Knowing Our Rights-Inner Temple Inter-University Moot 2018
The Knowing Our Rights (KOR) research project, sponsored in part by The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, is pleased to announce the inauguration of an inter-university human rights mooting competition.
Inspired by KOR’s goal of increasing understanding of the European Convention on Human Rights in the UK by engaging with the public, particularly the younger generation, this human rights moot will challenge participating students to engage with topical and controversial human rights issues within a legal framework.
The KOR-Inner Temple Inter-University Human Rights Moot is also a great opportunity for those law students keen to refine their advocacy skills before panels of experienced legal practitioners and academics.
Teams from the following Law Schools have confirmed their participation:
City Law School, University of London
SOAS, University of London
School of Law, University of Surrey
Brunel Law School
The Open University
The competition will also include a mooting team from the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple.
The mooting problem for this inaugural competition can be downloaded from here
Qualifying round, Brunel University
Date: 28 April 2018
Time: 09:30 – 14:00
Location: Elliott Jacques 110 and Atrium
Finals, the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple
Date: 4 May 2018
Time: 17:00 – 21:00
Location: the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple
Brexit as a human rights issue
“Research undertaken by ‘Knowing Our Rights’ and ‘Britain in Europe’ experts on the impact of Brexit on human rights is helping give the entire debate on Brexit a crucial human rights dimension.
The argument, in particular, that the continued uncertainty over the rights of EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU, could amount in itself to a violation of the right to private and family life under Art 8 ECHR, has been developed by BiE director Dr Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos, first in a research brief which formed part of a report by the ‘New Europeans’ on ‘A Case for Unilateral Guarantees’, submitted to the European Parliament’s hearing on The Situation and Rights of EU citizens in the UK, on 11 May 2017. The human rights argument was then developed orally by Dr Giannoulopoulos during the May 11 European Parliament hearing, and, more recently, in an oral evidence hearing before the House of Lords’ EU Justice Sub-Committee.
BiE’s Dr Ruvi Ziegler has likewise submitted written evidence to the Lords’ EU Justice Sub-Committee on the loss of electoral rights as a result of Brexit.
Drawing on human rights research, including that produced by BiE, the New Europeans are now leading in efforts to reframe the debate on Brexit as a human rights issue.
At a symposium on 16th March at the European Commission’s London offices (Europe House), supported by the European Association for the Defence of Human Rights, Britain in Europe and our Knowing Our Rights project, they will map out those areas of rights abuses which they expect the cold logic of the Brexit process to come to next.
They will be asking: what will be the impact of Britain leaving the EU on the rights of disabled people in the UK, for example? Kamran Mallick from Disability Rights UK will be addressing the question.
How will family rights, employment rights, the right to a fair trial be affected? The discussions will be led by experts such as Dr Nando Sigona from the University of Birmingham and Hannah Reed from the TUC as well as BiE’s Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos.
What are the implications of leaving the EU for data protection and our rights to privacy? They will be looking at this question with Gracie Bradley, from Liberty.
BiE’s Sir Geoffrey Nice QC will examine the long shadow that Brexit throws over the Human Rights Act more generally.
After Brexit there will be a whole raft of issues where the human rights situation will be less clear cut than it is now and where the level of human rights protection for all citizens may be weakened. If this is the case, it could spell devastating consequences for some of the most vulnerable groups in our society – groups like EU27 citizens, but not just EU27 citizens.
The event is sold out, but there will be a live broadcast for New European members, and there will be live tweeting, including via @BRinEUROPE
For more information on the symposium see the New Europeans webpage here and here.
For press inquiries contact firstname.lastname@example.org
ECHR was key to transforming Parole Board into independent judicial tribunal
His Honour Jeremy Roberts QC, formerly a judge at the Central Criminal Court, member of the Parole Board, offers reflection on what the Worboys case means for the independence of the Parole Board, in a post published at the British Academy blog ahead of the ‘Challenges to Judicial Independence’ international conference taking place there next week (the conference is co-convened by Knowing Our Rights director, Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos).
You can read the blog post via the British Academy webpages
Right to privacy affords strengthened protection to client-lawyer communications
“[W]hile Article 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights1] protects the confidentiality of all ‘correspondence’ between individuals, it affords strengthened protection to exchanges between lawyers and their clients. This is justified by the fact that lawyers are assigned a fundamental role in a democratic society, that of defending litigants. Lawyers cannot carry out this essential task if they are unable to guarantee to those they are defending that their exchanges will remain confidential. It is the relationship of trust between them, essential to the accomplishment of that mission, that is at stake. Indirectly but necessarily dependent thereupon is the right of everyone to a fair trial, including the right of accused persons not to incriminate themselves.
Read the European Court’s new factsheet on legal professional privilege here
Challenges to Judicial Independence in Times of Crisis
Judicial independence is increasingly under threat, at home and abroad. The rise of populist and nationalist sentiment threatens to undermine the separation of powers, with judges being portrayed as elitist and ‘enemies of the people’, and governmental interference with judicial matters becoming routine. This interdisciplinary conference seeks to situate contemporary challenges to judicial independence in their legal, philosophical, sociopolitical, comparative and historical contexts. It will bring together academic scholars, judges, politicians, third sector experts and legal professionals. The conference asks what core shared democratic values judicial independence seeks to protect, and how can threats to that independence be protected against.
Dr Yvonne McDermott Rees, Swansea University
Dr Dimitrios Giannoulopoulos, Brunel University
Dr Daniel Aguirre, University of Greenwich
Professor Ilias G. Anagnostopoulos, Athens Law School
Professor Vian Bakir, Bangor University
Dr Moa Bladini, University of Gothenburg
M Guy Canivet, former President, Cour de Cassation
Dame Sue Carr, Presiding Judge of the Midland Circuit
Professor Fiona De Londras, University of Birmingham
Professor Martina Feilzer, Bangor University
Professor John Jackson, University of Nottingham
Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Justice of the Supreme Court
Professor Kate Malleson, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Lawrence McNamara, Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and University of York
Professor Raphaële Parizot, Université Paris-Nanterre
His Honour Jeremy Roberts QC, The Parole Board for England and Wales
Professor Julian Petley, Brunel University London
Sir Konrad Schiemman, Court of Justice of the European Union
Dr Stephen Skinner, University of Exeter
Professor David Sklansky, Stanford University
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, former Lord Justice of England and Wales
Please click here for a copy of the current conference programme.
A registration fee is payable at the time of booking. For further information and details of how to book please click on ‘Book event’.
Standard Admission: £95 for both days; £50 for one day
Early Bird booking (before 31 January 2018): £75 for both days; £40 for one day
Concessions: £36 for both days; £20 for one day
Image credit: Sir Thomas More Refusing to Grant Wolsey a Subsidy, 1523 © Parliamentary Art Collection