HRU Speaker Event: Alexandra Holker, British Red Cross

On 29^th March 2023, the BPP Human Rights Unit welcomed Alexandra Holker, Humanitarian Policy Officer at the International Directorate of the British Red Cross to discuss the British Red Cross’s response to humanitarian emergencies, including the earthquakes in Turkiye and Syria as well as her work on Climate Policy with a focus on the intersection between protecting the environment and human rights. The event was chaired by HRU Events Student Directors, Aisha Shiza Tariq and Angella Marzola-Browne. Dashaiyani Jeyakumar reports.

On 29^th March 2023, students attended the BPP Human Rights Unit’s online speaker event with guest Alexandra Holker. Alexandra Holker has worked for the British Red Cross since 2020 and is currently working as Humanitarian Policy Officer at the International Directorate. She has extensive experience working in India, the US, the UK and Tanzania for organisations such as the UN, ICRC and IPPPF. She has worked in policy, advocacy and research in areas such as climate policy, displacement, UK parliament policy and gender.

Angella asked Alexandra for a brief introduction of the British Red Cross and its work. Alexandra explained that the British Red Cross is one of the oldest national societies within the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the largest humanitarian network in the world. It is governed by a Board of Trustees and the Royal Charter. The organisation was founded in 1870 and provides crisis support to anyone, anywhere in the world. Its priorities include disasters and emergencies, health and social welfare, as well as migration and displacement.

Alexandra joined the British Red Cross three weeks after finishing her Masters thesis in November 2020. She started as a Public Affairs Coordinator in the UK Policy team before moving into the International Directorate as a Humanitarian Policy Coordinator. She was also promoted to Humanitarian Policy Officer last year. As a Policy Officer, 75% of her work focuses on climate policy. Her role is varied as it is a mixture of writing internal and external briefings, speaking at events, organising round tables, and working with the government, development offices, and other NGO and movement societies like ICRC, and IFRC. She has had multiple roles in the British Red Cross. She also founded and runs the Neurodiversity network at the British Red Cross. Her work is very diverse, especially at the early stages of her career. 

Along with that, Alexandra has a varied academic background as she graduated from St. Andrews University in 2019 with a degree in Art History specialising in women’s representation in South Asia and she also holds her Masters degree from SOAS in Development Studies achieved in 2020. She explained how studying at these two institutions helped her realise that she wanted the role of humanitarian policy officer in this sector. Her first experience was at the House of Parliament when she was 17 years old and that experience sparked her passion for policy change. After her first year at Universty, working in Tanzania as a volunteer on a UK government scheme taught her a lot about the potential harmful effects of aid work, white saviours, and volunteerism in this sector. She also gained an understanding of the ethical implications of government volunteering. Throughout the rest of her time, she ran numerous gender equality initiatives, such as with an organisation devoted to getting women into the workplace and more jobs, speakers events and UN initiatives. She spent much time doing feminist work.

Discussing how to find a job in this sector and dealing with the challenges of this, Alexandra advises that the best thing to do is email and message people on LinkedIn, ask for a call, ask for internships despite it being paid or unpaid. As a student, she used every summer and holiday to gain experience, such as through internships. This could combine her passion for travelling. She explained that emailing speakers or people who are involved in the development sector would help in getting an opportunity as it is more about communicating and contacting a lot of people for voluntary experiences. She further added that it is really important and impressive compared to the fact that one could afford to get to New York which is a more privileged experience. She added rejection is a normal part of seeking a job. If one wants to work and get experience in this sector, one should be open-minded about the organisations that one chooses to work for as working in this sector is always unpredictable.

Angella also asked about Alexandra’s social media use and how she uses Twitter in her work. Alexandra explained that she uses Twitter extensively to follow up on her talks and attend panels. As it is a formal and institutional approach to working with the public and governments, she can use it in her activism work rather than in her policy work. She also spoke of founding the “Spare Ribs Club” as a passion outside of the Red Cross. This can be found on Instagram and is a community of young feminists explore radical feminism and radical activism.

Moving on to the specifics of the Syria-Turkiye earthquake and how the British Red Cross has contributed to the aid effort; the Red Cross Movement is on the ground in both countries aiding rescue efforts and providing emergency medical treatment, shelter, food, warm blankets and winter kits. The Turkish Red Crescent and Syrian Arab Red Crescent help people on the ground. Both National Societies have roots already in the communities they serve providing unique access to the hardest areas. The IFRC is also bringing in international support efforts and the British Red Cross use cash assistance and cash programming. It is a way of providing humanitarian and early recovery assistance using cash vouchers. It can be used in various crises, and it is flexible for individual needs. Concerning the recent Syrian-Turkiye cash assistance, this provides cash to cover basic needs for two months, and other cash voucher systems for long-term needs. As a result, the cash will be distributed elsewhere through the remittance company. Families will have full access to their identified needs. A rapid market assessment is carried out before this comprehensive response to ensure that basic commodities are available in sufficient quantity and quality on local markets. As a result of the February earthquake, continuous market monitoring has been conducted throughout this implementation.

Using these systems within the national societies of each country and according to the circumstances before, during and after the crisis, cash can be used as a mode of delivering humanitarian assistance making it versatile, dignified and capable of meeting a wide range of needs determined by the people themselves. The British Red Cross has specific expertise in this area. They have a cash hub and have invested in building the capacities and systems so that the Syrian Red Crescent could be ready to set up a cash programme such as this one which has really helped in response to the earthquake.

Alexandra discussed how climate policy would alter our society if it became a human right and what that entails. She explained that the British Red Cross is not a human rights-based organisation and spoke of climate justice and human rights from her own knowledge. Climate policy and human rights refer to the recognition that all individuals have the right to a healthy environment and a stable climate. In addition, governments have a duty to protect and preserve these rights. Climate policy should respect and uphold basic human rights. These rights include life, health, food, water, and shelter. Taking into account the differential impact of change on differential populations, it should involve the meaningful participation of those affected by climate policies. Alexandra answered the question of what are the key obstacles to making this a universal right for everyone. The first concern was the lack of political leadership to prioritise climate policy and recognise it as a fundamental human right. One of the challenges is that balancing the interests of different stakeholders and the need to protect human rights. For example, social industries, climate activists, and government leaders are unable to make a decision and cannot agree on how to move forward with the climate crisis. Also, there may be economic and technological barriers to climate policy. In the UK, many people do not think climate change and global warming are a reality.

Alexandra further continued that enshrining human rights with climate policy means that governments and other stakeholders have a legal obligation to protect and promote the rights to a healthy environment and a stable climate. It would also ensure that current policies are designed and implemented in a way that respects the fundamental human rights. ​​​​This could involve developing legal frameworks that prioritise human rights and environmental protection. Enshrining climate policy in human rights ​​would require a holistic approach that integrates social economic and environmental factors into policymaking and implementation. It is imperative to remember the Red Cross Movement principles, especially neutrality and independence.

Angella asked Alexandra about the emotional and toll of working with people who have been through traumatic events. Alexandra believes it is necessary to devote life to humanitarianism and politics. The barrier between what is happening in other people’s lives and what is happening during the day is a grey area. It is imperative to be empathic but not emotional about what one hears. There are some strategies and resources available as well as training to help you improve your well-being and there is also something called trauma-informed working. To understand humanitarian work and trauma or the people you are helping, the British Red Cross focuses on trauma-informed leadership. One thing you should know when working in this sector is that as much as you devote your life to this field of work, having a personal life outside is crucial.

Students were also encouraged to ask questions. Alexandra was asked about the British Red Cross’s support to people with disabilities. Alexandra explained that a lot of work needs to be done on diversity in the humanitarian sector in general. Currently, the British Red Cross encourages its staff to work from home and in the office. They are willing to do as much as they can to help. Alexandra spoke about how to work for the British Red Cross and concluded by saying that there are other ways to support the organisation. Apart from donations, everyone is welcome to participate or volunteer online or in -person. This includes organising a fundraising event or sharing a message on social media.

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.

Martyn Day, founder of Leigh Day, on a career in international corporate accountability

BPP Human Rights Blog Editor Jay Staker interviews Martyn Day, co-founder of the British human rights law firm Leigh Day.

Few lawyers have left such a deep mark on the modern practice of human rights law in the UK as Martyn Day. A self-described “bolshie bastard”, Day has received numerous accolades over the years, including an honorary doctorate from his alma mater Warwick University. In September 2007, The Times identified Day as one of the UK’s most powerful and influential lawyers and in 2014, Modern Law gave him an award for ‘Outstanding Achievement’. He has authored a number of legal books, and was a Director of Greenpeace Environmental Trust, having stepped down as chairman of Greenpeace UK in 2008. Day founded Leigh Day in 1987, and the firm is now among the top of its field, with the Chambers and Partners UK guide to the legal profession 2021 giving them a top-band rating across eight practice areas, from civil liberties to public law, clinical negligence (claimant), employment (employee and trade union) and environmental (claimant). The Guardian has christened the firm the “thorn in the side of multinationals”.

Reimagining Criminal Justice

Joseph Green provides insight into the key topics discussed at this week’s meeting of the BPP discussion group, Reimagining Criminal Justice.

Reimagining Criminal Justice is a discussion group made up of students at BPP who are interested in criminal law and the justice system. We meet fortnightly to talk about topics such as prison reform/abolition, transformative justice, community sentences and diversion schemes, policing and more. We also discuss the implications of the current justice system on the most vulnerable in society and suggest ways we can influence positive change going into the future. Anybody is welcome to join.  

We have regular meetings every other Wednesday. Our next meeting is Wednesday 16^th June at 7:30-9:00PM and the following will be on the 30^th June. If you are interested in joining, you can fill out this survey

What did we talk about this week?

The Secret Barrister describes the cuts to legal aid as an “innocence tax”? What is meant by an ‘innocence tax’, and is this description correct?

We followed the story of an individual (of modest means) who managed to absolve himself of various false accusations of him committing sexual crimes. His legal fees came out at just over £100,000 by acquittal, after the CPS dropped the case. It illuminated the potentially destructive consequences the legal system can have on someone who does not have the financial means to afford a robust legal defence. Somebody whose income sits above the threshold of £40,000 per year will not qualify for legal aid, but the burden of the cost for proving innocence can still destroy their life.

As a group we had some trouble reconciling the use of the term ‘innocence tax’. Of course, within the phrase is imbedded an ironic twist, that nobody should have to pay or prove anything to show their innocence. Innocence is the starting point, and to pay anything simply displays the impenetrability of fair justice. It was agreed that ‘fee’, or ‘premium’ would be a more appropriate descriptor than ‘tax’, as most people will never be accused of a crime and therefore will not contribute to the costs of someone else’s legal fees. It was however, agreed that the Secret Barrister is correct in principle. Where there is innocence to be proven, there is money to be paid, undermining the accessibility of equal justice.

“Access to Justice is fundamental, but we also have a responsibility to ensure taxpayers’ money is used wisely.”The current borderline for legal aid in Crown Court cases is an income of £37,500/year (though this figure is substantially lower elsewhere). Is legal aid for the middle class a good use of taxpayer money? Should the bar be higher or lower than it is now? Should we offer legal aid to the very wealthy, like we offer NHS care to the rich?

Comparisons were drawn between universal healthcare and the lack of universal accessibility to justice. Whilst there was unanimous agreement on the raising of the threshold within the group, there was also an acknowledgement that legal aid cannot, and perhaps should not, be fully available for every individual. In an ideal world, fair justice should be readily available for everybody; but given there must be a limit at some level on taxpayer’s money, many in the group felt that particularly rich individuals should not qualify for legal aid.

There was also some suggestion of making legal aid more readily available for serious crimes, following the proposal that those are the crimes which cause the most destruction to the innocent if wrongly convicted. Others rebutted this, pointing out that the realities of the justice system meant that even petty crimes can be very destructive. The stain of a criminal record, the introduction to the penal system and into criminal gangs are all consequences for those convicted of ‘lesser’ crimes. It was also mentioned that a disproportionate number of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) individuals are prosecuted for these petty crimes, and so changing the threshold to accommodate legal defences at the higher end of the spectrum could rightly be called out for yet again neglecting those who are already worst affected by the system.

Since 2012, legal aid has been totally removed in other areas of the law, like welfare benefits cases and employment cases at tribunal. Outside of criminal law, are there any areas where we should always offer legal aid? Are there any areas of the law in which we should not offer legal aid?

There was a consensus that legal disputes involving the state would almost always necessitate legal aid, i.e., criminal cases, human rights claims, judicial review and administrative decisions. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we categorised disputes between corporations as not qualifying. We felt it was important to consider who could afford legal aid and in what circumstances, in principle, it should be provided. We felt that more resources of the taxpayer should be funnelled towards cases where individuals can have, or have had, their liberty deprived.

Another point was raised with regards to legal aid in divorce proceedings. Perhaps the more traditional view supports the idea that these situations are private matters and therefore should not qualify for legal aid. However, a counterclaim arose that, because of the power imbalance which all too frequently occurs between a separating couple, legal aid is more valuable than it first seems. Where one is a rich and powerful individual with plenty of access to sound legal advice and the other is not, the result of proceedings could be life-changing and catastrophic for the weaker party.

Lavinia Woodward committed GBH against her partner but avoided immediate imprisonment because she was a “promising” student at Oxford University. Should external facts about a person’s life make a difference to their sentencing?

There was an initial repulsion around the idea of anybody being granted leniency in their sentencing due to their ‘potential’ at a top-tier university and subsequent career. It begged the question amongst the group of whether the life and freedom of this individual matters more because of their place at university.

On the question regarding external factors having an impact on sentencing, we agreed that in many cases this would be appropriate, and even essential. But we thought that this particular example highlighted some of the biases which perpetuate inequality within the justice system. The point was mooted that similar to the way that the CPS decide to prosecute, consideration of the public benefit must be at the forefront of the judge’s mind; a promising student at Oxford would likely go onto a promising career (and in theory, apply her promising talents in the real world).

But again, do we want to be part of a justice system that leans its favour towards one’s job prospects? Moving down the timeline, do we want to be part of a system where lower-class professions are penalised during sentencing for not ‘contributing enough’ to society as those with a higher pay grade?

22% of the women supported by Women in Prison (WiP) are homeless. WiP’s manifesto states that homeless women or those living in serious poverty should not be imprisoned for offences like theft. Should a person’s socioeconomic circumstances or assigned sex at birth make a difference to how they are sentenced? What about other protected characteristics such as race or nationality? Do our intuitions on the Lavinia Woodward case contradict our intuitions about WiP’s manifesto?

Intuitively, we were sympathetic towards the idea of absolving homeless women of imprisonment for theft offences. The circumstances of those that sleep on the streets are very desperate. Like the previous question, the answer was a strong yes amongst the group. So, the socioeconomic properties of a person’s livelihood are something for the judge to consider. But with regards to assigned sex at birth, nationality or race, the group unanimously agreed that to adjust sentencing depending on these factors would cause more problems than it would solve.

It was pointed out that these particular facts of one’s identity can shape one’s circumstances, but one’s circumstances cannot shape these facets of one’s identity. When determining sentencing, to allocate a higher fine or custodial sentence to somebody due to their non-circumstantial background (their race or gender specifically and in isolation) could itself lead to discriminatory practices and further exacerbate the inequalities felt from the justice system.

Image credit: Rafesmar., CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia 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.

BPP HRU event: Human Rights Networking and Roundtable

On the 5th May 2021, the BPP Human Rights Unit held its third and final networking event. The event focused on issues linked to current developments as the UK proceeds with its roadmap out of lockdown, with two breakout rooms considering: Whether vaccine passports are a threat to human rights? To what extent should their use be permitted and why? 

Veeneshwary Choytun reports.

During the BPP HRU final networking event, one hour was dedicated to debate on issues linked to vaccine passports, with a further half an hour for networking with other attendees. The topic for the discussion in the first breakout room was: Are vaccine passports a threat to human rights?

Delving into this topic in more detail, the group focused in particular on the questions as to whether vaccine passports would constitute “digital identity cards by back door” and implications for personal data, the possible creation of a “two-tier” society affecting the most vulnerable and the balancing of some fundamental freedoms against others in this context.

During the discussions, there was a resounding consensus amongst all the participants that introduction of the vaccine passport would create a two-tier society and affect the most vulnerable.  Participants brought forward the argument that such a vaccine passport would be discriminatory, excluding people who have not yet had a vaccine. Notably, young people who are not currently on the priority list for vaccination in the UK would be prevented from taking parts in events or doing certain activities on the basis of their age or absence of any pre-existing health conditions.

Similarly, concerns were raised about the implementation of such a vaccine passport and the technology it would require. It was noted that, to date, the Government has not brought forward any fixed plans on vaccine passports and, therefore, raised queries as to how they would be implemented or how they would be managed. Questions were raised as to how such a system is expected to work on a cross-border basis, and it was agreed that this would pose significant challenges.

Along the same line of thought, participants agreed that the introduction of the Covid-19 vaccination passport would go against the ethos of “autonomy”. Considering that nobody can be compelled to take the vaccines, it was felt that it would be inherently wrong and unfair to impose such a system. Attendees noted that individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Moreover, issues on data-protection were also raised and there were questions as to who would run the database, and how would personal information be dealt with?  Attendees noted the need for caution and expressed apprehensions as to being unable to control their own data on such a database.

The final question addressed during the discussion related to each person’s individual responsibility to change their own lifestyles in order to help mitigate the risk of a further pandemic in the future. The group discussed the possibility of adopting healthier nutrition such as a vegan diet.  However, it was noted that this would be difficult to implement nationwide as the Government cannot stop people from eating meat.  In response, it was suggested that the Government could introduce incentives to support and promote the vegan lifestyle, making it more affordable by reducing taxes on vegan products and, in tandem, imposing tax increases on meat products.

Participants concluded that individuals cannot be forced to take vaccines and, therefore, it would be unfair and illogical to impose vaccine passports. The discussion ended on a positive note with everyone looking forward to the world getting back to normal. 

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.

Jo Hynes from the Public Law Project discusses the impact of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) moving online

Barty Scholefield spoke to Jo Hynes about the Public Law Project’s case study into online immigration appeals at the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Jo Hynes is a PhD researcher at the University of Exeter and Research Fellow with the Public Law Project (PLP). Her work focuses on the legal geographies of online courts. Jo, along with other PLP researchers, recently published a study examining the impact of immigration tribunals moving online, and spoke to Bartholomew Scholefield about the findings.

During the coronavirus pandemic, many courts across the UK were forced to switch to online hearings in order to continue to provide access to justice. Thankfully, the movement of hearings online was not new to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (FtTIAC), but that didn’t mean that the transition was without its difficulties. A Pilot system of online hearing had been trialled in 2019 as part of the government’s £1 billion reform programme of the justice system. The new online scheme was “parachuted in” in response to the pandemic, which was particularly bold given that the Pilot scheme had only been applied to 1% of the Tribunal’s cases whilst it was in place, but the new online system was to be applied to the entire caseload. A “number of concerns” that were raised in response to the Pilot remained unaddressed, and whilst practitioners supported case management conferences being held online, there were widespread concerns that online substantive hearings prevented the participation of the most vulnerable appellants.

Jo Hynes, PhD researcher at the University of Exeter and Research Fellow with the Public Law Project

In 2020, the PLP undertook a study consisting of 43 interviews with barristers, solicitors, and Appellants, as well as court observations conducted by the PLP. Whilst initially intended to only cover the Pilot, the study was prolonged in response to the new scheme being introduced. Jo tells me that there were “strong reflections” between the concerns raised in response to the Pilot and the concerns raised in response to the current system. The “primary concern”, she told me “was resourcing”. The intention of the online scheme was for a more “front-loaded system”, whereby counsel and the Home Office would come together at an earlier stage in the proceedings to avoid any unnecessary hearings. Whilst interviewees were, in general “on board with the aim of front-loading” there was agreement that funding was “lacking”. Particular issue was raised with the Home Office’s response team as they were frequently unresponsive, often giving “cut and paste answers and not engaging with the spirit of the process”.

There were contexts in which the online process was praised, with the vast majority of interviewees supporting the use of a remote link – either telephone or video – for case management reviews “provided that the Appellant was represented”. Additionally, expert evidence became easier to obtain, as the experts did not have to travel to tribunals, and, as Jo pointed out, the remote system “opened up hearing centres across the country” for observers like herself, enabling them to cover centres in London, Newport, Bradford and Manchester.

However, there were serious concerns that the risks of online hearings outweighed the benefits when it came to substantive hearings. “A lot of what an Immigration Judge does in a substantive hearing centres around an assessment of credibility,” Jo explained. However, in online hearings interviewees felt judges were “engaging less” and Appellants were “not able to interact well” with the Tribunal, particularly if an interpreter was involved. There was widespread concern that Judges would “stick to their normal habits” whilst assessing credibility, and not take into account the “totally different nature of the interaction”.

Jo told me that a large part of the problem was that the Pilot scheme had only been used for a very limited number of appeals, selected for their relative straightforwardness. The current system, on the other hand, was “rolled out to an entirely new group” of Appellants. Consequently, interviewees expressed concern over the “suitability” of the new system, considering the “particular vulnerabilities” of FtTIAC Appellants.

Equally concerning, Jo said, was the possibility for a “two-tiered system” to be created, dividing Appellants on the basis of their access to resources. As a result, those with access to a private space, laptop, and good internet would be able to have their cases heard much sooner than others. Legal counsel noted they were being made to “feel responsible” for their client’s ability, or lack thereof, to access the Tribunal remotely by being “encouraged to provide hearing facilities in their offices”, a responsibility they felt “very uncomfortable with”. One interviewee mentioned that a FtTIAC Judge even deemed it appropriate for a street-homeless Appellant to “call into their hearing from the street!”, a suggestion so dangerous “even the Home Office caseworker protested against it as totally inappropriate”.

This two-tiered system was further exacerbated by the problems caused by the new Legal Aid Reforms passed right at the beginning of the pandemic. Jo has also written on the impact of the new legislation, and gave me an oversight of the problems. The Reforms, which came into effect on 8 June, 2020, essentially created a new type of funding for representatives submitting appeals through the online system. Appeal skeleton arguments were billed at a flat rate of £60, which could reflect “10–12 hours work”. This left Chambers increasingly uncertain of the commercial viability of taking on such work and representatives thus felt “unable to undertake it”. Indeed, 20 Chambers issued a joint statement, in which they stated that they are unable to accept fixed-fee cases.

Interestingly, much like the online hearings system, there had also been a pilot of the new Legal Aid payment structure, which was met with a lot of resistance, but the new system was pushed through anyway once the pandemic struck. Responses to the pilot scheme “criticised the framework, which left representatives unable to make ends meet”, there was talk of a consultation with the Legal Aid Agency and “promises that the issues would be solved before a full-scale rollout”, but ultimately it was “forced through without any consultation at all”.

Jo was keen to emphasise that it “isn’t a story of lawyers being picky or doing a bad job, but the impossibility of surviving on Legal Aid contracts”. Fortunately, the Legal Aid Reforms were effectively challenged, and a new hourly-billed system brought in as of October 2020. Nonetheless, it demonstrated yet another occasion in which the Government was willing to rush through legislation without regard to the problems practitioners raised.

All in all, the new system paints the picture of a “vicious circle”, with a reduction of quality at both ends. On the one hand, you have more work being done by solicitors, and barristers being brought in later, as a hangover from the first Legal Aid Reforms. Whereas on the other hand, you have the Home Office, who have either been unresponsive or offered “copy and paste” responses, and Judges who aren’t engaging with the new system properly.

It brings to mind an article written in the Law Gazette by Dr Natalie Byrom, in which she states:

“Some commentators have referred to this period as a great experiment in the delivery of remote justice; I would counter that it is only an experiment if you collect data to test your hypothesis – something that HMCTS has failed to do.”

Despite the issues that the PLP report reveals, the new FtTIAC system shows no signs of leaving anytime soon, as there is an enormous backlog of cases due to the delays caused by coronavirus. To give an idea of the scale of the problem, Jo explains, “pre-Covid there were 916 substantive hearings in the FtTIAC a week”, whereas during the week ending 24 May, 2020 “only three substantive hearings took place!”. 

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.

Image credit: Field House Tribunal Hearing Centre, London | Smuconlaw / Wikimedia Commons

The Universal Podcast of Human Rights

BPP’s Human Rights Unit are excited to announce the launch of their new podcast – The Universal Podcast of Human Rights. Samuel Grimley and Isma Ayub lead a team of student volunteers in producing this podcast which shines a light on human rights issues and discusses international human rights violations.

In the first episode, Sea No Evil – Human Rights at Sea, Sam Grimley speaks to David Hammond and Elizabeth Mavropoulou from the NGO Human Rights at Sea (HRAS)

Human Rights at Sea is both an emerging international concept and civil-society platform, with a vision to end human rights abuse at sea.

The method to such an expansive project? To be discussed in this podcast, of course.

If you’re interested in learning about how CEO David Hammond has worked with HRAS to raise awareness, facilitate implementation and accountability of human rights, working with organisations such as the United Nations to promote inspiring and life-changing provisions in our oceans – be sure to tune in!

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: Reframing the Rights of Refugees

Last week, the BPP Human Rights Unit hosted the Reframing the Rights of Refugees event. They were joined by four fantastic guests – Toufique Hossain, Pierre Makhlouf, Marina Brizar, and Ruvimbo Mutyambizi – who shared their experiences of working refugee issues.

Lou Lou Curry reports on the event.

BPP HRU event: Human Rights Networking and Roundtable

On the 6th January, the BPP Human Rights Unit hosted the Human Rights Networking and Roundtable event. With two group discussions running in tandem, students shared their thoughts on the mass incarceration and persecution of the Uighur population in China using re-education camps and human rights in the digital world.

Jack West-Sherring reports on the event.

The BPP Human Rights Unit (HRU) launched their 2021 events calendar with a networking and roundtable event discussing two topics, the effect of the digital age on human rights and the persecution of the Uighur population in Xinjiang. Making use of two Microsoft Teams breakout rooms, this was an incredible opportunity to share thoughts and opinions on crucial human rights issues and get to know a body of likeminded students a little better.