Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Write a reflective essay to the below question:
‘Lawyers in training should be proactive … always on the lookout for experiences that prepare them for tomorrow.’ Richard Susskind, Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future, (3rd edn, OUP 2023), p 204
Taking the above quote into account and drawing on no more than two examples/experiences from the module, reflect on how your professional aspirations and your perceptions of the future of the legal profession have evolved over the course of the module.
The two examples/ experinces which could be discussed include, AI, Access to justice, the post office scandal in the UK and intersectionality/inequalioties & the law.
The essay should use Gibbs’ reflective cycle: It leads you through six distinct stages of exploring, reflecting and analysing an experience. These stages are: description, feelings, evaluation, analysis, conclusion and action.
Discuss how personal professional aspirations are to be a commercial solicitor, and draw on potential discussions and interests which were discovered by pursuing the module. In order to reflect on how these learning experiences may have shaped or changed your perspectives or shaped your interests or future academic or professional directions.You can – and are encouraged to – draw on your learning experiences from and engagement with the seminars, lectures, and readings, as well as extracurricular experiences and opportunities such as mooting, competitions, awards, volunteering or pro bono schemes, and / or any self-directed learning you may have done (ie online courses, additional training, etc).
I will attach below the description of the module, seminar instructions and recommended reading lists:
POST OFFICE SCANDAL:
Seminar 8 The Post Office Scandal – When the legal system fails
The aim of this session is to explore in more depth one of the worst miscarriages of justice in legal history, the Post Office Scandal, which has been very much in the news since New Year’s Day when the series Mr Bates vs The Post Office aired, triggering an extraordinary chain of events which may finally deliver justice for the Sub Postmasters. The Hamilton judgment (below) sets out the background of what happened.
This seminar is an opportunity to think about how the legal system works in practice, what happens when justice breaks down, and how lawyers helped or hindered justice in these particular cases. In particular, and very importantly, it is a chance to see how ordinary citizens experience the justice system. At the end of the seminar, you should be able to: i) demonstrate basic knowledge of the Post Office Scandal; ii) understand and criticise the way the legal system worked in this case; iii) demonstrate understanding of how lay people experience the legal system; and iv) prepare and deliver legally relevant advocacy of those lay perspectives.
Required Reading
Read the summary of the Post Office case by Professor Richard Moorhead (University of Exeter) which is attached to this handout, and this short article by Joshua Rozenberg KC which appeared in the January 2024 edition of the Law Society Gazette, Post Office Scandal: Lawyers in the frame.
Read Hamilton and others v Post Office Limited [2021] EWCA Crim 577, pp 1-37 (to para 139) and the section on Seema Misra (paras 198-209). If you are short of time, please ensure that you have read paras 1-94 and 198-209.
If your Surname begins with the letters A-M: Watch the evidence of Oyeteju Adedayo to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, here from 1:36:50. At this point in Mrs Adedayo’s evidence she has been discussing what happened when the Horizon system was not balancing and so said there was a shortfall (essentially, money missing).
If your Surname begins with the letters N-Z: Watch the evidence of Seema Misra to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, here at 51 minutes 40 seconds onwards. If you prefer you can read the transcript of her evidence here (page 35 onwards).
Additional reading (optional)
The following speeches will give some indications of issues covered in the PO Inquiry. You are not required to read these but it will assist you with your thinking if you do. The full timeline of this public statutory Inquiry is available here and you will see that it is currently ongoing (and in the final phases up to Spring/Summer 2024). The scope of the inquiry is set out in the Terms of Reference, and the key themes on which the Inquiry intends to focus its investigative work are reflected in the List of Issues.
Speech of Jason Beer KC to the Post Office Inquiry, 12/10/22, p100 to p170 (the pages are quite short as they are transcripts and can be found here or you can watch the hearing if you prefer).
Speech of Sam Stein KC to the Post Office Inquiry, here for pp 6-7 and 20-64 Speech of Ed Henry KC, here at pp 90-134
TASK A: Seminar Discussion
For the seminar you are asked to read the judgment and watch either Seema Misra’s evidence or Oyeteju’s evidence and think about the following questions:
What were the basic facts of this story?
At what points were law, the creation of legal rights, or the enforcement of law, relevant to the Sub-Post Masters story? Think about both the criminal justice system and the sub- postmaster’s treatment as workers or contractors of the Post Office. When might help be available with legal advice or representation?
What offences were the sub-postmasters convicted of? What were the critical elements of the offences?
What evidence did the Post Office rely on?
What rights does the law provide to ensure that people like Oyeteju Adedayo / Seema Misra are not wrongly convicted of criminal offences?
How does Oyeteju Adedayo / Seema Misra’s experience of the justice system compare with the way the justice system is supposed to work?
What impact did the injustices visited on the Sub-Post Masters have on their lives?
How effective do you think the legal help the Sub-Post Masters received was?
What were the main weaknesses in the Post office’s evidence?
What did the Post Office do that led to such serious criticisms from the Court of Appeal?
How well did the original courts and lawyers deal with these cases?
TASK B: Produce a statement for the Inquiry
In the Seminar you will be asked to work together to produce a statement to the Post Office Inquiry on behalf of the victims of the Post Office Scandal setting out:
a) What the Post Office did wrong (basic facts of the story)
b) How weaknesses in the legal system and by lawyers involved in the case contributed to the harms visited on the victims
c) How this has impacted on the lives of those affected
d) What should be fairly done to satisfy the victims that justice has been done once the Inquiry has completed.
Lastly: Reflection Worksheet
Please use the final 5-10 minutes of the seminar to complete your Reflection Worksheets, to reflect on your learning about the Post Office scandal and what it tells us about access to justice. Specifically, consider the point made by Seema Misra about there being two rules of law: one for ‘them’ (the powerful or rich) and another for ‘us’ (the SPMs and ordinary citizens).
PO Case Summary
Extract from: Richard Moorhead, Karen Nokes and Rebecca Helm, ‘The Conduct of Horizon Prosecutions and Appeals, Post Office Project: Working Paper 3’ (2021).
From 1999 POL rolled out an accounting and point of sale system, Horizon, which they depended on to provide an accurate record of all transactions carried out by SPMs and their staff. Horizon was supplied and, to a degree, managed, by a sub-contractor, Fujitsu. It was a system developed out of a benefits system being developed with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) until DWP pulled out.1 Evidence suggests difficulties with the system from the beginning.2
Where income to the branch did not match the transactions on Horizon, shortfalls were shown in branch accounts. POL’s contracts sought to make the SPMs liable for these shortfalls where they were at fault (e.g. if negligent), although POL treated any shortfall as the SPMs legal responsibility. The design of the system required that the SPMs accept the shortfalls as accurate statements of account to be able to continue trading. POL also insisted SPMs pay POL the shortfall amounts immediately, or sometimes by way of instalments.
Horizon did not have any function for disputing transactions. This omission was a deliberate part of its design, decided by the Post Office.3 SPMs could raise concerns or disputes to statements via helplines (the Horizon Helpdesk and the National Business Support Centre), who encouraged SPMs to agree accounts in the interim and allow for any corrections to be made later if there were errors. POL would often seek to enforce shortfalls in these accounts as debts, even where they were disputed in this way, without sufficient investigation. Court judgments suggest investigations of queries and concerns relating to Horizon, frequently raised by SPMs, were inconsistent and often inadequate, if they were conducted at all. POL staff, in particular auditors, and Fujitsu staff were involved in such investigations. Horizon training was limited and did not appear to include any explanation for identifying or handling shortfalls.4
Fujitsu recorded Horizon problems, referred through to Fujitsu from the Horizon Helpline, in files known as a PEAKs. Fujitsu’s responses to more common problems fed into Known Error Logs (KELs) which recorded a range of problems and bugs in Horizon.5 ARQ (audit) data was also available. Evidence suggests that on occasion Fujitsu mischaracterised PEAK records as indicating user-error rather than being unexplained, or potential or actual Horizon errors. There is evidence that this had financial benefits for Fujitsu under their contract with POL, as they avoided contract penalties if errors were user not system-error. The judge in Bates (Fraser J) was undecided on whether these financial benefits impacted on the behaviour of staff within Fujitsu.6 In England, prosecutions of SPMs for criminal offences said to be evidenced by the Horizon shortfalls were mainly brought by Post Office lawyers. Prosecutions began in 2000 and POL are said to have stopped prosecuting save in limited circumstances in 2014.7 There were an estimated 736 such prosecutions where charges typically included theft, fraud, and false accounting and relied solely or mainly on Horizon data.8 In many cases, guilty pleas to false accounting were accepted, with more serious charges (usually of theft) being dropped, or not pursued (e.g. by being left to ‘lie on the file’), following the plea. The more serious charge was typically dropped on the condition that SPMs admitted to covering up shortfalls whilst they sought
1 Bates v Post Office Limited Judgment (No6) “Horizon Issues” [2019] EWHC 3408 [14]. 2 Bates No 6 455, Hamilton 96
3 Bates No 6 300
4 Bates No 3 104, 142
5 Hamilton 17
6 Bates No 6 181, 182, 493
7 Paula Vennells, ‘Paula Vennells to Darren Jones MP, Chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee’ (24 June 2020) .
8 ‘The Final Reckoning’ accessed 14 July 2021.
time to contest or pay them. At least some SPMs allege this ‘covering up’ was based on advice from the helpline. The evidence suggests POL sought to manage prosecution and pleas in ways that limited criticism of Horizon and consistent with maximised recovery of shortfalls. In at least four cases, forgoing criticism of Horizon was a condition of more serious charges against SPMs being dropped.
Problems with Horizon began to be reported by journalists; in particular, Karl Flinders at Computer Weekly published a story in 2009, with MPs acting on complaints, and SPMs becoming organised as the Justice for Sub-Post Masters Alliance in the same year. With political pressure building, an independent review was agreed by POL to be conducted by Second Sight who were appointed in July 2012. A related process of investigation and mediation for former and current SPMs was also brought in part way through the investigation. Second Sight became concerned about obstruction of their investigations by POL, and in turn, POL complained internally about the approach of Second Sight’s investigations and Second Sight seeking to stray beyond, in their view, the remit agreed at the start of the process. Second Sight’s investigation and the mediation scheme was terminated in March/April 2015. POL’s CEO, Paula Vennells and a Second Sight director/partner gave evidence to a Parliamentary Select Committee in February 2015 where Vennels said, “If there had been any miscarriages of justice, it would have been really important to me and the Post Office that we surfaced those.”
SPMs brought the Group litigation (Bates) which commenced in 2017. Their claims were for damages for financial loss, personal injury, deceit, duress, unconscionable dealing, harassment, and unjust enrichment arising out of POL’s operation of the Horizon system. The case was hard- fought. POL and Fujitsu’s approach to disclosure was inadequate and their evidence and arguments were subject to severe criticism by the High Court judge hearing the case, Mr Justice Fraser.9 In particular, disclosure of KELs were denied on a variety of grounds which were false or unwarranted. The existence of PEAK’s was only discovered by the claimants’ expert in 2018, which led to the very late disclosure of these records. Several witnesses were found to have misled the court and been otherwise inadequate; important elements of the Post Office’s case were put which were contradicted by their own witnesses’ evidence; and, serious criticisms of the claimants were made, which were not evidenced and should have been if they were to be put properly before the court. The case settled in 2019 before cases were fully adjudicated by the court. The judge referred a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions saying the evidence of some Fujitsu witnesses required investigating.
The Hamilton judgment in 2021 dealt with 42 appellants (three brought posthumously10) prosecuted and convicted between 2003 and 2013.11 Their cases were referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). The Hamilton judgment condemned the approach of POL to investigating and prosecuting 39 of those cases, finding that their approach was an affront to the public conscience. Failures to investigate cases properly and disclosure failings were found to be deliberate.
In criticising the Post Office prosecutions, the Court of Appeal did not need to make findings about who knew what, and when; who may have misled whom; or who was responsible for the corporate and professional failings. They did not need to do so to decide the appeals before them. The evidence shows that certain decisions and information connected with these cases were shared at the Post Office at Board level. The Board includes non-executive directors, including a Government appointee, given POL’s sole shareholder is the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy.
9 ‘Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd [2017] EWHC 2844 (QB) (Bates No 1))’ accessed 9 July 2021. 10 Julian Wilson, Peter Holmes and Dawn O’Connell
11 Hamilton and Others v Post-Office [2021] EWCA Crim 577.
ACCESS TO JUSTICE:
Seminar 6 Access to Justice
In this seminar we will be exploring the meaning of access to justice. In particular, we will focus on the impact of the reforms in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) on access to publicly funded legal advice via the legal aid scheme. You will develop your understanding of the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme for non-inquest civil and family cases requiring legal aid. We will consider how effective this scheme is in ensuring the protection of fundamental human rights and look at proposals from the Law Society’s Green Paper, ‘Proposals for a 21st Century Justice System’ (October 2023), ‘practical policy proposals that address some of the problems in the civil justice system affecting individuals on low incomes and small businesses’.
At the end of this seminar, you should be able to demonstrate i) a competent understanding of the meaning and importance of access to justice; ii) a critical understanding of how the legal system works in practice and what happens when (access to) justice breaks down; iii) the ability to critically appraise differing legal services funding models and interrogate recent related reforms in England and Wales; and iv) critical appreciation for the role of lawyers in helping or hindering access to justice.
Before the Seminar
Task 1: What is access to justice?
Consider the first four readings in the module reading list for this week (Gillespie and Weare Chapter 11; Lady Hale’s speech; Ministry of Justice document; Law Society proposals) and draft your answers to the following questions:
What is ‘access to justice’? How would you define it, in your own words?
Why is access to justice an important concept when studying law?
What are some of the issues that might prevent people from being able to access the
justice system?
What is the purpose of the legal aid scheme in England and Wales?
What were the key changes brought in by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of
Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO)?
To what extent have these reforms achieved their purported aims and what wider
impact(s) have these reforms had on access to justice?
What are some of the issues that might prevent people from being able to access the
justice system?
How might the five proposals of the Law Society in the 2023 Green Paper on ‘21st
Century Justice’ be actioned?
Task A: Discussion and key findings
Task B: Access to justice and the role of lawyers
With reference to the week’s reading list and any other sources from independent research you have conducted, please reflect on the following statement:
‘Lawyers no longer play an essential role in supporting access to justice in England and Wales.’
In advance of the seminar, please write up some notes that critically appraise this statement and refer back to the texts where necessary. Please be prepared to discuss with the wider group during the seminar.
Task C: Legal aid and the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme
Before the seminar, you will need to download a copy of the ECF Form. Imagine that you need to apply for ECF as a direct applicant (i.e. a member of the public who does not necessarily have any legal experience). Make some notes reflecting on how clear the form is. Are there any parts that you do not understand? Would you feel confident advising someone else on how to fill it in? Is the section intended for providers clear to you? What would you change about this form to improve its accessibility for applicants?
Task D: ECF for immigration cases
A majority of applications for ECF (approximately 70%) are for immigration cases. Referring to the guide by Public Law Project ‘How to get ECF for immigration cases’ (you may also want to have a look at the selected paragraphs of the case of Gudanaviciene from the reading list), consider the following scenario:
Your client is originally from Zimbabwe and arrived in the United Kingdom 15 years ago on a student visa. He overstayed, working illegally, and entered a relationship with a British national. The relationship has recently come to an end. They have one child, who is now aged eight, and the child has British citizenship.
Your client never applied to regularise his status. He has recently been told by his employer that he can no longer work at the company without getting his immigration papers. As your client is no longer able to work, he has no source of income. His ex-partner has asked him to move out of the family home so he is staying with a friend, but the friend says he can only support him for a few weeks.
Your client wishes to stay in the UK with his child. Your client is educated to university level and is fluent in English.
Do you think that the client would be likely to receive ECF? Why/why not? What rights might be engaged?
Consider whether this person would be able to resolve their legal issue without the help of a lawyer. You may want to have a look at the immigration rules, but please do not read them all in detail. Can you identify the category that the client should apply under? (Note that even experienced immigration practitioners sometimes give people the wrong advice on which application route people should use – and Home Office caseworkers also get it wrong sometimes!).
Final Task: Reflection
For the last few minutes of the seminar, please reflect on whether you think access to justice could be improved in England, and if so, how. Should there be more funding for legal aid? Or alternative ways of improving access to legal advice and information? Please use the Reflection Worksheet to record your thoughts.
AI AND LEGAL TECHNOLOGY:
Seminar 5 Legal Technology (AI, Law & The Professions)
Question 1: Disruptive legal tech in the law firm
Disruptive legal technology is a fascinating and emerging area of study and holds significant implications for the future of law. This seminar is a bit of a deep dive into legal education technology, the use of AI tools and platforms in legal practice, and the ethics of AI in law. It consolidates some of the work done in Term 1 on lawtech and skills for the future of work, law and business.
Before the Seminar:
Please ensure you have completed the reading for Week 10 (Legal Technology I) in the Module Reading List before the seminar, so you will be well-prepared to work individually, in small groups and pairs to complete Tasks A-C below.
Task A: Independent Research / Mini-Case Study
Before your scheduled seminar, please research any THREE of the following legal tech tools or platforms (whichever you find especially interesting and / or innovative). For each platform, please answer the following mini-case study questions. You will be asked to share ALL three of your case studies in the seminar.
Casedo | HighQ | Patch App | Lawbore | Luminance | DoNotPay
When was the technology launched and what are the stories of the entrepreneurs behind it?
How does the technology work, exactly?
Who are the target users and how is it currently being used?
What are its potential future uses?
What are the pros and cons of using the technology?
In the Seminar:
Sharing outcomes of Task A
Task B: Roundtable Discussion on the Ethics of AI
AI and machine learning are already widely used in and shaping the development of certain legal processes, from predicting case outcomes to assisting in legal research. However, the use of AI in law raises significant ethical concerns – among them, algorithmic bias, misinformation, accountability, transparency and privacy.
For this task, the seminar group will be divided into small groups for roundtable discussions. A roundtable discussion is an organised / structured conversation with a moderator, speakers who bring differing experiences and perspectives to the subject of the discussion, and a rapporteur (an audience member who might ask follow-up questions of the speakers and will then report the proceedings and outcomes of the discussion after the roundtable has concluded).
Once assigned into groups, each roundtable will appoint a moderator, speakers, and a rapporteur. The group will work together to discuss and debate ONE of the following questions, with the moderator steering the conversation and asking questions, the speakers sharing their viewpoints, and the rapporteur taking selective notes to share with the wider group. Please
ensure that you have drafted some brief notes for each of the below questions in advance of the seminar so you are prepared to meaningfully contribute to whichever group you are allocated to.
Roundtable Questions:
▪ Does the use of AI in legal processes, given its potential to reflect and amplify societal biases, pose more harm than benefit in a just legal system?
▪ Is the ‘black box’ nature of AI decision-making compatible with the foundational legal principle that decisions must be transparent and justifiable?
▪ In cases where AI tools lead to legal errors, who should bear the responsibility: the AI developers or the legal professionals using the tool?
▪ Given AI’s capability to process extensive personal data, does its integration into legal processes compromise client confidentiality and the broader principle of privacy?
▪ Will an over-reliance on AI in legal practices lead to a significant erosion of essential lawyering and human / soft skills?
▪ Will the automation of certain legal tasks by AI lead to a significant displacement of jobs within the legal profession, and is this a necessary evolution or a step too far?
The seminar tutor will time the roundtables. Once the time is up, we will go around the room to ask each rapporteur to report on the key points of the discussion and any conclusions / outcomes.
Task C: Mini-Problem Question
Task Guidance
Before the seminar, you will need to have read The Lord McAlpine of West Green v Sally Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) in order to participate in this exercise. Please note that this is useful preparation for your January legal reasoning (problem question) assessment, and consolidates the work done in Seminar 03 on how to use the ILAC method to answer problem questions in law. You will need to have sight of the Defamation Act 2013 in the seminar when working through the mini-problem question (you should already be familiar with this Act having looked at this extensively in Seminar 01 but by no means are you expected to be an expert on defamation law – this exercise is all about practicing the method of using ILAC and the focus is on the approach rather than going too far into the detail of defamation).
Scenario
A prominent British politician, Lord Franklin, who is well known for his charitable work, finds himself at the centre of a media storm when a major news outlet reports a story involving an unnamed parliamentarian alleged to have been involved in serious financial misconduct. The media report is based on an ongoing investigation but does not reveal the name of the party being investigated. Molly, a London-based journalist and social media influencer with a significant following, takes to Twitter (now X) and tweets: “Everyone in Westminster is talking about the financial scandal … what is Lord Franklin doing right now? Just asking.” She ends the tweet with a ‘wink’ emoji. The tweet immediately goes viral, with thousands of shares and speculative comments.
Lord Franklin, who had no involvement or connection to the allegations, faces an immensely damaging public backlash, and his reputation, built over decades, is tarnished overnight, with some social media users calling for his peerage to be removed and for him to be arrested for theft. The same news outlet later publishes a story that makes reference to the Twitter / X media storm and makes clear that Lord Franklin was never the subject of their report, but the damage is already done. Lord Franklin is furious and seeks legal advice as he is considering legal action against Molly for libel. He argues that her tweet insinuated his involvement in the scandal, causing serious harm to his reputation.
Molly defends her position, claiming that her tweet was merely a question and not a statement of fact. She also asserts that her tweet did not directly accuse Lord Franklin but was a reflection of ongoing public speculation.
Working in pairs and using the ILAC Cycle, advise Molly.
INTERSECTIONALITY, INEQUALITIES AND THE LAW
Seminar 7 Intersectionality, Inequalities & The Law
In this seminar, our focus is on how the law is experienced differently by diverse groups of people. You will develop your knowledge and understanding of the concepts of equality, discrimination and intersectionality. At the end of the seminar, you will be able to demonstrate basic knowledge and understanding of a) the Equality Act 2010, and b) intersectionality (both as a concept and in respect of its place in law); c) demonstrate competent understanding of relevant social, economic, political, ethical and cultural contexts within which the law operates; and d) exhibit the ability to reflect, critique and empathise.
The seminar will be very discussion-based. Please keep in mind the importance of being empathetic, sensitive and respectful with your peers throughout the seminar. Of course, you should feel able to contribute freely, but it is crucial that you do so in a way that is sensitive and respectful to everyone in the room. In preparation for your seminar, please complete the following two tasks.
Before the seminar
Task A: Experiences of the law
Please choose and read one of the three sets of readings listed below (i.e. the blue, orange or pink set). Prepare a general summary of the content of each reading within your chosen set and pinpoint what you believe are the 3-5 most important takeaway messages from each of the readings. In addition, record your thoughts and reflections on the content of your chosen reading set as a whole – think, for example, about what these readings tell us about law from the perspective of minority groups who may feel that they live at the margins of society.
Law & Sexual Diversity
▪ HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and HT (Cameroon) v Same [2010] UKSC 31
▪ Hall v Bull [2013] UKSC 73
▪ Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others [2018] UKSC 49
Law & Gender
▪ Croft v Royal Mail Group plc (formerly Consignia plc) [2003] EWCA Civ 1045
▪ Gender Recognition Act 2004, ss 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11A, 11B, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25
▪ Alex Sharpe, ‘The Ethicality of the Demand for (Trans)parency in Sexual Relations’ (2017)
43(2) Australian Feminist Law Journal 161
Law & Disability
▪ Burnip v Birmingham City Council & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 629
▪ First Group v Paulley [2017] UKSC 4
▪ Anna Lawson, ‘Disability and Employment in the Equality Act 2010: Opportunities Seized,
Lost and Generated’ (2011) 40(4) Industrial Law Journal
Task B: Intersectionality and the law
Prepare answers to the below questions ready to discuss in the seminar.
Define intersectionality, and explain how intersectionality moves beyond more traditional approaches to equality and non-discrimination. In your answer, ensure you draw explicitly on the content from the Crenshaw article which is required reading in Week 2.
To what extent does the Equality Act 2010 embrace intersectionality?
Summarise the facts and outcome in the case of BS v Spain App No 47159/08 (ECtHR, 24 July 2012) [Tip: to access this judgment, go to hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng and search by application number (i.e. 47159/08).] In what respects and to what extent did the ECtHR engage with intersectionality in its BS v Spain judgment?
Read paras 31-40 of the dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque joined by Judge Vehabović in the case of Garib v the Netherlands App No 43494/09 (ECtHR, 6 November 2017). [Tip: again, to access this judgment, go to hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng and search by application number.] What does this dissent reveal about the ECtHR’s embrace of intersectionality in its subsequent judgments?
What might, and what should, be the future for intersectionality in law?
During the Seminar
In your seminar preparation, you were asked to do the following:
Prepare a general summary of the content of each reading within your chosen set and pinpoint what you believe are the 3-5 most important takeaway messages from each of the readings. In addition, record your thoughts and reflections on the content of your chosen reading set as a whole – think, for example, about what these readings tell us about law from the perspective of minority groups who may feel that they live at the margins of society. This will inform your participation in the roundtable discussions (see Task A) in the seminar.
Task A: Roundtable Discussion on Law & Sexual Identity / Law & Gender Identity / Law & Disability
For this task, the seminar group will be divided into small groups for roundtable discussions framed around each of the three sets of readings, which relate to a) law and sexuality, b) law and gender identity, and c) law and disability. Of course, there are several other protected cha
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.