by Ashley Major

Ashley Major is a Canadian student completing an internship at Independent Academic Research Studies in London, England. Upon the completion of this internship, she will graduate with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Human Justice from the University of Regina. She plans to attend law school in the future, specializing in human rights law. Her main focus is on addressing human rights violations against women, particularly sex trafficking.

In Canada, there have been discussions as to whether or not we live in a “rape culture”. Although difficult to define, this term refers to a society in which sexual assaults are ignored, legitimized, or blamed on the victim. Proponents of the existence of a rape culture claim that factors such as the clothes the victim was wearing, how much she had to drink, the relationship she had with the perpetrator and whether or not she appeared interested in sex, become the main focus of rape cases. Victims are put on trial instead of their alleged attackers. Proponents argue that addressing the presence of a rape culture will help illuminate the thinking fallacies surrounding rape and perhaps help to end it. Others have argued that the term “rape culture” further embeds essentialist sexual scripts in society- that of the woman being the weak, unfortunate victim and the man being the evil, dominant oppressor. The use of the term further paralyzes women and actually leads to more harm than good. Interesting blog articles describing both standpoints can be accessed here and here, respectively.

Whether or not a “rape culture” exists, cases involving sexual assaults often result in acquittals. Why is this so? Is it because alleged rapes do not occur as often as they are reported? Is it due to procedural issues such as a lack of convincing evidence? Is it because juries stigmatize the victim and the crime of rape in general? On January 30^th, London Chief Crown Prosecutor Alison Saunders gave a speech at City Hall entitled ‘rape and sexual assault – challenging social perceptions’. She addressed the issue of acquittals for rape charges and gave insights into why they may occur. She particularly focused on how “rape myths,” stereotypes and both conscious and subconscious views may influence juries in their decision to acquit. Saunders explained that both men and women can be victims of rape. When discussing sexual assault and rape victims in the following article, the pronoun ‘she’ will primarily be utilized. This is not an attempt to ignore or downplay sexual assaults against men, but rather to focus on the gendered stereotypes that surround the crime of rape.

The London Context

In the United Kingdom, rape is a crime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Other assaults of a sexual nature are included as crimes under this legislation as well. Most offences are committed against young women, ages 16-25. A 2005 report from the Metropolitan Police Service indicates that over the course of one month, 87% of alleged victims were vulnerable in at least one of the following ways: being under the age of 18, having a mental health issue, being in a relationship with the accused, and having consumed drugs or alcohol prior to the offense. Although prosecution rates for rape cases have been increasing in London, cases receiving a designation of No Further Action (NFA) occur on approximately a 1:1 basis. Data from the Crown Prosecution Service London indicates that jury acquittals are the primary reason for unsuccessful outcomes in rape cases. The 24 month period to November 2011 places this percentage at 48%. Other reasons include withdrawal, refusal of contact with police, victims returning home to another country and victims declining to give evidence at a re-trial. Ms. Saunders indicated that the vast majority of sexual assaults are underreported due to feelings of shame and fear of the court process.

The Canadian Context

In Canada, rape falls under the classification of sexual assault in the Criminal Code of Canada. There are three categories: sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, and aggravated sexual assault. These are sections 271, 272 and 273, respectively. Statistics from 2004-2008 indicate that women and girls between the ages of 16-24 report the highest level of sexual victimisation, more than double that of any other age category. Almost half of the sexual assaults reported to police in 2007 are those of girls under the age of 18. The General Social Survey (GSS) indicates that only 10% of sexual assaults are reported. In the vast majority of sexual assaults, the offender is known to the victim. 49% of adults charged with sexual assault were convicted in 2007. Sexual assault cases are less likely to result in guilty verdicts than other violent crimes, often due to issues such as lack of evidence and notions of victim unreliability. Although Canadian rape shield laws prevent the inclusion of an accuser’s past sexual history in trials, judges have discretion to allow certain pieces of evidence in both civil and criminal cases.

Rape Myths

In her speech, Ms. Saunders argued that there are several prevailing rape myths in society which may serve as obstacles to obtaining convictions:

1) Rape only occurs between strangers in dark alleys.

This belief is problematic because it suggests that women can only be raped by those unknown to them. Statistics indicate that the vast majority of rapes are perpetuated by a person known to the victim. Many are raped in their own homes. This belief also indicates that women can prevent being raped by avoiding certain places. Rapes can occur anywhere. Women who experience such stranger rapes may be blamed because they should have known better than to place themselves in dangerous situations.

2) Women provoke rape by the way they dress or act

This excuses the offender and places the blame on the victim. It suggests that women who are raped get what they are asking for. Ms. Saunders argues that dressing attractively and flirting is an invitation for attention, not rape.

3) Women who drink alcohol or use drugs are asking to be raped.

This belief blames the victim for the rape because she “chooses” to be vulnerable. If a woman is drugged, drunk or unconscious, she is hardly able to give consent.

4) Rape is a crime of passion

This myth assumes that men are unable to control their sexual urges. It romanticizes the notion of rape. It suggests that only young, attractive women are raped. In reality, women of all demographics are raped. This belief also ignores the many other inciting factors of rape besides sex, including desire for power, violence, control and humiliation over one’s victim.

5) It is not rape if the woman did not fight back

This view ignores the fact that many victims are legitimately in fear for their lives during the rape. Many cooperate with their attacker in the hopes they will be released after the attack. Intense fear can also paralyse victims and they may be unable to fight. Women who are drugged or heavily under the influence of alcohol may also be unable to fight back. As well, non-consensual intercourse does not always result in visible signs of abuse. The victim may very well have been actively resisting, but physical evidence of this may not exist.

6) The way a woman acts afterward indicates whether or not she has truly been raped

Victims react a number of ways after a rape. Those who appear to have a flat affect may be numb or in still in shock. Rape creates feelings of intense humiliation and shame, which may prevent victims from showing other emotions.

7) Women claim rape when they regret sex or want revenge.

This promotes stereotypes that women are vindictive, untruthful and capricious. While there certainly are false accusations of rape, these are not the majority. Ms. Saunders indicates that approximately 2% of rape cases comprise false accusations, a percentage which is lower than that of false reports for most other crimes.

8) Only gay men get raped/ only gay men rape other men.

This view exacerbates homophobia and promotes the notion that straight men are safe from rape. Rape is often fuelled by elements of power, dominance and control, not sexual attraction. Men of all orientations can rape and be raped. Such stigmas result in very low numbers of reported rapes by men.

9) Sex workers cannot be raped.

This belief justifies violence against sex workers. Sexual transactions are for consensual activities and thus sex workers must give their permission. Sex workers have just as much of a right to give consent as does the rest of society.

10) If the victim takes too long to report the rape, it was not rape.

This belief ignores the effect that shame and shock may have on the victim. It may take a while before he or she feels able to come forward about the rape. Another issue to take into consideration is cultural and religious beliefs. Women of certain cultures may be shunned or even killed by their families if they admit to being raped. This study on the lack of disclosure of sexual assault by refugees and asylum seekers to the UK offers insights to cultural influences on reporting rape.

Effects on Juries

Do these beliefs surrounding rape influence the decisions of jurors? A jury in Sydney, Australia acquitted a man of rape in 2010 because the accuser’s “skinny jeans were too tight to take off himself”. Ms. Saunders cited a London study by Finch & Munro (2005) which examined how mock jurors responded to rape cases, concentrating on those involving intoxicants. The study found that jurors focused primarily on the victim and her behaviour- her clothing, level of intoxication, failure to fight back, etc. Most were willing to forgive men’s sexual behaviour unless there was grave violence involved. Saunders indicated that in order to have legal credibility, a witness must be mature, articulate, undaunted by cross-examination, psychologically stable and in possession of a clear recollection of events. Such findings are also noted by Balfour and Comack (2004) in their book The Power to Criminalize. They describe several Canadian cases of rape in which victims were deemed unreliable witnesses. These women were portrayed as being loose, violent, criminal, mentally unstable, or capricious. A case which resulted in a conviction was that of an educated, sober woman who was violently attacked. She was visibly beaten, articulate and able to hold her composure on the stand. Due to the nature of rape and the circumstances often surrounding it, such “suitable” witnesses are often few and far between.

Rape Myths Prevalent in the Canadian Criminal Justice System

Canada was recently in the news headlines for the furore created by the remarks of a Toronto police officer. While giving a speech in January 2011 to students as Osgoode Hall Law School, Officer Michael Sanguinetti made these contentious remarks: “. . . women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised”. His statement, akin to the second rape myth Saunders identified, inspired a series of protests across the globe known as “Slutwalks”.  These protests involved reclaiming the word “slut,” as well as raising awareness about victim blaming for sexual assaults. Other actions of criminal justice professionals have indicated that rape myths are prevalent in the Canadian justice system. Manitoba judge Robert Dewar, who oversaw a case of sexual assault was criticised for claiming “sex was in the air” and for suggesting the woman’s attire contributed to her assault. In 2003, Justice Fred Kovatch suggested that a 12 year-old sexual assault victim was the sexual aggressor. She looked older than her age, was intoxicated and seemingly seduced the three men charged with her assault.

Are we living in rape cultures?

Prosecutor Alison Saunders timely report revealed rape myths that also exist in Canada. She suggests that the portrayal of women in the media, the tendency to blame victims and the misconceptions surrounding the crime of rape help create such myths. People do not seem to think much of it when someone claims to be “raping the repeat button on youtube”. Even celebrities such as Johnny Depp sometimes use the word flippantly, as he did when comparing photo shoots to rape. The term “rape culture” is a harsh term. It suggests that rape is very much ingrained in our society. Perhaps, as some have argued, the term is not suitable and is possibly detrimental. However, the gravity and nature of the crime of rape appears to often be undermined by mainstream society. Reading through Saunders’ list of rape myths, I know I have heard them all; I, as an informed young woman, have even subscribed to some of them. Was Officer Sanguinetti purposely trying to be offensive when he told women not to dress like sluts? Most likely not. He probably could have got his point across by telling women to take extra caution on nights out. We as women know that drinking and walking alone makes us more vulnerable; we do not have the privilege of feeling safe while undertaking certain activities. But as Ms. Saunders said, being vulnerable or flirtatious is not an invitation to rape.

Mr. Sanguinetti’s comments are indicative of the mentality that makes up a rape culture: namely, the tendency to blame women for their own victimisation. Juries are made up of members of society. If these beliefs exist in society, they will be taken into courtrooms. These thinking fallacies have also been demonstrated by justice personnel, including police officers, lawyers and judges. Every rape case that blames the victim further justifies belief in rape myths. Whether or not we use the term “rape culture,” certain mentalities surrounding rape have to change. One sign from a “Slutwalk” perfectly clarified the attitude that needs to be taken on rape:

Things that cause rape?

1) Flirting 2) The Outfit I’m Wearing 3) Drinking 4) Rapists

Only the fourth option, forever and always. Let’s get it straight, in Canada and across the globe.

In my last column  on 19 August 2011, I commented on the riots that took place in English cities. Soon after the riots, Prime Minister David Cameron, stated his conviction that the riots were the result of a broken society and gangs, which he quickly moved to declare war on. Since then, government, academics and the voluntary and community sectors have been performing an autopsy on the riots and this post outlines with regard to young people’s involvement, some preliminary findings; asks what we can learn from the past and overseas, and what investigations are currently underway.

Ministry of Justice Data

Following the release of data about people charged, prosecuted and convicted, by the Ministry of Justice, in the soberly named Statistical bulletin on the public disorder of 6^th – 9^th August 2011-October Update,  we can begin to dissect the issue with a forensic approach and taxonomize what happened.

Riot activity: crime type

First off, let us separate the notion of the riots – an unhelpful catchall term, from the different types of criminal activity that took place between 6 -9 August 2011. The argument for doing this is two-fold. Firstly, the term riot naturally implies that we are dealing with public disorder orchestrated and or caused by people conspiring together over one or more identifiable causes. We do not know, although we may now heavily doubt, if this was the case. Secondly, if we are to have a serious debate about the role that social deprivation had in motivating people’s actions, it is helpful to be able to ask questions of emerging data such as: is there a link between the misappropriation of property and indicators of poverty of offenders? Is there a link between people’s previous convictions and the crimes they committed during the disturbances? And so on, without the distraction of trying to figure out if people were revolting or reacting to one particular pressure or event.

By far the biggest crime group of offences are perhaps surprisingly – or unsurprisingly depending on how you view the disturbances, theft offences (63% of offences). By theft offences we mean burglary i.e. people entering premises to steal goods (45%), theft (16%) and robbery i.e. using force (2%). The next biggest crime type is violent disorder (26%), which includes offences such as affray, assault, and so on.

Let’s pause there and ask: was this primarily a violent incident of public disorder, or a chance for opportunists to acquire property? If it was the former, might we not have expected to see a higher percentage of disorder offences than theft offences? Of course, the complicated answer might be, that the ‘riots’ were all of the above and more. But, setting the scene is key for understanding what happened.

Who are the offenders?

At this stage it might be helpful to try and group the offenders into cohorts, because from what we know already, the offenders are a mixed bag. I am mostly interested in the data about young people and I have purposefully not included data on race. 42% of 10-17 year olds who appeared before the courts were in receipt of free school meals. 64% of the same age group were from the 20 most deprived areas in the country and 3% were from the 20 least deprived areas. 66% were classified as having a special educational need and a third had been excluded from school. 30% were classed as persistent absentees from school. Add on top of this the fact that over 70% of offenders of all ages had at least 1 conviction and you have quite a mix of criminality, social deprivation and low educational attainment.

On a prima facie examination of these statistics, we might be able to suppose that there is a core of young people who are not only not getting an education and are poor, but have already committed crime in the past. We might then see other groups of young people clustered around specific risk factors. But, let us not forget those young people who don’t seem to fit the typical offender profile, what do they look like? On the information new have at the moment it is difficult to come up with a clear picture. The general picture however indicates that for a large number of the offenders, social poverty and deprivation is common. The link between social deprivation and crime is attractive, but at this stage still moot to some extent and we should be wary of making conclusions at this stage.

What does history tell us?

It may be helpful to look back in time to youth disturbances in the past. Dr. Andrew Davies, Senior Lecturer of History at Liverpool University has researched extensively on youth and gang violence in 19^th Century Manchester. He recently wrote an article for the Guardian, based on his book The Gangs of Manchester,  in response to David Cameron’s views on the riots. He outlined that 19^th Century Manchester had a problem with youth gang violence known as scuttling in its poorest districts. The response taken by the city’s magistrates was to set increasingly harsh sentences for the offenders and their families to little effect. Other suggested responses were to heavily increase policing in these poor areas.

According to Davies’ research, the criminal justice system’s response did little to prevent or cure the problem of scuttling. His research showed that a scheme of working lads clubs set up and financed by local people and offering education, training and recreation, played a significant role in the decrease of scuttling towards the end of century.

This is just one example, but we are brought back to the issue of deprivation and its potential role in creating the conditions that nurture youth criminality. The Manchester example would seem to go some way to suggest that policing and punishing the way out of the problem won’t have any long lasting effects, but that tailoring a more positive and constructive response that aims to tackle deprivation will yield better results.

What investigations are currently being carried out?

The above only really scratches the service, which is why I am reluctant to draw conclusions. However, we may soon know a lot more as there are a number of large scale investigations being carried out, which should provide some independent insight to move the debate forward. IARS’ Director, Dr. Theo Gavrielides, in partnership with Simon Fraser University (Prof. Brenda Morrison) are exploring the potential for an evidence based model of restorative justice with riot related cases. Dr. Gavrielides will be visiting the University in British Columbia to present initial research findings and address academia and the public in a series of events starting 7^th May.

The Guardian Newspaper and the London School of Economics are also carrying out a large scale empirical study with support from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Open Society Foundation.

On 11 November the Runnymede Trust are holding an event to launch a piece of research Reducing Riots to Gangs; a Critique and a Warning. IARS continues to do its own evidence gathering and work of addressing negative perceptions of young people through the London focused 99% Campaign and its young people have started a new blog in response, which will be launched in December.

There is one other point of interest worth exploring. What many people in the UK might not have realised was that only a few months before the August riots, riots also broke out in Vancouver, Canada following a sports match. 140 people were injured with 4 stabbings and approximately 120 arrests. There was not only violence but criminal damage and looting too. Various disparate theories about why those riots have been suggested, which are not too dissimilar from those suggested about the English riots. If you have any information about the Vancouver riots we at IARS would be interested to hear your views Email l.parle@iars.org.uk or join the IARS LinkedIn group.

They key thing is that we focus on keeping the debate objective, evidence based and politically neutral whilst we still in the fact finding phase.

The riots that started in Tottenham, London on 6^th August and spread throughout London and England for the subsequent 3 days, could not have been predicted. Initially people thought that the shooting of police suspect Mark Duggan had sparked community tensions that eventually boiled over. But this theory has been quickly discounted. Others initially blamed government cuts for causing public anger. Others, including the Prime Minister, David Cameron, blamed a ‘Broken Britain’. None of these theories really provide us with a satisfying answer as to why so many young people looted, vandalised and attacked property and people without any tangible provocation. So we are left asking: why did so many young people take part in this Lord of the Flies style rampage?

Let us take a step back and look at who did what. Scotland Yard has now released its records of who have been charged with offences. Of the 1,457 people charged, a staggering 305 were under the age of 18. The remarkable and saddening thing is that many of the young people seem to be first time offenders, who for some reason felt compelled to contribute to the destruction. Take the well reported case of Chelsea Ives, 18, who is (or was) an Olympics ambassador who was throwing bricks at police cars and looting. Then there are the cases of young teenage boys and girls who went on looting sprees night after night. The youngest defendant was a shocking 11 years old. Some of these young people allegedly used Twitter and Facebook to organise themselves and encourage their friends to join in. The images of this carnage are surreal to say the least. 

The Magistrates and Crown Courts are working overtime to prosecute those charged and as might be deemed right and just in the circumstances, they are punishing up to the limits of their powers. Thinking within the legal paradigm there is at least the satisfaction of being able to prove that a defendant committed a certain act with the requisite intention. Back in the real world we are left wanting better answers and they make some time in coming. At IARS, we believe that the first people that we need to speak to are the young people themselves. Dr. Gavrielides in an article published on the Guardian website, outlines his argument for engaging young people in the restoration and recovery process. Letting young people tell us what happened and why might be the only way to really provide a satisfactory answer. IARS’ 99% campaign is doing just that; engaging with young people to help them be a part of the solution. (Follow the 99% campaign on Twitter) 

Whatever the cause of the riots, something amazing happened, which should not be forgotten or overlooked; Londoners of all backgrounds, including young people, came out in force to defend and clean up their city. Rather poetically, the clean-up was organised using the very same social networking mechanisms that were used to orchestrate the chaos. In a truly unique and very British display of defiance and civic pride, thousands of people formed an army of cleaners, equipped with brushes and bags. David Cameron has been trying to tell us that we need to build the Big Society; this response showed that his empty rhetoric is redundant, because for the large part, we already have the Big Society. So, going forward, hopefully we can retain this positive image, engage young people in the next steps and deal with offenders firmly, but fairly.

In the coming weeks IARS will be gathering intelligence from young people and promoting positive stories of young Londoners doing their bit. To follow our progress, go to www.iars.org.uk and www.99percent.org.uk to find out more. 

The UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was established by the Equality Act 2006 with the ambition of creating an equal society which respects human rights. The government in its consultation, Building a Fairer Britain: Reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is now proposing that the equality and human rights champion has its wings clipped and turned into a mere regulator through the repealing and amending of certain sections of the Equality Act 2006. Under the proposals, the EHRC would in effect no longer be a champion of equality and human rights, but instead an isolated government think-tank.

The justification for the slimming down of the EHRC is anything but clear and the executive summary to the document is telling. Paragraph one refers to the need to cut costs across government; paragraph three explains that the UK needs an equality regulator, but that the EHRC has not been performing well as an equality champion and in the same paragraph we are told that the EHRC is not delivering value for money. One of two conclusions may reasonably be drawn (if we cut past the waffle): either the EHRC is being punished for poor performance or the EHRC is an easy ‘quango’ (quasi-non-governmental-organisation) to shrink because equality and human rights are less of a priority in the present climate. 

If the issue is performance then logically the first step should surely be to take practical and reasonable steps to address where the EHRC is falling short, rather than repealing and amending legislation. It is also worth bearing in mind that the EHRC is practically a toddler (in its third year) and surely deserves a chance to improve. If this response was taken to performance across the board we would probably have a very small government and civil service indeed.

If the issue is that equality and human rights are less important and therefore easier to deprioritise, then the government approach maybe a false economy. A progressive Britain underpinned by values such as the law of law, equality and a respect for human rights will surely be a more attractive prospect for investors than a fragmented and divided one. See also the proposed cuts to legal aid.

My organisation, IARS, has recently submitted its own response to the proposed reform, which can be found on the IARS website in due course.

I was recently asked which one area of civil legal aid I would protect from the upcoming spending cuts in the UK. It is difficult to single out one area of law, but I think I would protect employment advice in the civil legal aid budget for three reasons:

The rise in unemployment 

In the last three years there has been a substantial rise in unemployment and The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development predicts that in 2011 over 200,000 people in the UK will lose their jobs. This increases the probability that the number of people requiring advice regarding the legality and fairness of terminations and redundancies will also rise. Statistics released by the Employment Tribunal Service (Ministry of Justice: 2010), which show a 50% increase in claims made between 2008/9 and 2009/10, illustrate this point. However, for reasons explained below, it is doubtful whether people on low income – particularly young people, who cannot afford to pay for legal advice, will be able to formally or informally resolve employment disputes without free legal advice.

The challenge of resolving employment disputes

Ken Clarke in the recent Green Paper on legal aid reform [PDF] claims that people should not resort to legal professionals to resolve disputes. However, from my experience and research that I have carried out, many are unable to resolve their own employment law related problems. In a recent employment law training session I delivered, none of the seven young participants (18-25) knew of the existence of Employment Tribunals (“ET”) or even of a civil justice system. Furthermore, in 2009 I authored a piece of research, Measuring Young People’s Legal Capability, which found that young people lack basic knowledge of their employment rights. The findings of the English and Welsh Civil Justice Survey (Legal Services Research Centre: 2009) confirm that this is a widespread problem. Where there is a genuine complaint, there is therefore a danger that without free legal assistance many people will be unable claim their employment rights. 

The impacts of not receiving advice

The impact of not being able to get advice on employment issues is potentially threefold. Firstly, people who are losing their jobs, particularly those on low incomes, will be unable to seek free advice to challenge unfair practices and payments owed, the cost of which could ultimately impact on the economy and welfare system. Secondly, It has been well documented by studies such as the English and Welsh Civil Justice Survey that unresolved problems result in secondary issues such as personal debt and mental illness. Thirdly, without advice it is conceivable that ETs will receive unmeritorious claims, which would have otherwise been filtered out through advice agencies operating with legal aid grants, resulting in an increase in cost for the Tribunal system and ACAS. 

Conclusion

To remove advice for employment issues would most likely prevent a substantial number of people from resolving complaints and possibly cause a host of secondary problems including increased personal debt and a clogged ET system. For these reasons, advice for employment issues should be protected in the civil legal aid budget.

In my last post on young people’s legal capability, I explored how NGOs such as PLEnet and IARS are piloting innovative Public Legal Education (“PLE”) programmes to enable individuals to take control of their own legal problems. One of the main arguments that I made for PLE is the long term pecuniary advantage to be gained from empowering (young) people to resolve their own legal problems before they reach the stage at which the state might need to step in and provide legal aid funded support. I also made the point that PLE is not a panacea that completely removes the need for legal aid. Legal aid funding is vital for access to justice for society’s most vulnerable, but the problem facing practitioners will be how to deliver more for less when taking into account the potential £350m cut in funding, proposed in the legal aid Green Paper. Innovation and co-operation by the legal sector to respond to this challenge will be key.

With part funding from the Legal Services Commission, Matrix Chambers – a barristers’ chambers well known for its innovative approach to delivering legal services, has set up a unique project called the Legal Aid Link to support the legal aid sector through this difficult time.

What is the Legal Aid Link?

The Legal Aid Link is at its core an I.T. infrastructure hub that provides an adaptable framework for legal aid professionals to manage their work. Amongst its many functions it:

• Provides tailored content on law and practice related to areas of work covered by legal aid funding;
• Acts as a case management and document sharing tool;
• Provides a space for legal aid professionals to launch and manage campaigns.

The way it is designed allows the user to construct a completely tailored application within minutes for the functions required. 

How will the Legal Aid Link make a difference?

Perhaps most importantly, it is FREE for legal aid professionals to use the Legal Aid Link. By offering full use of the service at no cost to struggling legal aid firms, community law centres and legal aid campaign groups, Matrix Chambers is doing something unique to:

• Help legal aid firms and law centres to modernise, by providing free I.T. infrastructure;
• Take pressure off struggling firms by providing them with a back office I.T. solution at no cost, enabling them to focus their resources on helping clients;
• Set the bar high for the big City chambers and firms wishing to make a difference to society through their corporate social responsibility programmes. 

James O'Connell, Chief Executive of the Institute of Paralegals said:

We are delighted to be working with Matrix on the Legal Aid Link project. LAL gives legal aid practitioners free access to online services and facilities that normally have to be purchased at considerable cost.

What impact will this project have?

At this early stage in the project’s life it is difficult to estimate what the ultimate impact will be on the frontline. But, what it has already achieved is to demonstrate how lawyers can co-operate to find innovative and strategic solutions to enable society’s most vulnerable people to get vital legal support. Carol Storer, Director of Legal Aid Practitioners Group said:

The legal aid sector is under great pressure, and so the LAPG welcomes any initiative that provides tangible support to legal aid practitioners.

For more information on the Legal Aid Link

If you want to find out more information on the Legal Aid Link e-mail legalaidlink@matrixlaw.co.uk or follow this link. 

It would not be a gross generalisation to say that many in the legal profession in the UK would wince at the idea of young people being taught to use the law as a tool to manage their affairs and claim their rights. Common reactions may well focus on the old adage that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”, or the absurdity of young people needing to know anything about the law. But, in these gloomy economic times when young people’s (particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds) debts spiral, their advice and support services downsized or removed, and the looming legal aid cuts threaten the closure of the few specialised legal advice services that support them, what is to stop them falling into an even bigger access to justice black hole? Is now the time for public legal education to be considered as a credible long term solution, to enable young people to become legally capable and grasp justice with their own hands? 

In 2009, Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS), a London based youth-led social policy think-tank, with the support of the Public Legal Education Network (PLENet) undertook a pilot study into young people’s legal capability. The research focused on young people who may be considered disadvantaged and to some extent marginalised. The report, Measuring Young People’s Legal Capability, perhaps unsurprisingly, found that young people, through a lack of skills, knowledge and confidence, struggle to resolve even the most basic of law related problems. Anger, reticence, desperation, depression and ill health were all responses and or consequences of the research’s participants being unable to handle their own law related issues. The problem is best enunciated by quoting three of the research’s participants, all girls aged 16 -20 talking about law related problems they had faced in the past. One said “I know what I mean in my head, I just don’t know how to say it¸ another pleaded “I felt sad and cried a lot, couldn’t concentrate on work. I had little time to talk to my parents and it got worse when I did talk to them” and finally another girl said “I felt helpless throughout the whole period. The problem had built up over a period of time and it just made me not want to go into work”. 

If we are to assume that this particular problem of legal (in)capability is widespread amongst young people, the next question that maybe asked is, “why can’t they go to their local community law centre to get help”? It hardly needs to be stated that the legal aid advice sector is already squeezed. But, more importantly IARS’ research combined with anecdotal evidence from those in the advice sector, suggest that young people do not use law centres or approach advice professionals for a number of reasons. Firstly, of the young people IARS spoke to, many did not have the knowledge or skills to identify they had a legal problem in the first place until it reached such a stage, that the stress of the situation deterred them from doing anything at all. Secondly, the research also showed that young people's preferred agents of advice were not advice professionals, but their friends, family, teachers, youth workers and so on – people they know and trust. 

The result: young people with clusters of legal problems, often unbeknown to them, a lack of knowledge of rights and responsibilities, a lack of the relevant skills needed to resolve law related problems, and an unwillingness/inability to seek relevant advice.

When faced with such evidence, the case for legal empowerment of young people through public legal education (PLE), begins to make itself. But, in the UK at least, PLE is a relatively unknown concept and is perhaps seen as risky because it is fairly difficult to prove the impact of many PLE practices. At the present time, it is left to organisations like PLENet and IARS to make the case for PLE and trial innovative initiatives with the limited funding available. One such initiative is IARS' Young Justice Champions Project. Funded by a private trust, the programme puts into practice the recommendations from the Measuring Young People's Legal Capability report. The project is essentially a training programme that focuses on improving the skills required to become legally capable through focusing on scenarios within a number of areas of law, including: citizenship, employment law, housing law and police powers. 

Watching PLE initiatives such as the Young Justice Champions Project in practice and seeing young people grappling with legal concepts, putting into practice skills such as negotiation, and using the internet to search for answers to their problems, you cannot help but get excited at the possibilities. The case for supporting and funding PLE initiatives like these should be strong; strategically implemented in schools for instance, they could enable people to spot and resolve law related problems before they spiral out of control, thereby lessening the need for and dependency on legal aid in the future. For the moment though, it seems there will be little legal aid, little public legal education and many legally (in)capable young people with mounting law related problems.