The Rights of Fathers: Family Law in the United Kingdom

Tafadzwa Mufunda considers the rights of fathers to have relationships with their children, the role of family courts when relationships breakdown and the importance – and complexities – of parental responsibility

On a father’s right to see and maintain contact with their children

Being a father is one of the most memorable, challenging, enjoyable, testing, humbling and interesting things a man can do. Whilst being a father is a privilege, every man should have a right or opportunity to have and raise his children, if this is the path he seeks and it is possible. This should be enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).  The most relevant articles in this regard are, Article 5: the right to liberty and security, Article 8: the right to respect for private and family life and Article 12: the right to marry and start a family.

Article 12 relates mainly to marriage and children born within the context of a marriage[1][2]; however, it should include children born outside marriage as well. This is because the concept of a family unit has changed since the Convention was created in 1952. This is reflected in the regular guidance that is produced by the European Court of Human Rights[3]. Other changes that have been considered in the guidance include same-sex marriage or transexuals right to marry. This particularly important because the concept of family and a relationship has changed considerably in the last 70 years. An example is 1950’s Britain outlawed homosexuality for men, which was only decriminalised in 1967[4].

The guidance for Article 8 of the ECHR, does recognise that ‘family’ should not be confined to marriage-based relationships only, as part of the protection it guarantees for this particular right[5]. Marriage, therefore, should not a prerequisite for starting a family, as many couples are opting to start families outside wedlock for a variety of reasons.  If a relationship ends, however, being married makes a vital difference in relation to what may happen in children and financial matters. This is reflected in some of main legislation dealing with divorce and financial proceedings and child arrangements upon a breakdown of a relationship: The Children Act 1989, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Family Law Act 1996, the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 and the Divorce Dissolution and Separation Act 2020.

Parental Responsibility

An example of the importance of marriage is in relation to parental responsibility(PR). PR is defined by the Children Act(CA 1989)[6] as, ‘all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property’. PR gives parents the rights to make important decisions in regard to the child(ren)’s lives, including, on education and medical decisions.

If a father was married to the mother at the time the mother gave birth to their children, both parties would have joint parental responsibility for the children. If not, only the mother would have pr. Herein lies the issue. Mothers will always have parental responsibility, but if a father is not married to the mother at the time they have children, or on the birth certificate, he does not automatically have PR. For the purposes of PR, family law classifies them as ‘unmarried fathers’ and they may only acquire parental responsibility in specific ways under s4 CA 1989[7]:

It is arguable that all biological fathers should be granted parental responsibility, like the mother, unless there are extenuating circumstances, for example in the case of a rape or incest, particularly if there was a relationship between the parties.

Article 8 and 12 of the ECHR should extend to fathers having an automatic right to parental responsibility unless there are significant and proven safeguarding risks. In current practice, and when considering whether an unmarried father should be granted PR or a child arrangements order, the courts will consider the child’s welfare[8] and some principles laid out in Re H (Minors)[9].

The Re H(Minors) principles include:

1. The father’s degree of commitment to the child;
2. The state of the father’s commitment to the child;
3. The reasons for making the application.

In cases where the biological father has and is continuing to show commitment to his children, he should have PR, despite his marital status, without having to make an application to the court. Where the mother is not agreeable to this, the father may have to apply for a child arrangements order. This is because if a father is not married, or on the birth certificate of the child(ren), he may need the court’s intervention. In addition, with the current delays in the Family Law system, an application could take months which, in the context of a child’s life, is a significant amount of time.

Complications that arise from Domestic Abuse allegations

Another complicated issue is where allegations of domestic abuse are made.Where a person, male or female, alleges abuse, it is an allegation as opposed to a fact. What could happen, in practice, is that the person accused is often treated as guilty, before being granted an opportunity to defend the allegations. For example, if a mother alleges a father has abused her and the children and leaves/flees the family home to go a refuge.

 In this example, the father would have temporarily lost custody/access, justifiably or not, of the children because of the allegations. If the parties cannot resolve the matter themselves, the father will have to go through the court process[10][11]. It is important to note that this could happen in the case of a father leaving the home as well.

Domestic Abuse court process

In the example above, the mother could allege that the reason she has withheld contact, and fled to a refuge, is that the father has abused her and the children. In order to do this, she would have to clearly set out her allegations against the father in a schedule of allegations and write out a statement. The father would also have an opportunity to put forward his responses to her allegations and a produce a statement. In the first hearing of the father’s application, the court will consider whether a fact-finding hearing is necessary. This is a hearing to decide on the mother’s allegations and, potentially, the extent of father’s future role in the child(ren)s lives, depending on the findings.

It is important to note that the court will not try allegations only because they are disputed, or extremely serious or because it would provide parents an opportunity to air their grievances. As per Sir Geoffrey Vos, in the case of K v K[12], ‘the allegations any person makes have to be relevant to deciding whether to make child arrangements order and, if so, on what terms’. This is crucially important, because neither parent should withhold care of a child to the other parent, on the basis of allegations which are not relevant to the children.

An important distinction is that, not all directive, assertive, stubborn, or selfish behaviour, will be abuse in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child’[13]. Some of these behaviours, while unpleasant, should not be used as a reason for stopping contact. The Family Law system is currently strained for multiple reasons, including funding, however a big reason is there are many cases in the system which should not be there.

In the example above, if the father refutes the allegations, he would have to engage with the court process. This could mean he may have to pay for representation, at great cost. Conversely, if the mother had made an allegation of domestic abuse, she could be eligible for legal aid/ free legal representation. This does fuel the myth that Family Law favours the mother/woman, however, it is more accurate to say it favours the primary carer of the children, which, in the majority of cases is the mother of the children. In addition, the court’s paramount consideration, in family matters, is the children and so, judges and magistrates may take a cautious approach in deciding whether contact, between the father and children, is appropriate where allegations have been raised.

From the father’s perspective, it would appear that the Family Law process runs counter to Article 8, 12 and Article 14 of the ECHR, in respect of the fact that he might temporarily lose contact with his children on the basis of allegations raised that are, thus far, unproven. He will, also, very likely, have to pay considerable costs for representation, while the mother might not have to, and he might not receive compensation, even if all the allegations are not found to have happened/untrue, considering the evidence, on the balance of probabilities.

If the allegations made are found to be untrue/not found, the next stage in the process is considering how contact will progress with the father/ the father’s application[14]. Also, the main remedy, if an individual has frustrated the father’s ability to see his children and has been unreasonable, is an application for costs: to be re-imbursed for the costs of the proceedings. Unfortunately, it is very challenging to obtain costs[15] and the courts are reluctant to award them, except in the most serious of cases[16].

Considering the above, it is arguable that fathers’ rights under the European Convention are currently being infringed on because of the way the family justice system works and this needs to change. This need for change is part of the reason Fathers4Justice, and other organisations were formed: a perceived bias against fathers. There is a bias, in regard to the primary carer, and these are statistically more likely to be mothers: a 2023 study has estimated that 1 in 9 full-time stay-at- home parents are fathers[17]

Conclusion

This short piece has sought to highlight some of the issues fathers face in the family court system. Every father should have a right to have and have contact with their child, unless there are proven and significant safeguarding risks towards the child(ren). That said, a distinction should be made :  the relationship between the mother and father is different between the parents and the children and a bad romantic relationship does not necessarily mean both parties cannot be good parents.

The courts recognise that where relationships break down, any children involved should be the paramount consideration. In saying that, there is a presumption[18] that having both parents is in the best interests for a child, unless proven otherwise. It is very important for each parent to have a relationship with their child and also, for the child to have this relationship. The child should, ideally, know and benefit from both parents and that should be their right as well as the parents’.

---

[1] X v Belgium and the Netherlands, App No 6482/74(ECHR, 10 July 1975)

[2] European Convention on Human Rights, ‘Guide on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Right to Marry’ pp14 < https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_12_ENG.pdf, > accessed 18.02.2023

[3] ibid

[4] Homosexuality was decriminalised by s.1(1) of the Sexual Offences act 1967

[5] European Convention on Human Rights, ‘Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Right to Marry’ < https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_12_ENG.pdf, > accessed 18.02.2023

[6] Children Act 1989, s(3)(1)

[7] Children Act 1989, s 4

[8] Children Act 1989, s 1 (1) (b)

[9] Re H (Minors)(Local Authority : Parental Rights) (No 3) [1991] 2 WLR 763

[10] Children Act 1989, s 8

[11] HM Courts & Tribunals Service, ‘Form C100’ (Courts, sentencing and tribunals, 21 July 2022) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-c100-application-under-the-children-act-1989-for-a-child-arrangements-prohibited-steps-specific-issue-section-8-order-or-to-vary-or-discharge > accessed 18 February 2023

[12] [2022] EWCA Civ 468, para 67.

[13] Re L [2017] EWCA Civ 2121

[14] FPR, PD 12J, para 28 – 40

[15] Re T (Order for Costs) [2005] EWCA Civ 311

[16] Stuart Hughes and Sabuhi Chaudhry, ‘Fact Finding Hearings: Who Pays?’ (Family Law Week, 14 September 2012) < https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed100553&gt; accessed 18 February 2023

[17] Fatherhood Institute, ‘ Stay at home dads in the UK : A Fatherhood Institute Briefing’ (January 2023) < http://www.fatherhoodinstitute.org/2023/stay-at-home-dads-rise-by-a-third-since-pre-pandemic/#:~:text=The%20data%20shows%20that%20one,one%20in%2014%20in%202019 > accessed 18 February 2023.

[18] Children Act 1989, s 1(2a)

DISCLAIMER: THE BPP HUMAN RIGHTS BLOG, AND ALL PIECES POSTED ON THE BLOG, ARE WRITTEN AND EDITED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE STUDENT BODY. NO PUBLICATION OR OPINION CONTAINED WITHIN IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VALUES OR BELIEFS HELD BY BPP UNIVERSITY OR THE APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THAT OF THE AUTHOR AND ARE IN NO WAY SUPPORTED OR ENDORSED BY BPP UNIVERSITY, THE APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP OR ANY MEMBERS OF STAFF.’

Photo by Kelli McClintock on Unsplash

Human Rights in Ukraine

Mihaela Arabadji reviews how Russia’s invasion has impacted human rights in Ukraine and how various countries have responded.

‘We will win the war and then we will go to the sea in Crimea,’ this is what a pupil from Ukraine wrote in his essay about his plans for spring.¹ This child, like many others in Ukraine, want the war to end as the rights of children and all citizens of Ukraine are violated. Let us remember the massacres in the Ukrainian city, Bucha, where the Russian army tortured civilians, shot on the streets, and threw them into wells. Women, men, and children were killed and the Russian army tried to burn their corpses. The president of Ukraine asked the United Nations to hold Russia accountable by investigating the massacres committed by Russia in Ukraine, creating an international tribunal for the defence rights and the conviction of the guilty, like the Nüremberg trials.² 

On January 30th 2023, the Office of the High Commissioner U.N. published that a total of 7,110 civilians were killed, 438 of these fatalities were children, and 11,547 were injured, 842 of these were children.³ The Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine, is a deliberate contravention of the United Nations Charter by the massive human rights violations, crimes against humanity and war crimes. A recent report from the Office of Commissioner for Human Rights indicates that innocent people are being killed and their homes and lives are destroyed.⁴ Many speakers, during a UN discussion on the Ukrainian situation said that Russia has violated international human rights law and international humanitarian law. Even if the latest violations were condemned, quite a few speakers expressed the importance of the strongest condemnations from all United Nations Members: Estonia on behalf of European Union and Denmark on behalf Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, Switzerland, Germany, Ireland, France, North Macedonia, Australia, Luxembourg, Lithuania, Venezuela, Russia, Netherlands, Syria, Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Estonia, United States, United Kingdom, Belarus, Italy, Montenegro, Denmark, Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Belgium, Poland, Bulgaria, Portugal, Sweden, Georgia, Malawi, Albania, Latvia, Türkiye, Austria, China, Romania, Japan, Finland and Liechtenstein. They emphasised that ‘all the perpetrators must be held accountable.’⁵  

The U.N. rights chief, Volker Tuerk, declared on December 15, 2022, the actual numbers of injured and deceased are likely to grow higher as U.N. monitors still registers crimes against civilians. This has a horrendous impact on children as an estimated of 1.5 million are at risk of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental conditions.⁶  

Additionally, the commission documented evidence of summary executions, rape, unlawful confinement, torture, ill-treatment, and other sexual violence. Although, Moscow denied deliberately targeting the civilians, the Commission found that war crimes, violations of human rights and international humanitarian law have been committed in Ukraine. ⁷ 

The day of February 24, 2022, when the Russian leadership started a war against Ukraine, will not be forgotten by both Ukrainians and the entire world, who hoped that such a day would never come. Since August 24, 1991, when Ukraine won its independence, it has always oscillated between the West and Russia, with which it had intense and long economic connections. The ongoing crisis has deeper roots, arising from the troubled history of this state, which failed to find its own way and quickly became a “pawn” in the ongoing dispute between Russia and the West, “dependency” being the key word of the dispute.⁸ 

What are Russia’s interests?

The biggest Russia’s disapproval was the entry into NATO not only of the former allies (Poland and Romania) but also of the 3 Baltic Republics, former members of the Soviet Union (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia). The last straw for Russia was the European Union’s attempt to draw Ukraine closer to the West; this triggered a chain of events which led to the annexation of Crimea.⁹ 

Ukraine has an important geostrategic interest for Russia. Accordingly, Russia is doing everything it can to keep Ukraine as a ‘buffer state’ between Russian territory and NATO by re-placing it in Moscow’s circle of dominance to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO or growing relations with EU. In addition, Russia is trying to build the Eurasian Union – as a rival to the EU, NATO, and the USA, which without Ukraine are no longer interested.¹⁰ 

EU interests 

The EU and its Member States are united in their firm support for Ukraine and strongly condemn Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified military aggression. EU leaders have repeatedly asked Russia to immediately stop its military actions, unconditionally withdraw all military forces and equipment, and fully respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence.¹¹ In response to the military aggression, the EU has shown unity and strength and provided Ukraine with humanitarian, political, financial, and military support. 

Great Britain has provided significant military aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian invasion. ‘Britain has the necessary resistance to be with Ukraine ‘until victory’’, promised foreign minister, James Cleverly, in his speech before the annual conference of the Conservative Party.¹² The head of British diplomacy declared: ‘We believe in freedom, in the rule of law. We believe that an aggressor cannot invade his neighbour with impunity. […] For this reason, we stand with the brave Ukrainians who defend their homeland.’¹³  

The United Kingdom government acted quickly to help protect the most vulnerable people, children, women, the elderly, and people with disabilities in Ukraine and in the regions around Ukraine. The UK provided £220 million for humanitarian assistance, including setting up 4 health facilities which provide medical supplies and aid; providing clean water and food; partnering with UNICEF to cater Water, Sanitation and Hygiene services and education to children and families; contributing towards UNFPA programmes for people affected by  gender-based violence and for sexual health provision; funding frontline medical assistance to provide specialist training,  while establishing mobile health clinics to help the people in need.¹⁴  

The EU’s help has also been crucial. It provides child support, humanitarian aid, helps refugees through temporary protection mechanisms like the UK and macro-financial assistance to foster stability.¹⁵ Following from the EU-Ukraine Summit, EU is providing nearly 50 billion euros for humanitarian, emergency, budgetary and military support.¹⁶ At the summit, Ursula von der Leyen introduced the modern childcare strategy where children, without parental care due to the war, can grow up in a loving environment that makes them confident and strong. This includes capacity building and a twinning project to provide the best possible care for orphans.¹⁷ 

Who is still ‘pro’ war? 

At the same time, some countries refused to condemn Russia’s military actions that have already cost the lives of hundreds of civilians, deciding not to quit their historical or commercial ties with Russia. 141 countries voted for the UN Security Council Resolution condemning the invasion, with only 5 against. China decided to abstain from voting on the resolution and has since offered to negotiate peace between the nations in conflict. Belarus supports the invasion of Russia, which promised supporting Putin, claiming that West is the one who provoked him. Many geopolitical analysts consider that Alexander Lukashenko and Belarus are just puppets of the Kremlin regime.¹⁸ The president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, praised Putin for his deadly invasion, blaming, at the same time, the Western ‘hysteria.’ Likewise, the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba offered strong support to Putin, accusing the US and the West.¹⁹ 

In conclusion the path chosen by Moscow, of aggressing Ukraine and the entire Western world, will eventually end in catastrophe. Later, Russia may have a chance for a new beginning. But for the moment, the Ukrainian people are to be congratulated for the courage they show in defending their country. As Roman Goncharenko stated, ‘Ukraine has the right to choose its own destiny’.²⁰ 

---

References

1. Anatol Cibotari,’’We will win the war and then we will go to sea in the Crimea.’ A pupil from Ukraine wrote an essay about his plans for spring’ (Replica, 16 March 2022) <https://replicamedia.md/ro/article/N0XQ8zPK2/vom-castiga-razboiul-si-dupa-vom-pleca-la-mare-in-crimeea-un-elev-din-ucraina-a-scris-o-compunere-despre-planurile-sale-pentru-primavara.html&gt; accessed 10 December 2022
2. Ibid.
3. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Ukraine: civilian casualty update 30 January 2023’ (United Nations Human Rights, 30 January 2023) <https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2023/01/ukraine-civilian-casualty-update-30-january-2023#_ftn1 > accessed 1 February 2023
4. Ibid.
5. Human Rights Council, ‘Human Rights Council Discusses the Situation of Human Rights in Ukraine and in the Democratic Republic of Congo under its Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Agenda Item’ (United Nations Human Rights, 4 October 2022) < https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/10/human-rights-council-discusses-situation-human-rights-ukraine-and-democratic&gt; accessed 27 November 2022
6. Lisa Schlein, ‘UN: Gross Human Rights Violations Mark Ukraine War’ (VOA, 15 December 2022) < https://www.voanews.com/amp/gross-human-rights-violations-mark-ukraine-war/6877702.html&gt; accessed 17 December 2022
7. RFE/RL,’UN Says Russia Responsible for ‘Vast Majority’ Of Human Rights Violations Documented in Four Regions of Ukraine’ (RadioFreeEurope RadioLiberty, 18 October 2022) < https://www.rferl.org/amp/ukraine-un-report-war-crimes-russia/32090144.html&gt; accessed 27 November 2022
8. Ibid.
9. Arthur Elisei, ‘Russia-Ukraine Conflict’ < https://www.academia.edu/7683899/CONFLICTUL_RUSIA_UCRAINA > accessed 15 December 2022
10. Ibid.
11. European Council, ‘EU response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’ (16 December 2022) < https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-response-ukraine-invasion/ > accessed 18 December 2022
12. AGERPRES, ’Great Britain promises to stand by Ukraine ‘until victory’’ (Economica, 4 October 2022) < https://www.economica.net/marea-britanie-promite-sa-fie-alaturi-de-ucraina-pana-la-victorie_616461.html&gt; accessed on 10 December 2022
13. Ibid.
14. GOV.UK, ‘UK government’s humanitarian response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’ (GOV.UK, 14 December 2022) < https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-governments-humanitarian-response-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-facts-and-figures/uk-governments-humanitarian-response-to-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-facts-and-figures > accessed 3 February 2023
15. European Council, ’EU response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’ (European Council, 3 February 2023)< https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-response-ukraine-invasion/#support > accessed on 3 February 2023
16. President of Ukraine | Volodymyr Zelensky, ‘Joint statement following the 24th EU-Ukraine Summit’ (3 February 2023) < https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/spilna-zayava-za-pidsumkami-24-go-samitu-ukrayina-yes-80765 > accessed on 4 February 2023
17. European Commission, ‘Statement by President von der Leyen at the joint press conference with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’ (2 February 2023) <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_23_546 > accessed on 4 February 2023
18. Stefan Dragomir, ‘Which countries support Russia in the war in Ukraine?’ (Click!, 3 March 2022) < https://click.ro/actualitate/international/new-content-412312.html&gt; accessed 1 December 2022
19. Ibid.
20. Roman Goncharenko,’Comment: Ukraine will Survive, but the West should be ashamed!’ (DW, 24 February 2022) < https://www.dw.com/ro/comentariu-ucraina-va-supravieţui-dar-vestul-ar-trebui-să-se-ruşineze/a-60906533&gt; accessed 1 December 2022

Photo Credit: Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP.

---

‘DISCLAIMER: THE BPP HUMAN RIGHTS BLOG, AND ALL PIECES POSTED ON THE BLOG, ARE WRITTEN AND EDITED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE STUDENT BODY. NO PUBLICATION OR OPINION CONTAINED WITHIN IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE VALUES OR BELIEFS HELD BY BPP UNIVERSITY OR THE APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ARE SOLELY THAT OF THE AUTHOR AND ARE IN NO WAY SUPPORTED OR ENDORSED BY BPP UNIVERSITY, THE APOLLO EDUCATION GROUP OR ANY MEMBERS OF STAFF.’

Difference in treatment: the High Court rules to remove discrepancies between financial support for survivors of trafficking

Emily Hobhouse covers a recent High Court ruling that considered whether asylum-seeker survivors of trafficking should be entitled to extra childcare support

The Modern Slavery Act Guidance (MSA), created under s.49(1) of the Modern Slavery Act, implements the obligations of the United Kingdom as a signatory under the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT). There is a duty under ECAT to reduce the vulnerability of victims so that they are not re-trafficked.¹ As part of this commitment, the UK supports survivors of trafficking with payments and services that go beyond the regular receipt of other mainstream support (for example, Universal Credit or Asylum Support). Victims of trafficking also receive psychological, medical and legal counselling as part of their recovery and reintegration into society.

A key provision within the MSA guidance is the Victim Care Contract (VCC). The VCC allows survivors of trafficking to claim money to help care for dependent children. This is a payment of £39.60 a week to cover the cost of childcare when a survivor of trafficking is attending counselling or other support services.² However, within Annex F, para 15.38, there is an exception, namely that those in receipt of Asylum Support, are not entitled to this Victim Care Contract payment for dependent children.³

Therefore, under this guidance, there is a discrepancy between the financial support provided to survivors of trafficking and modern slavery, depending on the survivor’s immigration status. The recent case R (on the application of MD) v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1370 (Admin) considered whether this was discriminatory under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Facts of the case

The two claimants are survivors of sexual trafficking and are also asylum seekers. As part of their recovery as survivors of trafficking, they undertake counselling appointments where specific details about their trafficking are discussed. Due to receiving Asylum Support, the claimants were unable to access childcare support for their dependent children through the Victim Care Contract. This meant that the claimants’ children would often be brought along to such appointments. The negative psychological effects of this on the child and mother were strongly evidenced by the claimants’ legal team.⁴

Breach of Article 14 ECHR

The claimants challenged the policy as being in contravention of Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination, for two reasons. Firstly, because the policy directly discriminated against asylum-seeker survivors of trafficking. This is because there is a difference in treatment between asylum-seeker victims of trafficking with dependent children, who do not receive the VCC payment, and non-asylum-seeker survivors of trafficking with dependent children who do receive the VCC payment.

Secondly, because the policy indirectly discriminated against women, as women are much more likely to have a dependent child and to be single parents than men. By being denied the VCC payment, women asylum-seeker survivors of trafficking are much more likely to be burdened to pay the cost of childcare through their asylum support than male asylum seeker survivors of trafficking. In 2012, the Salvation Army found that 24% of women survivors of trafficking had dependent children compared with 3% of men. From these statistics, the women were usually single parents whereas men were often accompanied by their female partners.⁵

The Defence

The Defence admitted that there was a difference in treatment between survivors of trafficking and their asylum seeker counterparts. However, they characterised the VCC payment as a “windfall” for those survivors of trafficking rather than a shortfall for those who did not receive it. They submitted that this is an incredibly complex issue that stems down to the allocation of public funds and that it is a matter for the “state’s considerable margin of appreciation”, adding that the ECHR is not a guarantee of administrative perfection.⁶

Judgment

The High Court found that by denying the VCC payment to asylum-seeker victims of trafficking, there was undeniable direct and indirect discrimination. The Court thus declared a breach of Article 14 ECHR. The intention of the Home Secretary, who claimed it was a mistake, was immaterial to the fact that differential treatment exists without any reasonable foundation, and thus must be corrected.

Mr Justice Kerr was unimpressed by the latter assertion of the Defence that the ECHR was not a guarantee of administrative perfection, stating that it seemed “little more than an institutional shrug of the shoulders”.⁷ He affirmed the continued existence of the ECHR in UK law and thus applied it accordingly, underlining the fact that it is the court’s duty to apply the law that exists.

Commentary

An assertion of the court’s constitutional duty

In his judgment, Mr Justice Kerr was forceful in stating that the ECHR is still very much a part of UK law and it is therefore the court’s duty to have regard to the Convention. It is arguable that the Home Secretary’s arguments of the institutional incompetence of the courts on such matters appeared a little lazy, and this was recognised by Mr Justice Kerr who said that the Home Secretary’s calls for the court to not “tinker” with the MSA guidance, although good-natured, were constitutionally wrong. As Parliament decided that Article 14 should be part of the law, not the Home Secretary, it is the courts’ duty to enforce the ECHR.

Recognition of the vulnerability of victims of trafficking

The Defence argued that the offending paragraph in the MSA guidance should remain in place until the government gets around to wholesale reform, including individualised assessments to childcare support. This was rejected by Mr Justice Kerr as the court could not rely on such a promise to provide swift action in the face of the incredible vulnerability of the claimants.

The vulnerability of survivors of trafficking has been consistently recognised as an incredibly important factor in the decision-making process of the courts. In 2018, a High Court case reversed cuts of up to 40% in benefits for asylum seekers who were victims of trafficking, due to the incredible detrimental effect these cuts would have on their recovery.⁸ The argument by the representatives of the claimants underlined that the key to defeating modern slavery is to reduce the vulnerability of victims so that they can escape the influence of their traffickers⁹, a sentiment that was echoed in this judgment.

Future developments

Support for survivors of modern slavery has dramatically increased since the UK became a signatory of the ECAT in 2009, and the passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and other legislation, including the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS). Nonetheless there are still huge barriers blocking the financial support that should be available to survivors of trafficking.

Barriers to support are compounded by policies which are often too narrow to encompass the incredibly complex lives and experiences of survivors of modern slavery. Certain restrictive provisions end up excluding many survivors of trafficking from the support they arguably are entitled to. For example, the CICS allows survivors of trafficking to receive compensation from their traffickers for the injuries sustained during trafficking. However, to access this compensation, a survivor must show that they have suffered a crime of violence or been threatened with violence. This is particularly burdensome for survivors of trafficking in domestic servitude who typically do not suffer from crimes of physical violence.¹⁰

Another barrier to redress through the CICS is that survivors are not entitled to compensation if they have an unspent conviction. This policy is currently the subject of a Supreme Court case, awaiting judgment, as it excludes the huge amounts of survivors who are trafficked to the UK to work in illegal trades, for example in cannabis farms, from obtaining compensation.¹¹

What policy changes can we expect from the outcome of this case?  

While the court awarded compensation to the victims, it also gave the government discretion on how to change the discriminatory nature of the VCC policy. A potential eventuality is that the government could end up dropping the VCC payments completely to remove the discrimination instead of providing the extra estimated £5 million required to allow asylum-seeker survivors of trafficking with dependent children to access the VCC.¹² A more beneficial outcome for the appellants and all survivors of trafficking with dependent children would be for the UK government to stay true to its pledges under ECAT and work to fulfil its support duty. This will allow survivors to recover successfully and reduce the risk of them being re-trafficked. Childcare support for asylum seeker survivors of trafficking is a step in the right direction.

If you are interested to find out more about human slavery/trafficking in the UK, here are some useful links:

1. ATLEU: https://atleu.org.uk/
2. Anti-Slavery international: https://www.antislavery.org
3. Online YLAL event: Access to justice for victims of trafficking (2 parts): http://www.younglegalaidlawyers.org/meeting-minutes
4. https://www.survivoralliance.org/survivors-overview
5. https://www.helenbamber.org/

---

[1] Article 12 “Assistance to victims”, European Convention against on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

[2] R (on the application of MD) v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1370 (Admin [18]

[3] “Potential victims or victims of modern slavery receiving NRM [National Referral Mechanism] support who are receiving asylum support will not receive any financial support through the VCC [Victim Care Contract] in respect of any dependents, or pregnancy payments as these will be met through the asylum support system.” 


[4] Silvia Nicolaou Garcia from Simpson Millar’s Public Law team: “not possible or safe to conduct an effective psychological assessment with a child present” and “children are negatively affected when they accompany their parents to interviews where their parents’ trafficking is discussed”, quoted Taylor, D ‘Home Office must compensate trafficked women for lack of childcare, court rules – The Guardian’ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/24/home-office-must-compensate-trafficked-women-for-lack-of-childcare-court-rules accessed Tuesday 15th June

[5] R (on the application of MD) v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1370 (Admin [51]

[6] R (on the application of MD) v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1370 (Admin) [40], [46], [52]

[7] ibid [54]

[8] K & AM, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 2951

[9] Anti-Slavery International ‘High court reverses cuts to victim support’ https://www.antislavery.org/high-court-reverses-cuts-to-victim-support/ accessed 15^th June

[10] ATLEU, Survivors of Trafficking and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, November 2021, p.12 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l7OUqUgyMnSYy6FsndAdPlLfJkgq5pFp/view accessed 24th June

[11] A&B v CICS UKSC 2019/0055 https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2019-0055.html accessed 15th June

[12] A. Schymyck, ‘Home Office Accidently Discriminates against trafficking victims with kids’ https://www.freemovement.org.uk/home-office-accidentally-discriminates-against-trafficking-victims-with-kids/ accessed 15^th June

Image credit: A photo of shackled hands © sammisreachers/Global Panorama/Flickr

Disclaimer: The BPP Human Rights blog, and all pieces posted on the blog, are written and edited exclusively by the student body. No publication or opinion contained within is representative of the values or beliefs held by BPP University or the Apollo Education Group. The views expressed are solely that of the author and are in no way supported or endorsed by BPP University, The Apollo Education Group or any members of staff.

For Her Child: From Asylum to Sanctuary – addressing the silent crisis of enforced adoption

BPP Human Rights Unit Student Director, Hannah Anson interviews Ruvi Mutyambizi, founder of For Her Child: From Asylum to Sanctuary.

Launched this March, For Her Child: From Asylum to Sanctuary is a crucial new organisation that will address the serious lack of visibility around the separation, forcible removal, and adoption of refugee children by host country authorities, researching and shedding light on this issue.

Ten years after being forced to leave a turmoil stricken Zimbabwe in 2002 at the age of 18 and taking refuge in the UK with her son, the organisation’s founder, Ruvi Mutyambizi, had been living in limbo, experiencing abuse and destitution while seeking to regularize her stay in the UK based on her well-founded fear of return to Zimbabwe. She was finding passion and purpose as she embraced motherhood with her whole heart, but this was quickly shattered when both her and her child were traumatised as they experienced first-hand the further disruption that occurs after intervention by social services that are not specifically tailored to the complex needs of refugee families. The organisation, dedicated as her son’s legacy, will work to minimise the potential for this trauma and separation. For Her Child aims to support refugee children and mothers by offering moments of relief, support and healthy emotional expression, and to assist professionals with understanding refugee families’ experiences better, thus offering better intervention and repositioning adoption as a last resort.

To found a new organisation like For Her Child is a phenomenal thing, and one which requires a great amount of experience. I begin by chatting with Ruvi about her background in advocacy. Having completed a degree at the University of Greenwich, Ruvi is now studying a Master’s in Human Rights and Legal Practice, as well as pursuing the GDL at the University of Law. “Pretty much as soon as I came here I tried to live normally, and I think that’s because I feared being sent home if I sought asylum”, Ruvi explains. After studying and volunteering at the Evelyn Oldfield Unit, Ruvi joined the Protection Gap Advocates at Asylum Aid, who collaborated and successfully convinced the Home Office to provide non-invasive child care for mothers with young children during their asylum interview, so they wouldn’t have to discuss traumatic matters in front of their children or worry about subsequently not being reunited with their children after the interview.

I express my shock to Ruvi that this policy didn’t exist in the first place, as it seems at best naive and at worse actively cruel to force parents to discuss these events in front of their children, and I think this reaction is emblematic of many people’s responses to the work of For Her Child, and to organisations assisting refugee families more generally, who are working to reverse policies that simply should not exist in the first place.

And the struggle to enact these changes is often an uphill battle. “Before I was exposed to opportunities to advocate for refugees, I probably wouldn’t have even realised that you could say something, and things could change”, Ruvi told me. “But it’s a patient person’s liqueur and endeavour. By the time the Protection Gap Advocates were formed by Asylum Aid, the organisation’s Policy Adviser had been working on the idea for several years. Even though it’s something that should be expected, to get to the point of there being opportunities for saying “you can change this” – and them actually doing it – takes time.”

We move on to discuss For Her Child: From Asylum to Sanctuary, the new organisation Ruvi has founded. I ask her about the organisation and her motivations for establishing it.

“For Her Child supports refugee and asylum-seeking mothers, people who are living quite precariously because of their inability to return to their home country. The starting point is looking at refugee children in the UK who have been separated from their parents, when there could have been a better way. For Her Child is about understanding the basics of humanity. The most important relationships we have are often with our mothers, and we need to protect those relationships, especially for people who are vulnerable.”

“For Her Child is about understanding the basics of humanity. The most important relationships we have are often with our mothers, and we need to protect those relationships, especially for people who are vulnerable.”

“It was an idea that developed through personal experience. It was difficult for me to get my asylum claim recognised, which created a lot of upheaval for my son, and then against my will he was removed from my care by the court. Being a refugee and finding that I was denied the right to raise my son, I was very aware that had I had different opportunities, different support and different access, he would not have had to go through that disruption.”

After speaking with ordinary people and hearing about the positive role they expect social workers to play, and talking with professionals working with other refugee mothers, Ruvi discovered a silent crisis that was leaving refugee mothers exposed to prejudicial treatment and at a greater risk of having their children taken away – and for factors that are simply beyond their control as people seeking asylum, such as not having correct legal status, or suffering from poor mental health.

“It was keeping me awake at night, and I needed to do something about it,” Ruvi explained. “The more I spoke to people about it, the more I realised I could actually make an organisation. It’s a concept that started by focusing on what I could do in my local area, but hopefully FHC will expand even beyond the UK.”

Something that Ruvi has described is the need for a “sanctuary practice approach”. I ask her what such an approach would look like. “Whether that professional is a health and social care worker, an educator, a legal practitioner – I’d like them to record that they’re dealing with a refugee family, to have an awareness of this. I would emphasise the importance of reiterating this fact throughout that this person is a refugee, and that they’re therefore unable to resolve the issues that the court is asking of them.” In her talk for BPP’s Human Rights Unit, Ruvi described an example of such an oxymoronic situation, as a refugee parent can be told that they cannot apply for housing, and in the same sentence be advised that they’ll have their child taken if they’re not housed.

All that For Her Child is asking for is an equalisation of opportunities, a recognition that because of these factors that are inherently out of their control because of their refugee status, families should be treated with more understanding and care, and given the chance to actually resolve their circumstances instead of the courts enforcing adoption.

“If it were possible for a parent to have a genuine opportunity to resolve the issues with their family circumstances, the child wouldn’t even have to know that the mother has been struggling. The child would lead a normal life. I think keeping that in mind is important – for professionals to be thinking about how they can help this child to lead a normal, ordinary life now, rather than thinking “in the future they’ll be adopted and they’ll be fine” – it’s about dealing with the present day.” This approach of helping refugee families in the present is an absolutely crucial one.

But Ruvi also describes the difficulties of trying to improve the system when you’ve been forcibly displaced. “It’s very difficult as a refugee to talk about wanting more. You should be grateful for what you have – and of course I am. But for the professionals that have helped me, and that I’ve seen helping other people, they’ve been able to help more when they’ve treated them with an open mind, not being closed to believing their story.”

Ruvi and I move on to discussing language. She has previously spoken about how FHC wants to create a shift away from a clinical language to a more accepting terminology. I feel that so much of the discourse around people seeking asylum, especially during the Brexit debate and under Priti Patel’s Home Office, has deliberately worked to dehumanise the people involved, in an attempt to remove the human element from an inherently human issue. I ask Ruvi how important language is; if we had a more human vocabulary when we spoke about refugee families, would this help shift the way people think about their rights and experiences and encourage them to be more empathetic? “Immediately, the UN convention of refugees comes to mind”, Ruvi responds. “It doesn’t talk about asylum seekers. For them, a person is a refugee from the point of needing to flee their country or being unable to return. We use the term “asylum seeker” to facilitate a process, and outside of that process there’s the human being.”

“In terms of the language shifting – when you meet someone who’s different from you, they become a human being. When they’re just a word in a book it’s very difficult. And I think the wonderful thing is that our generation is very open to difference, and to actually making difference not be difference.”

“Our generation is very open to difference, and to actually making difference not be difference.”

This process doesn’t have to be immediate, however; “sometimes that process of helping people to change their very fixed views can take a long time to happen”, Ruvi explains. “So I guess it’s about the everyday shift that we can make, in the way we look at things, and that’s how we start to be a bit more human with one another.” And it’s absolutely crucial to remember that integration is a two-way street. “Have you ever considered what a refugee thinks about you?”, Ruvi asks me. “It’s important to ask yourself questions. What are they thinking? What do they care about?” As a UK born citizen I think it’s is absolutely essential that we are doing our part in this conversation, and once we start asking these questions, “you might find out that they care about the same things”. “And as we start to be neighbours, rather than people at a distance, we get there’”, Ruvi observes.

We speak about how crucial it is that women have been increasingly at the forefront of changemaking, in leading these conversations and initiatives, and Ruvi firmly agrees that this is essential. She also reminds me that her son will one day be a man whose character she hopes will be positively shaped by the correction of systematic silencing of underrepresented groups. Additionally, she appreciates all the men who are raising awareness: “the idea behind calling the organisation For Her Child is to be inclusive, that it’s something that can belong to everybody – everyone can care. Men are in a position to influence how things are considered as well, so I don’t want to alienate or exempt them from my call to action. Then thinking quite sincerely, in the spirit of the best interest of the accompanied refugee child, I need to further develop my much smaller project of an outreach plan for refugee fathers when they are the primary care giver and attentive to the needs of her child”, she reflects.

The entire ethos of For Her Child is one of collaboration, of working alongside those in positions of power to effect change from within, an approach which is so admirable. Indeed, if everyone had just a fraction of Ruvi’s strength and empathy, I feel the world would be a far better place.

Having launched in March, the next few months will be spent doing vital work. The organisation will be researching what families are experiencing, the legal framework around adoption and family law, and identifying new data to illustrate why it is crucial that this issue is given more attention. There will also be opportunities to help children access expression packs.

You can support the absolutely essential work of For Her Child via:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/for.her.child/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/forherchild
Donations: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/forherchild

Image credit: Ruvi Mutyambizi ‘For Her Child: From Asylum to Sanctuary’

Disclaimer: The BPP Human Rights blog, and all pieces posted on the blog, are written and edited exclusively by the student body. No publication or opinion contained within is representative of the values or beliefs held by BPP University or the Apollo Education Group. The views expressed are solely that of the author and are in no way supported or endorsed by BPP University, The Apollo Education Group or any members of staff.

The need for better governmental protection against domestic violence in Bangladesh

Tasfiah Rahman reports on the current provisions against domestic violence in Bangladesh, and suggests the need for reform.

During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the National Helpline Centre for Violence Against Women and Children in Dhaka, Bangladesh, received over 10,000 calls every day¹. While domestic violence has been a major issue in Bangladesh for many years, the recent lockdown has coincided with a concerning increase in incidents of domestic violence

Domestic abuse breaches the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection Act) 2010 (DVPPA), the main statute for domestic violence in Bangladeshi law which states that domestic violence can take place physically, psychologically, sexually or economically against a woman or child by any family member.²

Domestic violence also breaches international legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1992 and the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child 1990. However, it is clear that these acts do not go far enough to protect Bangladeshis from domestic abuse, which was especially evident during the recent crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic. This article will consider the protection that is available for men, women and child victims of domestic abuse in Bangladesh, and suggest ways in which the government could improve the current legislation.

Child victims of domestic violence

According to UNICEF, physical discipline is a ‘corporal punishment’ that refers to any punishment where physical and/or psychological force is used to cause any degree of pain or discomfort and to control children.³ Physical discipline is used across all levels of Bangladeshi society. In fact, 82.4% of children in Bangladesh between 1–14 years of age have experienced either physical or psychological abuse.⁴

The UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 consists of articles protecting the rights of parents, families and carers to raise a child in a way that respects their rights⁵;  and to make sure that their child is protected from any type of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse or sexual exploitation while the child is living with their parents or in the care of anyone else⁶. In addition, the government must protect children from any form of sexual abuse⁷; must make sure that children are never tortured and never treated in a way that is cruel, inhuman or degrading⁸; and if a child has been the victim of abuse, the national government must make sure that the child is given the help to recover⁹.  It is disappointing that the government in Bangladesh has still not complied with these sections of the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990.

While the schools in Bangladesh were closed due to the pandemic, children doing their school classes online had little escape from toxic home environments. A first step towards reducing physical punishment and abuse towards children would be to tackle its normalisation in Bangladesh. In addition, the government could take inspiration from the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 to incorporate its protections into the Bangladeshi legal system.

That’s not to say that there is no Bangladeshi legislation to protect children from abuse. The DVPPA gives victims of domestic violence (including children), or someone acting on their behalf (for example, an enforcement officer or a service provider), the right to apply for a remedy in any court in Bangladesh.¹⁰ The Children Act 2013 paves a similar pathway via the Child Welfare Board, which helps protect children who are living under unsafe conditions, through children’s courts, bail provisions and legal representation.¹¹ However, in order to reach these services, the government should find ways to advertise helplines such as the Child Helpline. This helpline was created for children under 18, as a way for them to report domestic abuse cases immediately to the nearest police stations.

Female victims of domestic violence

The Covid-19 lockdown has exacerbated domestic violence against women around the world due to increases in household tension as a result of stay-at-home orders, economic fears, and stress about the virus.¹² The Bangladesh human rights group, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), has reported that at least 235 women were murdered by their husband or his family in just the first nine months of 2020.¹³ Due to societal pressures and fear of judgement, women of all classes often remain silent despite hostile home environments, as they are scared to take any action.¹⁴

The Human Rights Act 1998 plays a vital role in protecting women against domestic abuse. Fundamental human rights include the right to life¹⁵, the right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman and degrading way¹⁶, the right to respect for private and family life¹⁷ (including the right to physical and psychological integrity), the right to education¹⁸, and the right not to be discriminated against¹⁹. All of these can be infringed when a woman is the victim of domestic abuse.

According to the prominent Bangladesh human rights group, Odhikar, between January 2001 and December 2019, over 3,300 women and girls were murdered in the country over dowry disputes.²⁰ This is still an issue despite the case of Nure Alam v State, after which it was made punishable to demand a dowry under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1980.²¹

Girls who marry under 18 years of age are more likely to be victims of domestic violence.²² Bangladesh is among the top-10 countries in the world for child marriage. It is eighth from the bottom in South Asia, according to a UN report that said Bangladesh has a 51% child marriage rate.²³ Difficult financial situations caused by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic have made parents less willing to keep their unmarried daughters at home over the last year as they can’t afford further education. The international development organisation BRAC, which is based in Bangladesh, stated that it had prevented 670 child marriages in 2019 and 1,091 in 2020 through persuasion and educational efforts. However, there were still 167 additional attempts at child marriage in Bangladesh in 2019 and 292 in 2020.²⁴

The law states that the minimum legal age for females to get married is 18 years, while for males it is 21 years, under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 2017. Nevertheless, in many areas of Bangladesh, people have no knowledge of the legislation against child marriage.²⁵ This has made preventing underage marriages in Bangladesh a serious challenge. 

Victims can take actions on their abusers in Bangladesh via remedies and other compensation. The punishment for rape is the same under  s 9, Prevention of Women and Children Repression Bill 2000²⁶ and the Penal Code of 1860, s.376 where  it says “whoever commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.”²⁷ Even though domestic abusers are at risk of imprisonment, life sentences and fines, it is worth remembering that domestic abuse can have a lifelong effect on victims.

Under the DVPPA, a domestic violence offence shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 6 months or a fine of 10 thousand Taka or both²⁸. It is arguable that this punishment is relatively short and is not a sufficient penalty.

Male victims of domestic violence

In 2020, the Bangladesh Men’s Rights Foundation (BMRF) stated that around 80% of men in the country face mental abuse from their spouses.²⁹ BMRF also disclosed that “the victims do not want to reveal their identities for fear of social embarrassment.”³⁰ This is in part due to the patriarchal society that exists in Bangladesh, where restrictive gender roles endure and where men are expected to dominate women.

Almost all the domestic abuse-related statutes in Bangladesh have thresholds for women and child victims, but there is very little protection for men victims. Although domestic violence is not as prevalent against men as against women and children in Bangladesh, this means that there is very little support for adult males’ protection from domestic abuse. It is arguable that the Bangladesh government should be open to taking further action into incorporating sections or articles, especially in the DVPPA, which can provide male victims with equal support to women victims. This could also have the effect of encouraging more male victims to come forward.

Discrimination based on sex is prohibited under human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which under common article 3 provides the rights to equality between men and women in the enjoyment of all rights.³¹ However, this international legislation is not applied in the domestic abuse laws in Bangladesh. As they are not protected under the legislation, men and boys can have a hard time proving that they have been a victim of domestic abuse to the courts.

Conclusion

Domestic violence is a serious issue in Bangladesh, and one that has been worsened by the stay-at-home conditions of the pandemic. Women, children and men can all fall victim to domestic abuse, but while there are statutes in place in Bangladesh to support women and children, men are not always afforded the same protection. It is also obvious that there are loopholes and shortcomings as to the efficient implementation and adequacy of those laws that do exist, which became particularly clear during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is important that the government learns to implement more facets of the international Human Rights Act in order to protect victims and prevent abusers. 

---

^[1] Hasina, ‘National Helpline Centre for Violence against Women and Children’ (National Helpline Centre for Violence against Women and Children, 2 November 2010) <http://nhc.gov.bd/> accessed 10 March 2021

^[2] Domestic Violence Act (Prevention and Protection) Act 2010, s.3

^[3] Ortiz-Ospina E and Roser M, “Violence against Children and Children’s Rights” (Our World in DataOctober 24, 2017) <https://ourworldindata.org/violence-against-rights-for-children&gt; accessed May 16, 2021

^[4] Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and Unicef Bangladesh. Child well-being survey in urban areas of Bangladesh, key results. Dhaka, Bangladesh; 2016. <https://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/CWS_in_urban_areas_Key_Findings_Report_Final_04122016.pdf> accessed June 23 2021

^[5] Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 , Article 5

^[6] Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990 , Article 19

^[7] Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, Article 34

^[8] Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, Article 37

^[9] Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990, Article 39

^[10] Domestic Violence Act 2010, Chapter 4, s (20) (3)

^[11]  “Towards Justice for Children” (UNICEF Bangladesh) <https://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/en/raising-awareness-child-rights/towards-justice-children&gt; accessed March 9, 2021

^[12] ‘Domestic violence and abuse: safeguarding during the Covid-19 pandemic’(Social Care Institute for Excellence, 31 March 2021) < https://www.scie.org.uk/care-providers/coronavirus-covid-19/safeguarding/domestic-violence-abuse> Accessed 23 June 2021

^[13] “‘I Sleep in My Own Deathbed’” (Human Rights WatchNovember 12, 2020) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/29/i-sleep-my-own-deathbed/violence-against-women-and-girls-bangladesh-barriers&gt; accessed June 23, 2021

^[14] Dr Nasrin Rahman, “Preventing Domestic Violence against Women” (The Daily Star November 23, 2020) <https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/news/preventing-domestic-violence-against-women-2000193&gt; accessed March 9, 2021

^[15] Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Part 1, Article 2

^[16] Human Rights Act 1998, Part 1, Article 3

^[17] Human Rights Act 1998, Part 1, Article 8

^[18] Human Rights Act 1998,Part 2, Article 2

^[19] Human Rights Act 1998,Part 2, Article 2

^[20] “‘I Sleep in My Own Deathbed’” (Human Rights WatchNovember 12, 2020) <https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/29/i-sleep-my-own-deathbed/violence-against-women-and-girls-bangladesh-barriers&gt; accessed June 23, 2021

^[21] Dowry Prohibition Act 1980, s4

^[22] ‘Child Marriage’ (Unicef) https://www.unicef.org/protection/child-marriage Accessed 23 June

^[23] Sakib N, “Bangladesh: Child Marriage Rises Manifold in Pandemic” (Life, Asia, PacificMarch 22, 2021) <https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/bangladesh-child-marriage-rises-manifold-in-pandemic/2184001&gt; accessed June 23, 2021

^[24] Sakib N, “Bangladesh: Child Marriage Rises Manifold in Pandemic” (Life, Asia, PacificMarch 22, 2021) <https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/bangladesh-child-marriage-rises-manifold-in-pandemic/2184001&gt; accessed June 23, 2021

^[25] Reza S, “Journal of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS)” (2021) 26 Domestic Violence against Women in the Time of Pandemic in Bangladesh <www.iosrjournals.org> accessed June 7, 2021

^[26] Prevention of Women and Children Repression Bill 2000, s.9

^[27] The Penal Code of 1860, s.376

^[28] Domestic Violence Act 2010, Chapter 6

^[29] Jahangir, ‘Bangladesh: Male victims of domestic violence demand gender-neutral laws’ (DWCOM, 20 November 2020) <https://www.dw.com/en/bangladesh-domestic-abuse-male-victims/> accessed 10 March 2021

^[30] Jahangir, ‘Bangladesh: Male victims of domestic violence demand gender-neutral laws’ (DWCOM, 20 November 2020) <https://www.dw.com/en/bangladesh-domestic-abuse-male-victims/> accessed 10 March 2021

^[31] Human Rights and Gender – United Nations and the Rule of Law” (United Nations) <https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/thematic-areas/human-rights-and-gender/&gt; accessed June 7, 2021

Image credit: A woman writes on a pledge board at Orange the World 2018 in Bangladesh, marking 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence © UN Women/Flickr

Disclaimer: The BPP Human Rights blog, and all pieces posted on the blog, are written and edited exclusively by the student body. No publication or opinion contained within is representative of the values or beliefs held by BPP University or the Apollo Education Group. The views expressed are solely that of the author and are in no way supported or endorsed by BPP University, The Apollo Education Group or any members of staff.

Why the decision of the Divisional Court in R (Bell) v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 3274 erred in law

Paul Hyland argues that the recent Bell v Tavistock case was wrongly decided.

At stake in the R (Bell) v Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust¹ judicial review was the right of transgender children to pursue puberty-blocking treatment before pursuing cross-sex hormone treatment in early adulthood.  This is a well-recognised and widely-prescribed course of treatment designed to prevent the traumatic onset of unwanted physical changes in children with gender dysphoria, and to allow them to later pursue medical transition in the most straightforward, effective way.  Yet in Bell, the Divisional Court found no legal basis on which these could be prescribed. In my view, Bell was wrongly decided, and the judgment ought to be reversed on appeal. 

The question before the court in Bell was: do children under the age of 16 have Gillick competence² to consent to puberty-blocking treatment?  In Gillick, it was held that children could consent to contraceptive treatment provided that they had sufficient maturity and intelligence to understand its nature and implications.  The decision left it to the discretion of the individual doctor, to determine on a case-by-case basis whether an underage patient had met the threshold of maturity and intelligence to be eligible for contraceptive treatment.  Yet the Divisional Court in Bell, in holding that it was ‘highly unlikely’ that transgender children can ever be Gillick competent to consent to puberty blockers, wrested that same discretion from prescribing doctors.  Effectively it decided that the treatment can never be legally admissible to under-16s, no matter how medically appropriate it may be.

I believe that this judgment erred in law, for three reasons.  First, it wrongly identified a causal relationship between taking puberty blockers and pursuing cross-sex hormone treatment later in life; second, it unjustly rebutted the presumption of competence provided by section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005; third, it reversed the burden of proof onto the defendant, loading the dice in favour of the claimant.

On the first point, the most egregious element in the judges’ reasoning was the extrapolation that administering puberty blockers in childhood is the root cause of the decision to pursue cross-sex hormone treatment in adulthood³.  On that basis, their Honours decided that a transgender child must be Gillick competent to consent to cross-sex hormone treatment in order to be able to consent to puberty blockers.  In their words, ‘The evidence shows that the vast majority of children who take PBs [puberty blockers] move on to take cross-sex hormones […] and that once on that pathway it is extremely rare for a child to get off it.’⁴

Yet the correlation between transgender children taking puberty blockers and beginning cross-sex hormones as adults does not imply a causal relationship at all.  It simply does not follow that puberty blockers cause children to transition in adulthood.  The fact that transgender children who take puberty blockers begin cross-sex hormone treatment when the law recognises them as competent to do so is not evidence that their decision-making capacity is compromised by puberty blockers.  It more straightforwardly supports the point that puberty blockers are an appropriate treatment in an overwhelming majority of cases, that transgender identities are a fact inherent to the children pursuing treatment, and that it risks injustice for the law to raise the standard of competence to such an impossible height. 

To hold that a child’s capacity to consent to puberty blockers depends on their capacity to consent to a separate treatment administered only in adulthood was a travesty of judicial reasoning.  When a child reaches the age of majority, any questions of Gillick competence immediately fall away. In fact, requiring precocious competence from transgender children before permitting them to take puberty blockers impermissibly rebuts the presumption of capacity provided by s.1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  Under that statutory provision, adults are presumed legally competent to consent to cross-sex hormone treatment.  On those grounds there is no reason to demand that children be Gillick competent to consent to it at an age when that treatment would be unavailable in any event.

If cross-sex hormones are judged the inevitable consequence of puberty blockers, it follows that adults pursuing hormone treatment do not do so autonomously or competently.  The judges did not present a persuasive reason to rebut the statutory presumption of competence.   Upholding the presumption that adults have capacity defeats the notion that puberty blockers are the causal predecessor of cross-sex hormone treatment.  For that reason, to presume, as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires, that adults can consent to cross-sex hormones invalidates the High Court’s judgment that a child must be Gillick competent to consent to cross-sex hormones before puberty blockers can be administered. 

The judges’ approach also misplaced the burden of proof, loading the dice in favour of the claimant and holding the defendant to a standard that was impossible to discharge.  In the judgment, puberty blockers are described as a ‘very unusual treatment’⁵, the judges adding that there is ‘real uncertainty over the short and long-term consequences of the treatment.’  That puberty blockers might potentially entail adverse effects played a substantial role in the judges’ finding that children cannot consent to them.

By sleight-of-hand, a negative burden of proof was palmed onto the defendant to prove that puberty blockers do not cause any negative short- or long-term consequences before a child can become Gillick competent to consent to them.  The defendant was asked to demonstrate the non-existence of medical risks of whose existence no positive evidence was adduced at trial.  Such a burden was inevitably impossible to discharge and was therefore misplaced.  From a legal perspective, it is impossible to prove that any given medical treatment does notentail an unquantified, undefined set of adverse effects.  Nor does the fact that a medical treatment may come with adverse effects justify any legal presumption that such side-effects must exist, and that these must be identified before the treatment can be legally prescribed.  Whether unidentified risks outweigh identified benefits is a question of medicine, and not law.

The burden of proof belonged to the claimant, who should have been required to adduce positive evidence that puberty blockers have harmful effects, in respect of which Gillick competence could have been evaluated.  Instead, the judges wrested life-saving treatment⁶ from transgender children, not on the basis that puberty blockers were harmful, but that it could not be proven that they were not. 

The practical effect of the judgment, which has been stayed pending appeal, is that new claimants with locus standi to bring judicial review in respect of treatments available to transgender children will be able to challenge these on the premise that they may entail further, unknown risks.  The mere assertion that puberty blockers may have unidentified risks is not sufficient to establish that those risks in fact exist, nor still that children require the capacity to accept them before they are eligible for medical treatment.

As I have shown, in Bell v Tavistock, the Divisional Court handed down a judgment based on counterfactual thinking and logical non-sequiturs.  In misplacing the burden of proof, and finding a causal relationship between puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones where there is surely only correlation, the judges delivered a judgment bound to cause undue hardship and injustice to an increasingly marginalised and vulnerable group of people. 

---

[1] [2020] EWHC 3274, [2021] A.C.D. 22.

[2]Within the meaning Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Health Authority [1986] AC 112

[3] Tavistock (no. 1) [136].

[4] ibid.

[5] Tavistock (n 1) [145].

[6] Ibid [88] the High Court admitted evidence from a number of transgender people who credit puberty-blocking treatment with saving their lives.  This evidence was not returned to and played no substantial part in their Honours’ reasoning.

Image credit: Image depicting a gavel and the transgender flag © The Focal Project/Flicker

Disclaimer: The BPP Human Rights blog, and all pieces posted on the blog, are written and edited exclusively by the student body. No publication or opinion contained within is representative of the values or beliefs held by BPP University or the Apollo Education Group. The views expressed are solely that of the author and are in no way supported or endorsed by BPP University, The Apollo Education Group or any members of staff.

Developments in the understanding of County Lines offences

Lydia Stephens examines the ‘county lines’ defence in cases of Modern Slavery, the exploitation of vulnerable people and the ways in which victims are recognised and treated by courts.

County lines offences, or county lines activity, refers to the illegal exporting and importing of drugs into the UK, usually involving the work of gangs and other criminal networks.^[1] These groups tend to ‘recruit’ or coerce others into assisting with the ‘running’ or trafficking of drugs. Though this type of crime has historically been an issue in cities, in recent years county lines activity has increased in remote, rural, and coastal locations with the low levels of policing in these areas making operations easier.^[2]

County lines activity, though largely drug-based, is associated with various other forms of crime and illegal activity. For reasons that are self-evident, alongside the supply of drugs, county lines activity also breeds issues concerning gang related activity, trafficking, and serious violence. As such, county lines activity naturally engages multiple statutory regimes. Some of the most notable include: the Policing and Crime Act 2009, the Serious Crime Act 2015, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and most importantly the Modern Slavery act 2015.^[3]

In the last five years the National Crime Agency estimated there are approximately 720 ‘county lines’ in England and Wales.^[4] While  the aforementioned laws have developed a realistic understanding of the various crimes associated with county lines activity, it is also essential that the law develops a realistic understanding of the criminal practices that entrap victims within county lines activity. Further, in response to this, the law must push for pragmatic responses to assist such victims of modern slavery who, as offenders, have become involved in county lines activity.

Increased understanding of victimhood

What makes county lines activity so insidious is the involvement and exploitation of vulnerable individuals. County lines activity is underpinned by the manipulation of young and vulnerable members of society. Within the hierarchical supply chain, at the lower end are children, young people and vulnerable adults with mental health or addiction issues who often work as ‘runners’ ^[5] or may have homes co-opted as part of the operation. Once within this cycle of victimhood, these individuals may struggle to disassociate themselves from such activity.

In regard to the increased understanding of victimhood, the highly published case of R v Glodi Wabelua, Dean Alford, Michael Karemera [2020] provides a useful case study.^[6] This case concerned the grooming and trafficking of six victims as part of a county lines operation in London and Portsmouth.^[7] This case exemplifies how county lines activity is inextricably linked to modern slavery and, arguably, it would be almost impossible for county lines drug activity to be carried out without the simultaneous commission of a human trafficking offence. The judgment indicated that the offenders in question “had been engaged in supplying class A drugs for profit and had relied on human trafficking to do so. One of the grounds on which they had chosen the victims of the trafficking offences was the vulnerability of those persons.”^[8]

This case, amongst others, has drawn attention to practices, common in county lines activity, which, if identified can assist, prior to prosecution, in the successful identification of victims. These practices include coercion, cuckooing and common associated crime.

Coercion is a relatively well-known aspect of county lines activity and can take multiple different forms. Well-documented examples involve the use or threat of violence, sexual exploitation, and physical or mental abuse however, coercion may also take the form of cuckooing. This is the practice whereby a dealer will co-opt the home of a vulnerable individual from which they run various illegal operations.^[9]

Regarding common associated crimes, Philippa Southwell, head of the human trafficking and modern slavery department at Birds Solicitors [^10] has indicated the importance of identifying victims of county lines at the arresting stage even where the arresting offence does not seem to relate directly to county lines activity. For instance, though not necessarily linked to country lines drug activity, offences such as, theft, possession of fraudulent ID documents, and illegal charity bag collections may, at first, seem unrelated but can be indicative of a persons’ victimhood.^[11] Southwell also notes, upon arrest for crimes such as these, a victim may not disclose their involvement in trafficking but the possibility should not be overlooked.^[12] As such, early arrests for these crimes should be viewed as part of a potential ‘bigger picture’ when prosecution is being considered. 

More recently, in 2021, as crackdowns on county lines activity increase, ^[13] there has been a push for a continuation of this more holistic approach to county lines activity which has been reflected in practical application of the law. Where an offender is also a victim, safeguards have developed to prevent unjust prosecutions that are not within the public interest.^[14]

Practical developments in the law

Notable amongst these developments are the ‘section 45 county lines defence’ of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the implementation of a specified investigatory procedure for crimes of this nature.

The relatively recent Modern Slavery Act has proved vital for two reasons. Firstly, this Act recognises that it is almost inconceivable to imagine a drug supply chain without the involvement and exploitation of vulnerable individuals. Secondly, the Act provides in section 45 a statutory defence for such individuals who are considered victims. The defence is as follows, “(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if— (a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence, (b) the person does that act because the person is compelled to do it, (c) the compulsion is attributable to slavery or to relevant exploitation, and (d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing that act.”^[15] The defence should not be underestimated as, if successfully raised, it can be one of the biggest protectors of victims who, under duress or coercion, have committed a county lines offence.

In addition to this, an investigatory approach has developed whereby police and prosecutors are under a duty to conduct investigations, where necessary, if an offender is suspected of also being a victim. Where county lines activity is suspected, police investigations should consider whether the activity “involves violence, exploitation of vulnerable people, and organised crime,” and whether if, as well as drug offences, there was also a commission of modern slavery offences.^[16] Such investigations are passed onto the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), the process by which potential victims of human trafficking and modern slavery are identified and supported ahead of a decision being made as to whether they are victims. If the potential victim is over 18 and does not wish to engage with NRM support, a ‘Duty to Notify’ takes place.^[17] In instances where prosecution is being considered, if it is suspected that the case concerns a person who is a victim of modern slavery a four-stage process begins whereby, having been referred to the NRM and having had a decision reached, evidence of duress and the presence of a section 45 defence (above) should be considered.^[18] Finally, this investigation should inform the final decision of whether the continued prosecution is appropriate.^[19]

As recent crackdowns seek to control the spread of county lines across England, procedure must not overshadow the individuals affected. It is well-documented that drug related crimes are rarely victimless and, as such, victims of county lines activity, though legally offenders, should be legally recognised and protected as victims too.

---

[1] National Crime Agency, ‘County Lines’ (National Crime Agency, NA) <https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/drug-trafficking/county-lines&gt; accessed 9 June 2021

[2] Angelina Nicolaou, ‘The Relevance Of The Modern Slavery Act 2015 For ‘County Lines’ Criminal Drug Cases’ (One Pump Court, 11 January 2018) <https://onepumpcourt.co.uk/news/the-relevance-of-the-modern-slavery-act-2015-for-county-lines-criminal-drugs-cases/> accessed 10 June 2021

[3] Crown Prosecution Service, Drug Offences: ‘County Lines Typology’ (CPS, 1 April 2021) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/drug-offences> accessed 9 June 2021

[4] Angelina Nicolaou, ‘The Relevance Of The Modern Slavery Act 2015 For ‘County Lines’ Criminal Drug Cases’ (One Pump Court, 11 January 2018) <https://onepumpcourt.co.uk/news/the-relevance-of-the-modern-slavery-act-2015-for-county-lines-criminal-drugs-cases/> accessed 10 June 2021

[5] National Crime Agency, ‘County Lines’ (National Crime Agency, NA) <https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/drug-trafficking/county-lines> accessed 9 June 2021

[6] Regina v Glodi Wabelua, Dean Alford, Michael Karemera [2020] EWCA Crim 783, 2020 WL 05597577 <https://www.redlionchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/R-v-Wabelua-Glodi.pdf> accessed 10 June 2021

[7] Jamie Grierson, ‘Three convicted of trafficking in landmark ‘county lines’ case’ (The Guardian, 17 April 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/17/three-convicted-of-trafficking-in-landmark-county-lines-case> accessed 10 June 2021

[8] Regina v Glodi Wabelua, Dean Alford, Michael Karemera [2020] EWCA Crim 783, 2020 WL 05597577 <https://www.redlionchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/R-v-Wabelua-Glodi.pdf > accessed 10 June 2021

[9] National Crime Agency, ‘County Lines’ (National Crime Agency, NA) <https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/drug-trafficking/county-lines> accessed 9 June 2021

[10] Bird Solicitors, ‘Philippa Southwell’ (Bird Solicitors, NA) <https://birds.eu.com/team/philippasouthwell/> accessed 9 June 2021

[11] Philippa Southwell, ‘Defending victims of human trafficking’ (The Law Society, 29 October 2015) <https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/blogs/defending-victims-of-human-trafficking> accessed 10 June 2021

[12] Philippa Southwell, ‘Defending victims of human trafficking’ (The Law Society, 29 October 2015) <https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/blogs/defending-victims-of-human-trafficking> accessed 10 June 2021

[13] Vikram Dodd, ‘Met police hails success in county lines drugs crackdown’ (The Guardian, 24 February 2021) <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/section/45/enacted> accessed 9 June 2021

[14]  Crown Prosecution Service, Drug Offences: ‘County Lines Typology’ (CPS, 1 April 2021) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/drug-offences> accessed 9 June 2021

[15] The Modern Slavery Act 2015, s 45

[16] Crown Prosecution Service, Drug Offences: ‘County Lines Typology’ (CPS, 1 April 2021) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/drug-offences> accessed 9 June 2021

[17] Crown Prosecution Service, Drug Offences: ‘County Lines Typology’ (CPS, 1 April 2021) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/drug-offences> accessed 9 June 2021

[18] Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Human Trafficking, Smuggling and Slavery’ (CPS, 30 April 2021) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/human-trafficking-smuggling-and-slavery> accessed 10 June 2021

[19] Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Human Trafficking, Smuggling and Slavery’ (CPS, 30 April 2021) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/human-trafficking-smuggling-and-slavery> accessed 10 June 2021

Image credit: Mike Langridge © 2008 mike langridge http://www.fotdmike.me.uk CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 UK

Disclaimer: The BPP Human Rights blog, and all pieces posted on the blog, are written and edited exclusively by the student body. No publication or opinion contained within is representative of the values or beliefs held by BPP University or the Apollo Education Group. The views expressed are solely that of the author and are in no way supported or endorsed by BPP University, The Apollo Education Group or any members of staff.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021: 3 ways the Act better protects women and victims

Grace Glover reports on the recent Domestic Abuse Act and the additional protection that it will offer to victims of abuse

Trigger warning: this post contains domestic abuse content

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 received Royal Assent and was signed into English law as of April this year –  a triumphant moment for domestic abuse survivors, campaigners and women’s rights groups. But, just how does the new legislation provide better protection for women and victims of domestic abuse in the UK?

It is no secret that domestic abuse has been impacted significantly by the stay-at-home orders issued during the coronavirus pandemic, and more than ever women and victims have been reaching out to domestic abuse support services. As a matter of fact, a Women’s Aid survey demonstrated that during the first few months of the pandemic, an increase in demand was reported by 58% of 26 refuge services and 91% of 22 online support services.ⁱ Government recognition of the effects of lockdown on domestic abuse was embodied in the Home Secretary’s #YouAreNotAlone campaign, plus an additional £2m funding towards domestic abuse services in order to ‘allow those most vulnerable to abuse to access support during periods when it might be difficult to communicate on the phone.’ⁱⁱ With the pandemic as the backdrop to a particularly bleak and terrifying time for victims, it is reassuring to know that domestic abuse is within the government’s narrative. Parliament’s new legislation aiming to better protect victims of domestic abuse will be especially welcome. It recognises what can further be done to uphold our human rights, namely articles 3 and 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Article 3 states that ‘no one should be subjected to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment’ and Article 14 ‘that the enjoyment of rights [… ] shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex […].’ⁱⁱⁱ These rights must be protected for victims of abuse, and this protection is not only materialised in the new Domestic Abuse Act 2021 by the introduction of new offences, but additionally, better protection is addressed in provisions relating to health, court proceedings and refuge services. Matters in relation to health and court proceedings are further detailed and analysed below, yet in terms of refuge services, the Act guarantees that all survivors in need of housing will be granted a secure tenancy rather than a flexible one, ‘if that tenancy is granted for reasons connected with domestic abuse.’^iv This provision understands the need for secure, stable housing in order to escape the abuse that undeniably infringes upon women’s human rights as stated in the HRA.

In relation to health and court proceedings, in the past, both of these – in some way or another – have failed to consider the victim’s rights and the sensitivity of their circumstances as survivors of abuse. To better explain this, it is appropriate to ask, what specific protection does the Act offer?

The introduction of new offences

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has now criminalised the act of threatening to disclose ‘a private, sexual photograph or film in which another individual appears, and by doing so, the person intends to cause distress to that individual and the disclosure is, or would be, made without [their] consent.’^v Though one may recall under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 that it is an offence to disclose said private sexual photographs or films,^vi what this provision failed to consider was the level of control and therefore emotional abuse and extreme mental health effects that threats to disclose said images can have. One professor notes that, ‘Victims of revenge pornography can suffer greatly in several aspects of their life, from their social lives and relationships, to their professional lives and psychological health.’^vii Online abuse towards women (though it is important to state that men are also affected by online abuse) is sadly a reality in today’s social media society, and without digressing into another important and very substantive human rights topic, this section of the Act does add a layer of protection to those who are experiencing this form of online, emotional abuse, for example by a former partner. In addition, non-fatal strangulation and suffocation is now an offence which carries a prison sentence of up to 12 months.^viii This now recognises at law the protection women and victims need from such form of brutal domestic abuse.

Special measures for victims in court proceedings

The Act affords better protection for victims and witnesses when navigating through the court system. One of the new provisions introduces into the civil, criminal and family courts a prohibition on abusers cross-examining their victims in person.^ix The reform includes that ‘…no party to the proceedings who has been convicted of or given a caution for, or is charged with a specified offence may cross-examine in person a witness who is the victim, or alleged victim of that offence.’^x How often this occurred in practice is not clear, yet it is a huge comfort to know that the stress and anxiety of cross-examination will not come from the victim’s abuser themselves, which the Guardian was unafraid to label ‘abhorrent.’^xi Focusing on victims’ navigation through the courts prior to this Act, it is important to note that policies had already been adopted with the aim to protect and support victims. The key work of the Domestic Abuse Best Practice Framework, which was adopted in 2019, has been stressed by Kate Brown, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lead for domestic abuse. This framework implemented measures such as pairing victims with an Independent Violence Advisor and in some cases the use of special procedures, ‘such as giving evidence behind a screen or via live link.’^xii This highlights that there are policies in place which recognise the trauma that coming face-to-face with their abusers has on victims. What the new Act aims to do is fill in a gap in court proceedings, yet it is important to note that policies, legislature and other frameworks that were already in place are and will continue to work with victims in the courts for their protection, especially regarding the extremely sensitive nature of bringing victims and their abusers together in the courtroom.

A ban on GPs and other health professionals charging for medical evidence of domestic abuse

Another provision of the Act (though not yet in force) prohibits the charging of a fee for ‘preparation or provision of relevant evidence’^xiii of domestic abuse. It is perhaps one of the most surprising reforms, as one may not have considered that a fee for such processes existed prior to this. The provision extends to GPs, those practicing nursing and midwifery and paramedics, encapsulating a wide range of medical professionals who come into contact with survivors of abuse. One source states that GPs were previously ‘ignoring British Medical Association guidance and charging alleged victims […] over £150 for letters confirming their injuries to enable them to access legal aid’, whilst Baroness Williams of Trafford raised the issue in a House of Lords debate earlier this year that ‘GPs can levy a fee for this service, due to it being classified as private work that sits outside the core GP contract.’^xiv The provision which now prohibits charging a fee in relation to gathering medical evidence recognises the sensitivity of the circumstances and again, adds an additional layer of – this time financial – protection to those who find themselves subjected to domestic abuse.

In summary, the new Act is something for women to celebrate. It recognises numerous areas which have previously failed victims of domestic abuse and aims to right these wrongs. The Act understands that better protection was needed in a variety of circumstances, from the introduction of new offences to additional measures to better help victims as they proceed through the court system and more. It is important to note that by no means is the legislation complete, and with time further reforms will come to light. But for now, this Act is a positive step in the right direction in recognising and upholding the rights of women and victims.

Please note:

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 covers numerous new provisions not discussed in this article; please access the full Act as cited below for further information.

This article focuses on women’s rights, but the author recognises that domestic abuse can occur against men in heterosexual and same-sex relationships, and children.

If you are experiencing domestic abuse please contact a victim support charity such as Refuge’s free and confidential UK Domestic Abuse helpline: 0808 2000 247. You can also find further support in regards to any of the issues mentioned in this article via their website: http://www.nationaldahelpline.org.uk/. 

---

i Nick Stripe, ‘Domestic abuse during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, England and Wales: November 2020’,  (ONS.gov.uk, 25 November 2020) <https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2020#latest-figures-for-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic> accessed 1 June 2021.

ii ‘Coronavirus: Domestic abuse services to get £2m amid lockdown’, (BBC News, 11 April 2020) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52255092> accessed 7 June 2021.

iii The Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42) Schedule 1.

iv The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (c. 17), s. 79.

v The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (c. 17), s. 69.

vi The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (c. 2), s. 33.

vii Emma Bond and Katie Tyrrell, ‘Understanding Revenge Pornography: A National Survey of Police Officers and Staff in England and Wales’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, vol. 36, 2018, pp. 2166 – 2181.

viii The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (c. 17), s. 70.

ix The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (c. 17), ss. 62-67.

x The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (c. 17), s. 65.

xi Mark Townsend, ‘Bill bans ‘abhorrent’ quizzing of domestic abuse victims in court’, (The Guardian, 20 January 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/20/ban-on-cross-examination-of-domestic-abuse-victims> accessed 7June 2021.

xii ‘Foreword from Kate Brown, CPS lead for domestic abuse’, (CPS.gov.uk) <https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/domestic-abuse> accessed 5 June 2021.

xiii The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (c. 17), s. 80.

xiv Monidipa Fouzder, ‘GPs ‘charging over £150’ for domestic abuse letters’, (The Law Gazette, 6 January 2021) <https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/gps-charging-over-150-for-domestic-abuse-letters-/5106904.article> accessed 7 June 2021.

Image credit: ‘Women’s March, January 21 2017, Chicago’ by Jonathan Eyler-Werve, Creative Commons

Disclaimer: The BPP Human Rights blog, and all pieces posted on the blog, are written and edited exclusively by the student body. No publication or opinion contained within is representative of the values or beliefs held by BPP University or the Apollo Education Group. The views expressed are solely that of the author and are in no way supported or endorsed by BPP University, The Apollo Education Group or any members of staff.

Case summary: G (Appellant) v G (Respondent)

Sachin Varma provides a summary of the Supreme Court judgment in G (Appellant) v G (Respondent) and commentary on the interplay between the 1980 Hague Convention and asylum proceedings in this case.

This case concerns whether someone, who is listed as a dependant on an ongoing asylum application, can or cannot be returned to their home country under the 1980 Hague Convention. The appeal, therefore, concerns the relationship between the Hague Convention and UK asylum law, namely the 1951 Geneva convention.

Parties

The two parties in the case are the parents of an eight-year-old girl (“G”) born in South Africa. G’s mother (“Appellant”) wrongfully removed G from South Africa to England which breached G’s father’s (“Respondent”) custody rights.

Facts

The Respondent applied for an order for G’s return to South Africa under the 1980 Hague Convention. The Appellant, who identifies as a lesbian, opposes this, under articles 13(b) (grave risk to the child) and 13(2) (child’s own objections) of the Hague Convention, because returning to South Africa could result in physical and psychological harm, specifically from her family who had already threatened her with death and violence. These proceedings are to be determined by the Family Division of the High Court.

The issue is more complex in this case because, on entering the UK, the Appellant made an application for asylum, listing G as a dependant, thus, creating an additional set of asylum proceedings to be determined by the Secretary of State. A key principle of asylum law, under the 1951 Geneva Convention, protects refugees from being returned to a country where they have a well-founded fear of being persecuted. The unlawful return of a refugee is referred to as “refoulement”. The Appellant contends that, as a dependant, G cannot be refouled to South Africa.

The Court of Appeal found that, as a dependant on an asylum application, G has no protection from refoulement. However, if G had made an application in her own right, she could not be returned until the asylum claim had been considered. As a separate application by the child had not been made, the Court of Appeal held that G can be ordered back to South Africa. G’s mother appeals against this finding.

Relevant law

(i) 1980 Hague Convention

The Hague Convention is an international agreement incorporated into UK law. It is focused on facilitating and ensuring a swift return of abducted children to their home country.

(ii) 1951 Geneva Convention

The Geneva or Refugee Convention is international law which outlines the legal obligations of states to protect refugees.

Approach

There were three grounds upon which an appeal was granted. On these grounds, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) considered three questions:

(1) “Can a child that is named as a dependant on a parent’s asylum application, but has not made a separate independent application for asylum, have protection from refoulement pending the determination of that application?”

There is an absolute prohibition on refoulement under Article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Geneva Convention. As retained law, a refugee is, therefore, protected from refoulement from the moment they enter the UK, pending the determination of their asylum application.

Lord Stephens, departing from the Court of Appeal finding, considered that a request for asylum made by a parent naming a child as a dependant “can (and should) objectively be understood as an application by the child” (para 117). There were two reasons for this. Firstly, the “inherent likelihood” that if an adult makes an application for asylum that “by reason of their relationship” (para 117) a child, listed as a dependant of the adult, is facing the same threat which the adult would face. Secondly, as the parent is the one who decides whether a child makes an asylum application “an omission by a child to make an application in their own right cannot therefore be regarded as a choice which the child has made” (para 117). As a result, an asylum claim which “names a child as a dependant…accordingly protects the interests of the child by ensuring that the child’s own status is considered” (para 117).

(2) “If a child named as a dependant is protected from refoulement pending the determination of the asylum application, does that protection from refoulement act as a bar (i) to the determination by the Family Division of the High Court of an application for a return order under the 1980 Hague Convention seeking the return of a child to the country of their habitual residence where that child has protection from refoulement, or (ii) to the making of a return order, or (iii) only to the implementation of the return order?”

The UKSC found that G can be refouled despite being a dependant on an asylum claim.

Their Lordships held that an in-country appeal is a bar to the implementation of a return order, but an out-of-country appeal does not act as a bar. In other words, if a party is in the United Kingdom and has made an asylum claim or there is an ongoing appeal then they cannot be subject to a return order. However, if they are making an application before entering the United Kingdom, they can be returned to their country of nationality.

The appeal was based on Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Convention which states that “the return of the child…may be refused if this would not be permitted by the fundamental principles of the requested State relating to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The mother argued that Article 20 “hinges upon determination” of the Secretary of State and not the court. However, it was held that, while the court cannot “determine the request for international protection”, it can “come to factual conclusions” (para 156). As a result, if it is determined, under Article 12 of the Hague Convention, that a child should be returned, the court can make an order to do so. Article 12, paraphrased, states that when the relevant legal proceeding has started, it has been less than one year from when the child was wrongfully removed the court should order the return of the child.

(3) “If there is no bar to the determination of an application under the 1980 Hague Convention, what approach should the Family Division take in relation to the task of deciding that application? In particular, was the Court of Appeal right to hold that the High Court should be slow to stay a 1980 Hague Convention application?”

While there may be occasions where it would be appropriate for the Family Division to exercise its discretion to halt proceedings pending a determination of an asylum application, it should, in general, be reluctant to stay proceedings “consistent with the aims and objectives of the 1980 Hague Convention” (para 160) which requires an application to be determined within six weeks.

Held

The UKSC allowed the first ground of the mother’s appeal on the finding that G, as a child named as a dependant on a parents’ asylum application can be “objectively understood” as making a request for protection from refoulement.

On the second and third grounds the appeal was dismissed, maintaining the finding of the Court of Appeal, and sending the case to the Family Division to further consider the 1980 Hague Convention proceedings.

Comment

There were two concurrent legal proceedings in this case. First, the asylum process and second the Hague Convention. UK asylum law consists of international, EU and domestic law. It defines a refugee, here G’s mother, as someone who has a “well-founded fear of persecution in their country of nationality” (Para 79). To apply for asylum, applicants complete various forms, screening interviews and background checks. During this process, applicants can also note down dependants they would like to add to their application, in this case, the child, G. The Court found that G, therefore, could be “objectively understood” to have also made an application. Essentially, there were two parties to the mother’s asylum claim.

There are two difficulties here. First, the father made a case for the child (“G”) to return to South Africa, under the Hague Convention 1980 and second the asylum appeal decision is still pending. The Hague Convention 1980 provides provisions for children, who have been wrongfully removed, to be returned. The complexity here is that returning the child to South Africa may be classed as refoulement, which is prohibited under asylum law.

Solution

The Court took a practical approach. If a return order was allowed under the Hague Convention while the asylum appeal was not yet decided, this would make the appeal process redundant. As a result, when someone is in United Kingdom and they have made an asylum claim or are listed as a dependent on a claim as the child is here, they cannot be returned under the Hague Convention to their country of nationality.

The Court prompted the Secretary of State to make certain practical changes to the process. For example, where there are related Hague Convention and asylum proceedings, the court asks the Home Secretary to intervene in 1980 Hague Convention proceedings, ensuring that the decisions do not impede her responsibilities in the asylum process. Consideration is given to assigning asylum appeals to the Family Division, and the Court welcomes the Home Secretary’s proposal for a faster process in cases involving these two concurrent proceedings.

Image credit: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Parliament Square, London during Open House London 2015 (A Peace of London/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0/Flickr)

Disclaimer: The BPP Human Rights blog, and all pieces posted on the blog, are written and edited exclusively by the student body. No publication or opinion contained within is representative of the values or beliefs held by BPP University or the Apollo Education Group. The views expressed are solely that of the author and are in no way supported or endorsed by BPP University, The Apollo Education Group or any members of staff.

BPP HRU Event: Children are our future: do their human rights matter?

On March 25th, the BPP Human Rights Unit hosted Hannah Markham QC, Head of Family at the 36 Group and Alex Temple, Public Lawyer & Policy Officer at Just for Kids Law to discuss the rights of children and young people including incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into UK law and the impact of coronavirus. Amy Ann Kemp and Jason Chau report.

Jason Chau reports on Hannah Markham QC’s presentation

On March 25^th, more than 50 students attended the BPP Human Rights Unit event, ‘Children are our future: do their human rights matter?’. The event hosted a panel of experts including Alex Temple from Just for Kids Law and Hannah Markham QC from Head of Family at the 36 Group, both of whom have extensive experience in appellate work on children’s law.

One of the HRU Student Directors opened the discussion, outlining the Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the most ratified international treaty in the world, and its history within the United Kingdom, pointing out that the country is slow in giving direct effect to international treaties domestically. While looking at the different legislative instruments on protection of children’s rights in England and Wales, the focus was on Scotland, which incorporated the UNCRC provisions into Scottish law last year. The new law requires public authorities to comply with the UNCRC, allows legal enforcement of the rights protected and grants children and their representatives power to initiate judicial review against existing laws to comply with the Convention. It was considered whether this legislation could start a cultural change that would see children’s rights institutionalised, bringing a broader range of international human rights home.

Addressing this question, Hannah Markham QC, whose practice encompasses all areas of children’s work including international court of protection and family related judicial review, emphasised that the UK courts cannot provide sufficient protection of children’s rights until the UNCRC is incorporated nationally. She spoke about the relegation of the issue to primarily academic debates, noting the impact of the lack of judicial recognition of the UNCRC rights that could create case law bolstering its implementation in the UK. She pointed to two Supreme Court cases including ZH (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4 and General Comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child to highlight the extent of UK’s implementation of the UNCRC provisions and criticised the treaty’s non-ratification as a ‘get out of jail free’ card for the government to defend its insufficient protection of children’s rights.

Hannah went on to outline that the courts have been increasingly open to the idea of referencing the UNCRC in its deliberation on family law cases, citing the President of the Family Law Division of the High Court’s judgment that children’s rights as defined in the UNCRC and the Human Rights 1998 is a primary consideration, albeit not a paramount one, when applying ECHR article 8 rights in the UK. She referred to this trend as an example of an incremental approach in establishing precedents that affirm children’s rights.  Hannah argued that greater recognition of children’s rights relies on the willingness of the senior courts to stretch the interpretation of existing human rights laws in the UK to cover the language and the spirit of the UNCRC. The current reluctance for the judges to move faster in this direction is more often a reflection of political principles and public policy interests rather than legal reasoning.

The key takeaway of the discussion remains that, for more robust protection of children’s rights nationally, the rest of the country ought to mirror Scotland in actively incorporating the UNCRC into domestic law through primary legislation, thereby offering clear legal guidance as to how it should be enforced and how competing interests are to be balanced. It will be interesting to see whether Scotland’s legislation can bring about material change to the national debate on UNCRC’s applicability. Overall, the event offered a cogent reminder that, while the pandemic is still the dominant issue of the day, there are many other urgent social issues awaiting to be resolved. Positive actions must be taken to considerably improve the rights of the marginalised, especially children. The work of the panel is truly inspirational, and more lawyers, activists and social workers should join their ranks to promote the fundamental rights that underpin the well-being and moral standing of our society.

Amy Ann Kemp reports on Alex Temple’s presentation

In March 2021, the Scottish Parliament unanimously passed the United Nations Child Recognition Convention Incorporation Scotland Bill. This commitment by Scottish ministers to take the maximum approach to fully and directly implement children’s rights within its law is a major milestone that has taken decades of lobbying to achieve. Bruce Adamson, Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, has been at the forefront of these efforts and states that this legislation is “the biggest step to ensure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled”. As a result, in six months the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) will be fully incorporated allowing children and young people to rely on this under Scottish law, making their rights much more real.

Pervading the evening’s discussion was the interplay between policy decisions and the reality of children’s rights in practice, particularly during the pandemic. Although the UK government signed up to the UNCRC convention in 1990, pledging to uphold the rights of the child, it has yet to be incorporated into domestic legislation. The experience of children within the UK highlights the need for fundamental reform of how children’s services and protections are implemented.

One of the Student Directors for BPP Human Rights Unit started by highlighting that whilst children and young people have faced significant disruption as a result of the pandemic, it has also entrenched other issues pervading for young people such as poverty, with the UK on track to have the highest levels of poverty since records began in the 1960s. Whilst the UK is a signatory to the UNCRC, thereby demonstrating its commitment to children and young people, it is clear that certain children have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Education, safety from abuse and mental health for young people have all been adversely affected.

The UNCRC is important as it is the first legally binding international instrument to fully incorporate civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights as well as aspects of humanitarian law. Starting with the premise that “Children should grow up in a family environment of happiness, love and understanding”, the UNCRC is the most ratified human rights treaty in the world, with every United Nations member bar one having adopted it. The presentation outlined the general principles the UNCRC promotes: non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, a right to life, survival and development, and the right for children’s views to be given due weight. Another significant right acknowledge within the UNCRC is the right to education, which became particularly significant in light of conversations around the impact COVID-19 in the disruption of education. The scope of the UNCRC is wide and covers many aspects of children’s rights, recognising the status of children as human beings with a distinct set of rights, not just passive objects of care and charity.

The hope within Scotland is that there will be a significant cultural shift in the way children’s rights are viewed and upheld, with legislative steps to hold authorities accountable, and the repeated recommendation to the UK is to incorporate the Convention in UK domestic law. Interestingly, the convention requires States to take comprehensive legislative measures. Historically, the UK has a good record of ratifying international treaties, but is often slow to give them direct affect in domestic law. The UK does have domestic legislation which seeks to promote the rights of children, notably the Children’s Act 1989. There have been efforts to enshrine the Convention into UK law, such as measures passed in January 2011 in Wales which placed a duty on ministers in the jurisdiction to have due regard to the convention when developing or reviewing legislation and policy. Despite this, critics have voiced that whilst it is a step in the right direction, the due regard of law means rights may still be forgotten. Ultimately, anything that falls short of incorporation of these Convention rights does not go far enough.

Alex Temple is a Public Lawyer & Policy Officer at Just for Kids Law, who has worked on landmark cases in the appellate courts and was influential in setting up JfKL’s School Exclusions Hub which tries to keep young people in education. Alex emphasised the importance of taking a rights-based approach to education in support of young people and put forward the benefits of full UNCRC incorporation and how even the rights that we do have at present whilst limited can support young people who are missing out on education. While many treaties contain a recognition of right to education, none exists within UK law. There is a duty on local authorities to make sure there is provision for young people within local areas, as well as the duty on parents for children to receive a suitable education. Even with these provisions, the lack of a comprehensive framework engenders a very complicated system in which the voices of children are not heard and which fails to place welfare of the child at the forefront.

Alex gave a detailed insight into one of Just for Kids Law’s main areas of work, school exclusion. This encompasses not only those who have been directly excluded from a school for breaching school policy, but also for young people missing education for a myriad of other reasons. Occurrences of children falling through the cracks and struggling to get back into education is something, Alex notes, which is all too commonplace, and outlined three major concerns in light of this reality.

The first is that the exclusion system is not fair, both under a public law and common-sense. The responsibility of governors to oversee exclusion procedures where they do not have the best interest of the children at the core of decision-making due to their allegiance to the school, combined with lay panels conducting what is effectively a judicial review of a student’s education status, is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Alex explained the complicated and lengthy process of Independent Review Panels, which do not have jurisdiction to reinstate pupils, even if they find in the child’s favour. Alex pointed us to a case he had recently worked on, where a student won their appeal, going through several IRP’s and a subsequent judicial review in the high court. The length of this process meant that this student has been out of education for fourteen months, only to find out they should not have been excluded in the first place.

Second, the institution of school exclusion is discriminatory. Young people from black Caribbean backgrounds are six times more likely to be excluded than their peers. This is not new information, and factors such as gender, race, economic status or whether a child has special educational needs all impact on the likelihood of school exclusion. When considering all those characteristics together, likelihood of exclusion is dangerously high. Alex sees this reflected in his practice.

Finally, there is lack of regard to safety, integrity and the right to life. There is a tangible, observable link between school exclusion and child criminal exploitation. The core issue is having an education system that does not acknowledge the right to an education, extending into the failure to take into account young people’s wishes and feelings. Through the above actions, schools can play an unconscious but, nonetheless, active part in exposing young people to criminal exploitation.

Alex focused in on these factors in light of the coronavirus pandemic, and how emergency legislation has impacted young people in a significant way. Young people with special educational needs have, for the first time, lost entitlement to support. As part of a legislative measure to tackle the spread of coronavirus, the government removed the absolute duty on local authorities to provide education, health and care plans. These plans are put in place to support the very specific needs of the individual, and changes meant that local authorities are only required to take reasonable endeavours to support these needs. As a consequence, young people have faced permanent damage.

Questions posed to Alex regarding whether young people are aware of their rights and what hope there is for the future of children’s rights in the UK confirmed the reality young people face and the need to adopt a rights-based approach in education and all aspects of a young person’s life. Alex pointed out that the aim was not to get young people to be their own lawyer, but to educate and empower young people to recognise when they have a legal issue and be able to access legal help, rather than waiting until the point of crisis to seek help.

Fundamental to future change is the reality that the picture of how seriously children’s rights are taken in the UK is shifting, but progress is painfully slow. It comes down to the fact that nothing is a legal requirement, and any change should pull focus away from the government’s paternalistic approach, to a rights-based one. There is hope, but, currently, we are not heading in the right direction.

To find out about future HRU events, look out for posts on the BPP Careers Hub.

Disclaimer: The BPP Human Rights blog, and all pieces posted on the blog, are written and edited exclusively by the student body. No publication or opinion contained within is representative of the values or beliefs held by BPP University or the Apollo Education Group. The views expressed are solely that of the author and are in no way supported or endorsed by BPP University, The Apollo Education Group or any members of staff.