place, she was denied any real opportunity to actually challenge the deprivation decision with a fair and effective appeal. The importance of ensuring a fair hearing in Begum is heightened not only due to the impact of a deprivation of citizenship - especially due to Ms Begum’s virtually non-existent connection with Bangladesh, which maintains, contrary to the view of the Home Secretary, that she does not actually enjoy its citizenship - but because, as the UKSC suggested, it would be appropriate to stay her appeal proceedings until she could mount a fair and effective appeal. Having denied her LTE, the UKSC has, effectively, let the issue of Ms Begum’s citizenship fall to an uncertain, nebulous future hearing. To allow an individual to be left in such a legal limbo, in which an alleged unlawful deprivation of citizenship is left unchecked, is deeply unsatisfactory for the rule of law.

Secondly, the UKSC’s description of the relationship between the courts and executive struck an overly-deferential tone. Although the UKSC rightly affirmed that the separation of powers principle prevents a court from evaluating issues of national security themselves, it is similarly a breach of the separation of powers and a violation of the rule of law to allow the government to undertake actions which cannot be reviewed because of the claim that “national security” precludes judicial involvement. The courts have long involved themselves in matters which affect national security where the rule of law demands it. In Begum, the UKSC not only deferred to the Home Secretary’s analysis in full, but, as noted by the lawyer and legal commentator, David Allen Green, did so in inappropriate terms. The judgment held that the Court of Appeal did not give the Home Secretary’s assessment “the respect which it should have received” (para. 134). Whilst there is a valid discussion to be had as to whether the Court of Appeal overstepped its constitutional boundaries in failing to give deference to the Home Secretary’s assessment of national security versus the right to a fair hearing, “respect” is an immaterial consideration. Neither the Home Secretary - nor any member of the executive - deserves to have their opinion “respected” due to their position. The rule of law demands that their decisions be scrutinised, the question being whether the separation of powers enables or prevents judicial involvement due to the differing competences and roles of the different branches of the state. The deference given to the Home Secretary in Begum is particularly notable considering the UKSC’s recent significant clashes with the Government on controversial matters, namely the triggering of Article 50 Treaty on European Union and the prorogation of Parliament in Miller v Brexit Secretary and Miller v The Prime Minister, respectively. Such substantial clashes are not unforeseeable in the near-future, due to the UK Government’s increasingly draconian legislative plans, as illustrated by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 (that would allow, for instance, start and end times, as well as noise limits, to be imposed on protests), which has been protested against in “Kill the Bill” demonstrations across the country. Time will tell whether the UKSC will maintain its deferential approach in Begum or revert to its more combative approach in Miller.

Begum is a difficult case, featuring an awkward entanglement of multi-layered problems of legal policy and constitutional principles. Nevertheless, the UKSC, as the UK’s ultimate guardian of the rule of law, had to decide which values take priority. In this case, it seems that the rule of law has deferred to the Home Secretary’s right to act as they see fit.

Reflect

Page 34

FLAC: A Year in Review

By Chloe Dalton, SS Law and Political Science and Nadine Fitzpatrick, SS Law and Political Science This year was certainly a unique one for both students and societies in college.. Three decades ago, the Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC) was established with the aim of breaking down barriers to accessing legal advice and promoting social justice within the Trinity community. While our activities and membership has expanded over the years, these two goals remain at the very heart of our work as a society. This year, our fifteen-strong committee worked to adapt our events to an online format that was both engaging and accessible, Providing expert weekly free legal advice clinics to the college community is perhaps the most unique and important aspect of our society. This year we continued to provide this service to students by adapting to a telephone clinic format. We were delighted to see that students availed of this essential service throughout this uncertain year. This semester, we were happy to be able to continue our social justice themed panel speaker events which dealt with topics ranging from ‘Sexual Crimes in Ireland’ to ‘Irish Language and the Law’. Fundraising has always been an important part of the work of Trinity FLAC, and we were delighted to have continued to raise money for deserving charities. For Raise and Give Week we were thrilled to collaborate with TCDSU and Law Soc to put on a virtual version of the television game show, The Chase. Students worked in teams against lecturers from the Law School, with the event raising over €1,000 for charity. It gave us all some much needed entertainment! This year we continued to put on competitions for our members which included moot courts and our collaborative essay competition with The Eagle. These are an excellent way for students to practice their writing and advocacy skills beyond lectures and assignments. The quality of the submissions we have received were so impressive and we are so grateful for all of the students who have participated in our events this year.

The importance of highlighting social justice issues has been as crucial as ever this year, and FLAC research projects are an effective way to do so. We conducted three research projects this year on the topics of ‘Technology and Access to Justice’, ‘Racism and Hate Crime in Ireland’, as well as ‘Human Rights and the Environment’. We received record breaking levels of participation this year, and we are always extremely thankful to all of the volunteer researchers who generously provide their time and effort to make these projects possible. We always encourage students to get involved with Trinity FLAC’s research projects and as they have continued to grow, we are confident that they will remain a vital component of the society’s social justice work.

Another important part of Trinity FLAC’s promotion of social justice on campus is our annual Advocacy Award which is given to individuals who have made considerable contributions to advancing social justice in Ireland. Past recipients of the award include Fr. Peter McVerry, Sr. Stan Kennedy of Focus Ireland and historian Catherine Corless. This year we presented the award virtually to Vicky Phelan, an inspirational Women’s Health advocate recognised for her role in exposing the CervicalCheck scandal. The award presentation was a truly moving event and we were honoured to speak with Vicky Phelan. All of us at Trinity FLAC were so grateful that she took the time between her clinical treatment to accept the award.

Trinity FLAC was delighted to have won two awards at this year’s annual CSC Awards, and although we didn’t have the opportunity to attend an in-person award night, we were pleased to accept the awards for ‘Best Large Society’ and ‘Best Individual’. This year has been a challenging one for students to be fully engaged with academics and extracurriculars, but we managed to increase our engagement through our emails and social media. We are honoured to have been recognised for our contributions to society life in Trinity over the past year. This year we have all learned the value of online events and the importance of cooperation. We worked together both as a committee, and with other societies such as LawSoc, Cumann Gaelach, Germanic Soc and Trinity VDP to provide

Page 35

Reflect

interesting and engaging events for our members.

Trinity FLAC has overcome the obstacles facing us this past year and achieved our aims of removing barriers to accessing legal advice as well as promoting social justice on campus. Although our delivery of services and events has been different, we are delighted to have continued holding informative and inspiring events. We also took the opportunity to highlight the impact the pandemic has had on human rights through our research projects and competitions. Our committee has shown tremendous dedication to the work of Trinity FLAC, while reflecting on our experience this year to bring valuable lessons into the future of our society.

To catch up on any of Trinity FLAC’s speaker events, you can head over to our YouTube and keep up to date with us on our social media.

Reflect

Page 36

TCD Law Society: A Year in Review Individual Committee members share their experience on what it has been like to run LawSoc during Coronavirus.

Jonathon (Auditor) Managing LawSoc throughout the coronavirus has been an incredible experience. Although the social events have been sorely missed, the pandemic has enabled us to do things that wouldn’t have been possible in a normal year. We’ve managed to expand our speaker series to the likes of Tinie Tempah, Stephen Fry, Daisy Edgar-Jones, Lord Reed, Rainn Wilson and even Niall Horan, all of whom I’m sure would have told us where to go had they been asked to trek through Dublin airport to Trinity. We’ve also managed to expand the society through our Access to Law programme, the growth of Trinity Women In Law, a range of new competitions, and innovations in our Careers programme. The time the Coronavirus provided us has also enabled us to redesign the society’s logo and email, thanks to our PROs Orla and Sophie, and our librarian Emily.

All of this aside, society activities are mainly about having fun. Therefore, coronavirus or no coronavirus, this year has been incredibly valuable. It has been brilliant getting to know everybody on the committee and beyond, and anything we’ve done has been a welcome distraction from everything else going on.

Even if college stays like this next year, I’d really recommend getting involved in a society. It provides really special opportunities to do things you’ll probably never get to do again, and you’ll meet some great people along the way.

Eoin (Third Year Rep) It has definitely been a different kind of year to what society life is used to. Instead of glamorous balls and social events, we have had zoom calls and screened guest speakers. The sense of camaraderie from turning up to a lecture, feeling worse for wear, after one too many drinks at Swing Ball, has been replaced with waking up in your bedroom trying to remember what you said at a virtual event the night before!

In spite of this however, I think LawSoc has managed the transition to virtual society life in quite a seamless manner. The mock trials I stressed over running in Second Year switched to breakout rooms. The charity fundraisers were run on social media. The career and speaker events were turned into useful background music to study, as a plethora of firms and celebrities pitched their stories to our members.

What I am most proud of has been seeing LawSoc expand its inclusivity initiatives in spite of the difficult circumstances. In this regard I would like to give a particular mention to Aine Doyle, our Trinity Women in Law Officer (TWIL). From intersectional events on gender equality to the first ever Women and Gender Minorities Mock Trial, Aine has been exemplary in encouraging a welcoming environment for all our members. The Access to Law Program introduced by Jonathon has also been fantastic, with disadvantaged secondary school students given the opportunity to engage in activities conducive to encouraging them to study Law at Trinity.

Trinity can often appear unwelcoming and elitist to those who have never experienced it. Initiatives such as those outlined above are a prime example of the work LawSoc has done to change this image and encourage anyone to become a part of the Society.

Society life this year has been bittersweet. Having been involved in many in-person events over the years, it can be hard not to reminisce about the pints after a committee meeting or the bizarre stories that crop up after

Page 37

Reflect

nights out. Yet, there remains a sense of community within society life. A sense that ‘holding down the fort’ this year paves the way for better times ahead. I am glad to have played a small part in the transition to a virtual society and I certainly look forward to the better times ahead!

Amy Gallagher: (First Year Rep) My name is Amy Gallagher and I’m the current first-year representative for the Law Society. This year in LawSoc has given me my first taste of Trinity society life, albeit Covid-style.

Before coming to Trinity, I had wanted to become involved in societies, but it was the pandemic that pushed me to run for a position in LawSoc. I felt that immersing myself in a society would lessen the challenging social con sequences of Covid-19, and would also allow me to make new friends from many different year groups.

Additionally, I felt that joining a society would present me with exciting academic opportunities, helping me to learn about the different career paths in the legal industry. LawSoc has greatly exceeded these expectations and I must admit that becoming involved was by far one of my finest decisions.

LawSoc has offered me several invaluable experiences throughout the year, but its social aspect stands out most. I am the only first-year student on the committee. This was daunting at first, but my fellow committee members welcomed me with open arms. I immediately felt comfortable contributing in our weekly committee Zooms and also became quite friendly with my year group through promoting LawSoc’s various events.

Although Covid-19 has thrown quite a spanner in LawSoc’s works, the array of virtual events organised this year have proved extremely successful. From interviews with pop-culture sensations like Niall Horan to discussions with pioneers in law such as Lord Reed, it’s no doubt that LawSoc has engaged the masses. The information evenings have also proved hugely successful. I have listened to insightful law firm partners discuss the highs and lows of working in the industry. I have heard academics appraise areas of law that require major reform, in addition to discussing pressing human rights issues. LawSoc’s events have provided me with an insight into the application of law in society, and an understanding of how those inside the legal sphere apply the law. This expe-rience will stand to me throughout both my time in and beyond Trinity.

I often forget that I have experienced society life solely through my laptop screen and that there is an entire world of Trinity societies unbeknownst to me. It’s bizarre to comprehend that I have yet to participate in normal, in-person society life and I am excited at the prospect of experiencing it next year (fingers crossed). I most certainly plan on remaining involved in LawSoc next year and urge all first-year students to get involved in society life, you won’t regret it!

The Eagle: A Year in Review

By Olivia Moore, JS Law and Political Science Having been involved with The Eagle since my very first month in Trinity, one might say I’m something of a veteran. Now in my third year, I can proudly say that I served my time as an Editorial Board member in first year, and Deputy Editor in my second. However, from my very fortunate vantage point as Copy Editor this year, I can say without doubt that this has been the most successful and fulfilling year of my personal Eagle experience so far - and probably the most productive year of the publication ever!

After forming in early August, we set to work straight away through a myriad of “get-to-know-you” Zooms, editing-and-writing presentations, and securing our wonderful sponsor Maples Group. It was the brainwave of

Reflect

Page 38

our incredible Editor-in-Chief, Samantha Tancredi, to go beyond our usual two publications per year, and stretch to five. In September, then, was our first edition - filled entirely with articles by the Editorial Board itself. This was a wonderful opportunity to write and edit amongst ourselves, to get to know each other and each other’s styles a little better, and to get ready for the year ahead.

Next was the first of our two thematic issues. Partnering with Law Society’s Trinity Women in Law, we published our “Women in Law” issue, covering everything from technology to the Magdalene Laundries, and everyone from Justice Amy Coney Barrett to Celia Reynolds, Trinity graduate-turned-Harvard student. This was followed shortly by the first of our two traditional issues, containing excellent articles on period poverty, choosing the right masters, and a special account of Erasmus in Helsinki during a pandemic.

Throughout the year we have made a conscious effort, in this technologically-preoccupied time, to expand the blog to something both more regular and more current than before. Thus, we have published at least one article every week - every member of the Editorial Board has submitted at least two articles. We have also been very excited to receive submissions from other Trinity students and beyond, such as those articles by Dominic Bielby, of Law at the University of Cambridge, and our first joint blog-piece by Editorial Board member Katharina Neumann and Elisabeth Wagner of the University of Oradea in Romania.

After Christmas came the largest edition of The Eagle’s entire run - our second thematic issue which focused on environmental issues. Garnering submissions from Trinity and beyond, this mammoth publication reached a remarkable ninety-six pages - which, it is ironic to note, would not have been possible in normal, non-pandemic circumstances when we would have published physical copies! Some highlights from the edition include contributions from America, such as Leah Grace Wolf ’s article on the Memphis Sands Aquifer; Australia, such as Fergus Maclean’s joint article with Editorial Board member Katharina Neumann on Australian climate change; and of course Ireland, with Ellen Hyland’s article on voluntourism and outsourced emissions. Most notably, however, was Rory Anthoney-Hearn’s stellar effort in securing an interview with Ireland’s first female President, climate activist Mary Robinson - an incredible source of pride and excitement for us at The Eagle . Complete with beautiful images of the environment captured by Trinity students themselves, and inspiring quotes from climate activists around the world, this issue is definitely my personal favourite.

And this brings us on to our last remaining issue - our second traditional issue, which you are reading right now.

It is hard to believe that this is the last of many editions this academic year. After a tremendously tough time for so many people and for so many reasons, I feel so lucky to have been a part of such a wonderful publication with such fabulous potential. We have captured interest, both academic and corporate, from all over Ireland - and this is only the beginning.

I would like to thank everyone who clicked a link to read an issue, an article, or a blog-post; everyone - especially our frequent contributors - who took the time to write for us and work with us through the editing process; the Law School, particularly Professor Neville Cox, for such encouragement and support; and, of course, our fantastic sponsor Maples Group, for their generosity and advocacy. I would also like to thank all of our amazing Editorial Board members - Blake, Demilade, Doireann, Dylan, Ellen, Emma, Eoin, Jacob, Katharina, Lucy, Marcella, Matthew, Michael, Muireann, Rory, and Scott - for their constant dedication, enthusiasm and patience. You all made a tremendous difference and we are so grateful for your contribution. Thank you especially to Zoe Timmons, our Public Relations Officer, for her wonderful work in mastering social media and promoting every single issue and article; to Orla Murnaghan, our Deputy Editor, for her impeccable editing skills and consistent willingness to help with anything from interviews to internships; and, of course, to Samantha Tancredi, our Editor-in-Chief, the driving force behind the publication, and without whose ambition, ideas, and passion, none of this advancement and growth would even have been remotely possible. Thank you all so much for an incredible year - and I, for one, am so excited to see where The Eagle goes next.

Page 39

Interview

Interview with Emma Sheehy and Paul McNamee, Maples Group Associates: the Path to Becoming a Corporate Solicitor

By Orla Murnaghan, SS Law and Political Science Emma Sheehy is an Associate in the Corporate Department in the Maples Group’s Dublin Office, and Paul McNamee is an Associate in the Projects and Construction team. Emma and Paul recently qualified as associates in April 2021, and they both attended Trinity for their undergraduate law degrees.

Why did you choose to study law?

P: I was a student in Trinity from 2012 to 2016, and I studied pure law. I didn’t come from a background of having a family in law or in Dublin, I came up from Belfast in 2012 and I didn’t really have a huge knowledge at all of any of the firms and I didn't have a clue what Blackhall was until I graduated. I started off with internships I interned the summer before my final year in the Maples Group and then in another large law firm so that was my first introduction to commercial law. I loved some parts of it and I didn’t like others, but the bits I loved were enough to keep me interested and I accepted a training contract after the internship. I paralegaled for a few years before I started my training contract and I’m qualified as of two weeks ago.

E: I was in the same year as Paul at College, and similar to him, I didn’t come from a background of law. I chose it on a whim on the CAO, and I loved it at college and took part in a few internships. I think the big law firms always sponsor events at college, so the Maples Group was always on my radar. I heard from Paul about the Maples Group as he was raving about the atmosphere there, which was what attracted me to it. When I left college I spent six months working as a paralegal in a different law firm and then I started my training contract in 2018 and I also qualified two weeks ago.

Both of you mention you worked as paralegals - can you explain what this is?

P: It’s a funny distinction. I’m reluctant to use the term “hierarchy” because many law firms like the Maples Group have moved away from the idea of people being on different “levels” - it’s more the case of people having different roles in a team. It’s really no different to being on a GAA or a soccer team, insofar as everyone’s role is equally important. A paralegal’s role is slightly different to, for example, a solicitor’s role, the solicitor is qualified to give advice whereas a paralegal cannot, but they will do a lot of the support work and support the lawyer in giving their advice. In terms of the difference between a paralegal and a trainee, the difference is not that massive, and that’s why some people would recommend doing a paralegal stint before starting as a trainee. As a trainee, they teach you how to take on the role of a lawyer and there's a focus on soft skills, and how to have more commercial awareness. Trainees as well are more focused on a track towards becoming an associate.

Interview

Page 40

E: I would really recommend doing a paralegal stint, even if it’s just for six months, before starting your traineeship.

It can be a steep learning curve if you start as a trainee and you haven’t worked in a law firm before, and you learn so many little things as a paralegal, so I found it very helpful.

When interviewing for training contracts or summer internships, what are firms like the Maples Group looking for, do you think?

E: Academics are important but they are definitely not everything. It seems obvious but the ability to have a pleasant conversation cannot be overstated and to share your personality. If you think about it, interviewers want to enjoy the conversation and you don’t want it to feel like it’s forced or awkward. Another big one is teamwork, being able to show you can work well on a team: I played Gaelic football and hockey my whole life so that was hugely important for me, but obviously it doesn’t have to be sports as it can be anything. I would say really hone in on anything demonstrating teamwork skills.

P: I totally agree with Emma. Teamwork and personality are so important, and taking a step back from this, I know when I was in Trinity, I didn’t come from a legal background so there were always people who said, “This firm wants you to do this, or this" or said that this firm wanted you to fit “this” profile or be a certain“perfect” candidate - as if you could manipulate yourself to fit into the perfect profile. I think that is totally wrong, and any firm worth their salt, especially the Maples Group, aren’t looking for the “perfect” candidate because there is no one “perfect” profile - there's different types of candidates, and the only way you can demonstrate this is by showing your personality. Whether you do sports, play music - whatever it is - just be yourself, be authentic and don’t be afraid to show that. I’ve had conversations with people and they’re talking about something I have no interest in - but if they’re clearly passionate about it and authentic, I’ll find the conversation easy even if I don’t have a passion for it myself. So I think authenticity and teamwork are so important.

What were your experiences of sitting the FE1s? What advice would you have for anyone considering sitting them this year?

P: They are very tough exams, and are totally different to Trinity exams insofar as Trinity exams are all about critical analysis and college really tries to stress that you can’t rote learn for them like the A-Levels or the Leaving Cert. Whereas for the FE1s there’s virtually no critical analysis, it’s about getting the case law correct and how many cases you can remember, so in that sense it is a bit of "back to the future" with an A-Levels kind of approach, so after 4 years of not doing this, it is a change.

Also, there are only two sittings per year, so there are a lot of different theories on which ones should be sat and when. There are 8 papers, so should you do 3, 4, 5 the first time? What did you do Emma?

E: In terms of approaching them, it really varies. I did 4 and 4, but I couldn’t have done this if I was working full time and I was fortunate that I already lived at home in Dublin and wasn’t paying rent, so I could just take those two months off to study. I don’t think I would have been able to do 4 if I had had to work. But what I would say is don’t underestimate them, they’re definitely the hardest exams you’ll ever do. Some major differences between them and college are that: 1) there’s a lot less room for bluffing 2) they are much tighter time-wise, there’s three hours and you have five questions, 3) way more preparation is needed for the FE1s, in terms of material and 4) they are marked much harder. Some people might come out thinking they passed with flying colours when in fact they just scraped a pass. They’re hard to predict: they are doable, but you have to put the work in. People in college may get by if they’re extremely brainy, but with the FE1s you have to just do the work, no matter how smart you are, and churn out the case names. I would recommend, if possible, to take at least a month off for full-time study if you are going to be working through them. But having said that, I do know people who worked full-time and passed them, so it definitely is doable.

Page 41

Interview

P: Something students should consider when applying for training contracts, which is something I got caught out on, is that there are only two sittings per year. A lot of people go in thinking they’ll bang the exams out in two sittings and start the training contract the following year no problem. That’s what I did, thinking I was the smartest guy in Ireland, but I ended up failing two papers on my FE1s and had to push back my training contract for a year, and you really don’t want to have that conversation with firms if you can avoid it. So what I would say is, give yourself at least two years, because then at least you can have a year off to work, paralegal or travel after that if you do pass them in one sitting. The average age in our Blackhall intake was late twenties I would say.

E: Yeah, we were among the younger ones I would say. What I would say is that there is absolutely no rush - I had two and a half years after I graduated so that took a bit of the pressure off me, because I knew that I can pass them in the next round, but I did pass them all in the first year, so I luckily got to go travelling for 3-4 months and then paralegal for 6 months. The training contract is long, intense hours, and you will want to get stuck in when you begin, so I would say if possible, a bit of travelling beforehand is always good.

P: The firms definitely aren’t putting you under pressure to start straight after college. The advice I got was to take a year and travel, and to be honest, you’re that little bit more mature then, you’ve seen a lot and you’ll be that little bit more interesting as well!

What about the PPC exams and Blackhall Place? What happens then?

E: You’re really in for a treat then! It’s such good craic, literally, it’s important to say that there is light at the end of the FE1 tunnel. We’re the only profession that has 9 months dedicated to becoming a student again and you feel like you've really earned it after the FE1s. I've met some of my best friends at Blackhall. The exams themselves are tough enough, but if you are organised, you'll be fine - they're open book and a few weeks studying you'll be fine. Some of it was virtual for us which was unfortunate for PPC II. First you complete PPC I, which is seven months from September to March, and exams are at the end of March, so you have a great time before Christmas, but after that you put the head down and study. Then you go back to the office for around a year, and then it’s back to PPC II for 3 months and sit these exams. Some exams are electives so you can pick between these subjects.

P: Blackhall is very enjoyable, but it’s also very useful for working in the office. The courses are very practical and you learn how to apply the law to real-life problems. So on a professional level it’s brilliant - I can’t tell you how many times I’ve called someone from a different office I met through Blackhall to ask them for help on something, like getting help with an affidavit relationship, and they certainly help you out when working.

Tell me, how did you find your traineeship rotations at the Maples Group?

P: So I started in litigation which was a great first seat to start in by getting exposure to the Courts, and certainly at the start you are doing more support work but as things move on you definitely get more autonomy. It was a really good seat to begin with. Then my second seat was construction and projects, where I was given huge autonomy from the outset: an example of this was in my first week in the department the head partner came down to me, gave me a problem and said, “What is the solution?” I thought this was just an interesting training exercise, but the next day she did say to me, “No, what actually is the solution? You are responsible for coming up with this as a member of the team.” So there was a lot of autonomy there, and then I went to Hong Kong for a secondment for six months with the investment funds team. This was just such a brilliant experience, I came back and did my PPC II exams, my fourth seat back in projects and construction again, and then did my final seat in finance across general banking and structured finances. So I got quite a bit of exposure to a lot of areas of the firm, which is very important for trainees, and different departments and teams are better suited to different people, which is fine, but the great thing about firms like the Maples Group is that you’ll get great exposure to a lot of areas and by the end of your traineeship you should be in a position to say which area you'd like to specialise.

Interview

Page 42

E: I was similar to Paul insofar as I had a pretty wide experience too: I started off in funds, spent 6 months there, so that was a long seat. I then went to litigation and I absolutely loved it; I thought I was going to qualify into it initially but I didn’t, but it was very cool being down at the Courts seeing your books being used and it was exactly what you’d think a lawyer would do. Then I went to PPC II, and after I joined the Corporate team, which is what I qualified into so I obviously love it. Then for my last seat I went to finance where I did a split seat between structured finance and asset finance. For me, the most challenging part was time management, and actually learning to say, “Yes, I can do this but you’ll need to give me a couple of hours''. When you’re the newest in it’s so easy to say “yes” to everything, so learning to prioritise work is important. But the best part is when a deal closes. Say you’ve just worked with a new Irish startup who has just had their first investment or it’s just exited, it’s super rewarding to get to that point. And because the Maples Group is an international law firm we have a lot of big players, so it’s very cool to work with these industry leaders who are hugely innovative and driven people, which is really inspiring to be around.

And Paul - Hong Kong! How was that?

P: It was incredible, it was just a life experience. And in fairness to the Maples Group they sold it as a personal experience as well as a professional one, and it feeds back into what we were talking about earlier about having a good personality and showing values beyond your work. I’d never been to Asia before so it was culturally and socially incredible. You're meeting and working with lawyers from all around the world with clients based everywhere from Dubai to Japan to Australia. There were times I’d even be getting phone calls in Mandarin, and I don’t speak Mandarin. It really does push you to be a better lawyer professionally, but it also just makes you a more well-rounded person.

How do you find working in the Maples Group? What is the best thing about the firm?

E: The fact that it’s an international firm, I think, with such a diverse range of clients. We’re always using the newest tech, getting such amazing experience and meeting corporate leaders, and that really attracted me to working there. But also the work culture is just so nice: everyone is so kind, and it’s something that can sometimes just get overlooked but it’s really important. After the last three years, it’s really obvious to me the culture is really special, everyone is so approachable and there is a great “open door” policy, so that atmosphere is up there with a professional experience which is second to none.

P: I was reluctant to use the term “hierarchy” earlier, and with the Maples Group's open door policy, it doesn’t feel like a hierarchy: it doesn’t matter what your role is, because everyone can make a contribution and you’ll be listened to. If you have ideas and say, “I want to do this” or “this is the way the firm should approach this,’’ and if you put the work into something, your idea will take off. So there is that room for innovative people who want to go in and try different things, which is kind of rare among law firms with their own ways of doing things, where this might not be so easy. But in the Maples Group, you’re given the opportunity to contribute beyond your role.

Are you involved in any social activities at the Maples Group? Is there a good social scene to the firm?

E: I’m on the trainee committee, so before Covid-19, we would do a lot of trainee-specific things like a weekend away which is always brilliant. It is a bonding session and you come back better friends.

There are also three Christmas parties so around Christmas is great. There’s often seasonal events like BBQs and I went sailing with one department once which was very fun. Even during Covid-19 the social committee has been great in sending out cocktail hampers and organising virtual events, like next week we have a “cook-along” session. So the social life is still alive and kicking even during Covid, I’d say.

Page 43

Interview

P: That pretty much answers it. Maples is a very social firm, and mine and Emma’s intake were particularly very social, but it really makes your training so much easier. Like you could put a message into the WhatsApp group asking for help and get an answer back in ten seconds, whereas if you didn’t have that support network it could take you a few hours to figure it out, so I really appreciate the strong social atmosphere at Maples.

Finally, what advice would you give to your younger self, if you were starting out again?

P: Don’t rush! Firstly, don’t feel you have to go down the solicitor or barrister route: you still have a brilliant law degree from Trinity and there are so many opportunities out there for law graduates without needing a qualification, so don’t feel you have to be shoehorned into either of these. Secondly, take your time, give yourself at least two years and give yourself time to do different things before you start your training contract. Firstly, it’ll be good craic, and secondly, it’ll stand to you when you start your training contract.

E: I agree with everything Paul said, but for when you actually start training, don’t take things personally. As a trainee you sometimes think you’re doing everything wrong or imposter syndrome settles in, but everyone makes mistakes and you’re just settling in. But also, get involved: got to every social event and network, get to know the people on your team not just on a professional basis but on a personal level, as it’s great to be liked and it makes life so much easier for you. So that’s the advice I would give.

Photo courtesy of Matthew O’Shea, JS Law and Business