...

THE ADVOCATE The Newspaper of the QMSPBG Since 2004

Monday, 3rd December 2012 Talk is cheap and litigation is expensive. INSIDERecession: are we in harmony or out of sync?........................2 Should reasonable chastisement be banned?....6Freedom of speech and regulating social media....................4 Law: a matter of life and death...........................7Climbing the ladder....................................................................5 New Cannabis laws in US...................................8

Megan Jones

On 12th November 2012, in anunremarkable briefing roomin the Welsh Assembly's of-fices in Cardiff, a small pieceof Welsh legal history wasmade. For the first time inover six centuries a piece oflegislation was passed whichwas created wholly in Wales.

The ceremony itself wasbrief and devoid of any of thepomp and pageantry thatwould be expected of such ahistorical event. In fact, thelandmark occasion was con-cluded in little more than acouple of minutes, as CarwynJones, the First Minister ofWales, used a press to applythe Welsh Assembly's seal tothe National Assembly forWales (Official Languages)Bill. As the document washanded to Claire Clancy, theAssembly's Chief Executiveand Clerk, the bill became law.

Despite the lack of fanfareand fuss, the occasion was animportant milestone for thedevelopment of the powers ofthe Welsh Assembly, as wellas being a further step on the

path towards creating a possi-ble separate Welsh legal sys-tem in the future. After all,this development must beviewed in the context of theslow, but steady progress ofthe Welsh Assembly's law-making powers.

When the Welsh Assemblywas established in 1999, it didnot have any primary legisla-tive powers. The Welsh As-sembly was only capable ofpassing secondary legislationin certain devolved areas, pri-mary law-making powerswere reserved for the UK Par-liament. In certain cases, theWelsh Assembly could usesecondary legislation toamend primary legislation,but this was in very limitedcircumstances.

Following the passage ofthe Government of Wales Act2006, the Welsh Assembly ac-quired limited primary law-making powers. Thesepowers related to the twentyspecific fields within the leg-islative competence of theWelsh Assembly as defined bythe Government of Wales Act2006. These fields include cul-

ture, education, health, socialwelfare and matters relatingto the Welsh language. How-ever, in order to pass legisla-tion relating to previouslyun-devolved areas withinthese fields, this would re-quire the passing of an Act bythe UK Parliament or a Leg-islative Competence Orderapproved by the UK Parlia-ment. This effectively meantthat outside the strictly de-fined areas of competence asstated in the Government ofWales Act 2006, the UK Parlia-ment retained the power tolimit the legislative compe-tence of the Welsh Assemblyand curtail any attempts tobroaden its primary law-mak-ing powers.

However, this changed as aconsequence of the 'yes' votein last year’s referendum ongiving further law-makingpowers to the Welsh Assem-bly. As a result, the Welsh As-sembly has, since March 2011,direct primary law-makingpowers without having toconsult the UK Parliament.This gives Assembly members

Continued on page 3

The evolution of devolution“The beginning of a new era for the governance of Wales”

Article 3 of theECHR: how dowe protect asubstant ivelyundecided right?

Freddie-Nicolle Brace

Article 3 is one of, if not the,most well-known and impor-tant articles of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rightsbut strikingly this is not to saythat it is applied coherentlyand consistently in all cases.

In fact, over the years therehas been a huge amount of de-bate over when and how thearticle is to be applied and it isdisheartening to know thatthis debate has, as yet, been tono international avail.

This seems unsatisfactoryconsidering that the right toprotection from torture andinhuman treatment is such apressing issue, especially asthe world has seen a spout ofterrorist activity in recentyears and has in response be-come very suspicious of cer-tain ethnicities.

One cannot help but won-der why this article is so shortin comparison to others; theentire article consists of thefollowing one sentence: ‘Noone shall be subjected to tor-ture or to inhuman or degrad-ing treatment or punishment’.

One answer has been that itis an absolute right and so oneassumes that the writers of theConvention must have beenworking on the assumptionthat no further instructionswere necessary. Unfortu-nately, if this is the case, itseems that they could nothave been more wrong.

The first issue is that of uni-formity, it is surprising thatthe Convention has left it pri-marily to national courts todecide what amounts to tor-ture or inhuman or degradingtreatment since this is essen-tially the complete substanceof the right. Of course liberal-ists and patriots may take theopposite view, considering

Continued on page 6Continued from page 1

Welsh flags, St David's Day 2009 / Baner Cymru, Dydd Gyl Dewi 2009 National Assembly For Wales / Cynulliad Cymruhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalassemblyforwales/3678627344/

News Briefs Keir Starmer has vowed,with the help of “the doctorwith a suspicion”, “the policeofficer investigating” and“prosecutor taking a chargingdecision”, that the Crown Pros-ecution Service will seek tocrack down on female genitalmutilation. Having been madean offence since 1985, therehave only been three cases re-ferred to the CPS, none ofwhich have made it to court.The director of public prosecu-tions now insists, “the im-punity with which theseoffenders have acted will end”.

Secret courts: The Justiceand Security Bill attempts to in-troduce an extension of secretcourts, known as closed mate-rial procedures, into the civilcourts in England and Wales.The legislation is to enablejudges to hear various nationalsecurity cases but has pro-voked discussion and anxietyamong politicians and lawyerswho fear that the legislationwill breach principles of fair-ness and open justice. TheEqualities and Human RightsCommission has previouslywarned that the bill could in-deed be incompatible with theHuman Rights Act 1998.

UK to keep the ban on pris-oner voting: The government’sdraft bill, The Voting EligibilityPrisoners Act 2012, is undoubt-edly controversial. The bill of-fers three “options for reform”on prisoners’ voting rights.Schedule 1 and 2 are, in theopinion of the government, “onbalance” compatible with thehuman rights convention. Thegovernment is however “un-able to say” that Schedule 3,which re-enacts the currentgeneral ban on prisoner votingwith minor changes, is compat-ible with human rights. If thebill is passed, the governmentcould be in breach of humanrights and the rule of law.

Travers Smith was awardedthe coveted Law Firm of theYear title at the recent BritishLegal Awards. The award forChambers of the Year wasawarded to Thirty Nine EssexStreet.

More News Briefsinside

Editor-in-ChiefLauren Stone

WritersStacee SmithMegan JonesContributors

Freddie-Nicolle BraceArlinda Bala

Sarupe K UppalAnna PakkalaTarn NewsonErik AhlgrenTracy SenjulePublishing

Nicholas Russ

The Advocate

THE ADVOCATE

EDITORIAL POLICY: Articles over 900 words may not be accepted (pending on subject-matter).The Editorial Board reserves the right to edit all submissions for length, grammar, and clarity. Viewsillustrated in such submissions are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the The Advocateor QMSPBG. All articles must either be submitted in hard-copy bearing a handwritten signaturealong with an electronic version, or be mailed from the author's e-mail account.

2 COMMENT Monday, 3rd December 2012

Arlinda Bala

75,000 young people are madehomeless every year. As partof the organisation Team V, Iam aiming to raise awarenesson this issue and also to show-case the talents of these youngpeople. This issue is becomingmore prominent as the yearsgo by, especially seeing as thecurrent government have cuthousing benefits, which natu-rally will make finding ahome harder. The run up toChristmas is also the hardeston young people and helpwould be greatly valued.

Sofa surfing, which iswhere loads of young peoplemove from a friends couchonto another friends couchand so on, is also a majorissue. There are a number ofmajor reasons as to whyyoung people become home-less in the first place, the mainones being unemployment

and family conflict/break-down. Everyone knows some-one who is homeless so pleaseput yourself in their shoes andmake the change you want tosee in the world. I am lookingfor more volunteers to helpme with this campaign so ifyou’re interested or wouldlike some more informationon the cause please don’t hes-itate to contact me.

I am also looking for anyyoung people who are cur-rently homeless or used to behomeless who love creatingpaintings, making short filmsor writing poems and storiesto help with the campaign.Again, if you fit this categoryor know anyone who does,please contact me. Rememberthat we have the power tomake the changes we wish tosee in this world. If you would like to get involvedcontact Arlinda Bala at:teamvarlinda@gmail.com.

Recession: are we in harmony or out of sync?

The Advocate is a student-run legal newspaper deliveringup-to-date legal news and comment. Established in 2004and sponsored by the Queen Mary Student Pro BonoGroup, The Advocate provides a platform for students toexpress their views on current legal issues.

If you are interested in writing for The Advocate email yourcontributions to theadvocate.qmspbg@gmail.com.

You can find the latest legal news, comment and past issuesof The Advocate at:

@theadvocatenews

/theadvocatelegalnews

/theadvocatelegalnews

Homeless not hopeless

Note from the EditorWelcome to Issue VI of The Advocate. This issue is full of some truly fascinating articles ex-ploring current legal matters. If you are interested in writing for The Advocate we are cur-rently looking for contributors for the next issue, so email your contributions totheadvocate.qmspbg@gmail.com.Happy reading!Lauren Stone, Editor-in-Chief

Sarupe K Uppal

There have been attempts bylegal organisations to har-monise countries through theEuropean Union (EU) as wellas specific worldwide conven-tions like the Contracts for In-ternational Sales of Goods(CISG). The question ofwhether or not these meas-ures are helping or hinderingour chances of getting out ofthe recession remains.

Clifford Chance has re-cently commented that if weare to enter a double dip re-cession, the legal profession isno longer recession proof. Ithas been somewhat grudg-

ingly stated by other profes-sions that the legal professionis largely immune from the re-cession. This is because whenthere is a boom, lawyers areneeded for deals and whenwe hit a crisis lawyers areneeded to clear things up! But"Lawyers rely on activity," ex-plained Tony Williams, theformer managing partner ofClifford Chance, to theGuardian newspaper.

If we are to stay stagnant ina double dip recession thismay hit the legal professionhard. Moreover, through lawfirms’ races to growth manyhave decided to merge withinternational companies, with

the notable exception of firmslike Travers Smith. It is there-fore now more important thanever that the legal world helpsour country out of the reces-sion.

The basic way a countrygets out of a recession is tospend. When a recession hitsit is like a snowball effect;housing prices fall, unem-ployment rises and debts in-crease. To get out of arecession countries must bor-row to spend money and thisis why countries like Greeceand Spain have been receivingbailout funds. Now why dowe care if Greece’s economydeteriorates? If we were in the19th Century we largelywould not, but through theharmonisation between differ-ent countries we are now af-fected in a much greater scaleby the crisis of another coun-try, and through mechanismslike trade and multinationalco-operations we have be-come interdependent.

Euro-sceptics would arguethat this highlights the way inwhich membership to the EUhinders the development ofthe UK through the removalof trade barriers. Howeverharmonisation and awarenessof other countries affects how

Homeless group with dog, Franco Folini, http://www.flickr.com/photos/livenature/256941993/

people, and as a result gov-ernment, inherently think.Switch on your television, goto your laptop and you willhave up to date news on de-velopments from around theworld.

But this interdependencybetween states has caused arecession on a much widerscale and arguably will beharder to get out of. But whatis the alternative? Do we goback to trading with the next-door neighbour or a business-man from another town? Theworld has largely moved onfrom this, and this can be seenby the CISG, which is ratifiedby nearly 80 countries.

It would in my opinion besimpler if we were in this re-cession without the weight offailing countries as well as ourown. But this is no longer anoption, as we benefitted in theboom from EU legislation thatallowed free movement ofgoods, capital services andpersons, as this increasedcompanies’ consumers andworkforce.

We prospered from conven-tions like the CISG, which al-lowed commercial tradebetween borders regardless oflanguage barriers or differ-ences in legislation, and now

we must bear the burden.Perhaps this is a case of

Doctor Faustus; have we soldour soul and now have to paythe price of eternal damnationto an interdependent econ-omy?

I think this is an exaggera-tion, however the deficits ofcountries have been seen to beand will continue to be sub-stantial and it will be a gru-elling process to lift countriesout of recession. But this willhappen, the economy worksas a cycle and there will onceagain be a boom. World-wideorganisations will once againtry and sync countries furtherin line to ease internationalbarriers, as this will largelybenefit countries throughtrade, and it will be welcomedwith wide arms as a breath offresh air leaving behind therecession as a distant memory.

Therefore harmonisation isa double-edged sword. In arecession it is a hindrance, asa crisis of one country will di-rectly affect another. But dur-ing a boom, or even therecovery stages, an economywill benefit from harmonisa-tion between different coun-tries as it produces capital andtherefore aids the growth of acountry.

‘European Union flag’ YanniKouts http://www.flickr.com/photos/ykoutsomitis/6861702519/

FEATURED CHARITY

Continued from page 1the right to create their ownlaws in all areas in those fieldslisted in the Government ofWales Act 2006.

The Welsh Assembly'snewly-exercised power topass its own legislation, mayseem unremarkable, and oflittle importance to many bothin Wales, and outside of thecountry. However it has bothsymbolic and practical signif-icance. As stated by CarwynJones, "Wales is an old coun-try, but a young democracy.Today is a historic day for usas a nation. It heralds the be-ginning of a new era for thegovernance of Wales." Thisgreater legislative power indi-cates a new confidence in the

Welsh Assembly and a greaterwillingness to follow its ownlegislative agenda, regardlessof that followed by the UKParliament. In practice, thiscould lead to laws that createfurther practical differencesbetween the position of peo-ple in Wales, and elsewhere inthe UK, as regards matterssuch as health and education.

Whilst the simple cere-mony, over a hundred milesaway from the traditionalheart of UK law-making inWestminster, went unnoticedby many it has both symbolicand practical importance aswell as being a significant signof the possible loosening ofthe apron strings that attachWales and England.

THE ADVOCATE

Anna Pakkala

Many people associate spon-sorship with non-profit organ-isations offering large, facelesscorporations a place to plastertheir logo and hand out a fewpamphlets in exchange for alump sum of money. How-ever, modern sponsorshipsmust create an exchange thatgoes beyond money andlogos, towards an exchange ofresources such as publicity,knowledge, employees or cus-tomers.

Sponsorship is not only aconsideration for non-profitorganisations; profit-makingorganisations can also help re-cuperate costs, gain morepublicity or goodwill, andgain customers by looking to-wards these kinds of partner-ships. This exchange ofresources is now expected bysponsoring companies. Logosand special thanks hold asmall role, and instead, com-panies are looking for a rele-vant and engaging type ofpublicity.

Social media has provided afantastic avenue for this, andcompanies can now exchangesocial media mentions, links,videos and photos from eachother’s pages, blogs or web-sites, allowing the public toactually engage with thesponsoring company in amore meaningful way. Thetwo partners in the sponsor-ship can also run and promotemutual contests, exchangevaluable advertising space, orpool resources to createguerilla marketing cam-paigns.

Creativity and time becomethe only limits. Moreover, be-cause the exchange is nolonger primarily about mone-tary resources, the field for po-tential partners becomesmuch larger. Not-for-profitscan partner with other not-for-profits, and small compa-nies that do not have a lot ofmoney but have a fiercelyloyal social media followingsuddenly become much moreattractive as partners. Al-though this level of partner-ship can bring moremeaningful results to both or-

ganisations, it also requiresmore effort. Organisationsshould be a natural fit for eachother with similar audiences,and this requires research onthe part of the company seek-ing out sponsors. For exam-ple, a film festival should lookto partners in the arts (gal-leries, theatres), and forgetabout trying to approach or-ganisations that seem moreenticing for their funds but areirrelevant to their product (forexample banks).

Yet when making sure thata potential sponsor is worthapproaching, it is also impor-tant what, in terms of size andpotential, they can provide tothe company. Managing spon-sors, big or small, takes a lot ofeffort and communication andit is better to aim for a fewlarge, very relevant and en-thusiastic sponsors than sev-eral smaller sponsors who arenot willing to fully commit tothe partnership.

Understanding the value ofthe resources you are ex-changing or the value they arecreating for your companycan make it easier to evaluatepotential partners and ensurethat you are getting the samevalue from the partnership aswhat you are putting into it.At the same time, you mustalso consider the value ofwhat you are offering some-one else, in order to makeyour offer fair and attractive.Some items, like cold hardcash or traditional print ad-vertisements are easily priced,whereas more creative and in-tangible items will dependlargely on guess-work orvague approximations. How-ever, these less traditionalitems may be stronger incen-tives than money. For exam-ple, Facebook fans or Twitterfollowers can be “priced” inthe same way as print ads fornewspapers, but the level ofengagement and quality ofthese social media pages canaffect their value - and thesequalitative factors are ex-tremely difficult to translateinto quantitative terms. Thevalue can also fluctuate de-pending on the partner beingapproached. For example, if

an organisation with 300‘likes’ is seeking partners, thevalue they can provide to anorganization with 200 likes ismuch higher than to an organ-ization with 100,000 likes.

With this more rewarding,yet more complicated form ofsponsorship comes more en-tangled contracts that cancomplicate relationships be-tween organisations. Issuessuch as exclusivity becomemore complicated beyond thesize or placement of one’slogo.

Relevant partners are alsooften competitors, somethingthat will become problematicparticularly in exchanges ofpublicity. The whole point ofa partnership being to givecompanies a new place toreach customers (and there-fore a competitive edge), theywill not look favorably onhaving to compete with theircompetitors for attention inthis space as well.

Therefore, it is important toremember that once a partner-ship has been established withan organisation in a certain in-dustry, others in that industrywill either have to be rejected,or explicit consent attainedfrom all parties in order toform partnerships with multi-ple organisations in this in-dustry. On the upside,exclusivity can sometimes in-crease the perceived value ofa partnership, as it does pres-ent an opportunity for rela-tively competition-freepublicity.

These factors are only a fewof the things that organisa-tions will have to considerwhen looking to other organi-sations for sponsorship. Themost important thing though,is to step away from an idea ofeasy cash and a distant rela-tionship with a sponsor, to aninvolved partnership wherecreative options help both or-ganisations engage with oldand new customers and con-sumers. This requires atremendous commitment oftime and employee support,but the resulting partnershipwill reap more rewards thanhasty sponsorships pulled to-gether on the side.

COMMENT3

Sponsors giving way to partners

Call for submissionsWant to have your say on current legal affairs?

Want to have your work published?

We want to read what you have to say!

The new issue of The Advocate is just around thecorner! We are looking for students, academics andorganisations who are keen on writing a piece for

our issues throughout the year.

Have an idea for an article? Drop us a line at:theadvocate.qmspbg@gmail.com

‘Pile of newspapers’ © CC-BY 2012 Howard Lake http://www.flickr.com/photos/howardlake/6978066238/http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjc/7728569926/

TheDocket

! Law Society HumanRights Conference10th December 2012, 9amThe Law Society, 113 ChanceryLane, London, WC2A 1PLhttp://www.lawsociety.org.uk/(discounted rates for students)! Law Society Public DebateSeries: Leveson Report11th December 2012, 6pmThe Law Society, 113 ChanceryLane, London, WC2A 1PLhttp://www.lawsociety.org.uk/

! BPP Law School Undergraduate Open Day8th December 2012, 12pmBPP Law School LondonWaterloo Centre 137 StamfordStreet, London, SE1 9NN

! Kaplan Winter School18th-19th December 2012Kaplan Law School, PalaceHouse, 3 Cathedral Street,London SE1 9DEadmissions@kaplanlawschool.org.uk! The College of Law LL.MLPC Open Evening9th January 2012, 5.15pmThe College of Law, 2 BunhillRow, London EC1Y 8HQhttp://www.college-of-law.co.uk/

! Careers Event for YoungWomen: with 5 of the UK'sleading women in Business, Sci-ence, Banking, Media, Arts andCommunity21st January 2012Museum of London,150 London Wall, LondonEC2Y 5HN! Law Society AnnualPresidential Lecture:Language and the Law22nd January 2013, 6.30pm

New Theatre, LSE, East Build-ing, Houghton Street, WC2A2AEhttp://www.lawsociety.org.uk/! Project Planning withGlobal Skills - QM SkillsAward24th January 2013, 6.30pmLocation TBChttp://www.careers.qmul.ac.uk/For more information visit:http://www.careers.qmul.ac.uk/

THE ADVOCATE4 COMMENT Monday, 3rd December 2012

Lauren Stone Is it possible to strike a bal-ance between the right to freespeech and the regulation ofsocial media? This was thequestion facing the panel atthe recent ‘Law and Twitter-ing’ debate hosted by Article19 and Human RightsLawyers Association.

Adam Wagner (One CrownOffice Row and founder of theUK Human Rights Blog)chaired what proved to be athought-provoking debate be-tween David Allen Green (so-licitor for Paul Chambers in‘Twitter joke trial’), JohnCooper QC (barrister for PaulChambers) and Tamsin Allen(Head of Media and Informa-tion Law at Bindmans LLP).

The panel explored ques-tions arising from recent casesthat have stirred controversyin the media, and whetherregulation of social network-ing websites such as Twitterand Facebook could provide aviable answer.

A brief look at recent casesprovides us with an insightinto an area of law shroudedin uncertainty and inconsis-tency.

Azhar Ahmed, 20, receiveda fine and a community sen-tence for posting an angryFacebook status in which hesaid, "all soldiers should dieand go to hell". MatthewWoods, 20, was sentenced tosix weeks imprisonment (re-cently reduced on appealfrom 12 weeks) for commentsposted on Facebook aboutmissing five-year-old April

Jones. Paul Chambers, per-haps most notoriously of all,was fined £1,000 for tweeting,“Crap! Robin Hood Airport isclosed. You’ve got a week anda bit to get your shit togetherotherwise I am blowing theairport sky high!!”, beforehaving the judgement over-turned on appeal. Aside fromdoubts on whether theseshould have been crimi-nalised at all, there appears tobe little consistency in the sen-tences given in these cases.

All of these prosecutionswere centred on s127 Commu-nications Act 2003, whichmakes it an offence to send,“by means of a public elec-tronic communications net-work a message or othermatter that is grossly offen-sive or of an indecent, obsceneor menacing character”. Theprovision has its roots in theTelecommunications Act 1984,however this was focussed onthe making of harassingphone calls and not the use ofsocial media websites.

It is unsettling how such afar-reaching, controversialprovision came into effectseemingly unnoticed. Prior tothe wave of recent case lawthere was relatively little com-ment on the potential impactof s127 on the freedom of ex-pression.

The Communications Act2003 also does not further al-lude to what constitutes“grossly offensive” or “men-acing” which has given rise tosignificant uncertainty in analready murky area of law.

This uncertainty was at the

forefront of the discussion atthe ‘Law and Twittering’ de-bate. There was a distinct di-vide in opinion betweenpanellists, which only servedto reinforce the lack of legalclarity in cases involving so-cial media. Tamsin Allenstaunchly argued for morerules to regulate social media,and in some cases criminalisa-tion.

Allen pointed to the discon-certing increase in cyber bul-lying, with the risk of harmbeing particularly high inyoung people. The effects ofcyber bullying were wit-nessed in the recent tragic caseof Amanda Todd, the Cana-dian teenager subject to a fouryear campaign of online ha-rassment that culminated inher taking her own life. Allenalso raised an interestingpoint that a message may notqualify as being grossly offen-sive if sent by one individual,but what if, as with the recenttrend of ‘text bombing’, it wassent by 1,000 people to oneperson? The lasting damage

that such behaviour can inflictupon a young person makes iteasy to understand why Allenadvocates more rules for so-cial media to deal effectivelywith offensive content.

John Cooper QC however,disagreed with Allen. Cooperargued that there was no needfor regulation, simply the useof common sense. It is not dif-ficult to see the logic behindCooper’s argument. Insteadof a knee jerk reaction thatbows to the whim of publicopinion, what is needed is co-herent and prudent analysis,although, this is easier saidthan done.

At the debate the panelgrappled with the uncertaintyof terms such as “grossly of-fensive”, a difficulty th at iscurrently troubling KeirStarmer and the Crown Pros-ecution Service (CPS), whoare struggling to performsome kind of contortion actby manipulating s127 to ac-commodate the growth of so-cial media. As s127 waspassed before the advent of

websites such as Facebookand Twitter it is easy to seethe problems faced by theCPS. Starmer said that he isdrawing up guidelines onprosecutions over socialmedia to tackle such prob-lems. Talking to the BBC,Starmer said,

“The emerging thinking isthat it might be sensible to di-vide and separate cases wherethere's a campaign of harass-ment, [or] cases where there'sa credible and general threat,and prosecute in those sorts ofcases.

"And put in another cate-gory communications whichare, as it were, merely offen-sive or grossly offensive.”

S127 currently casts ashadow of uncertainty overthe issue of freedom of ex-pression through socialmedia, however it remainsthe law. The issue thereforehangs tentatively on a threaduntil Starmer releases the pro-posed guidelines. Until then,it remains virtually impossi-ble to advise on whethersomething falls within s127 ornot.

As a country we pride our-selves on upholding the rightto freedom of expression andthe right to voice our opin-ions. However, the right tofreedom of expression also in-cludes the right to be grosslyoffensive. It is not a rightwhich we delight in others ex-ercising, but it is a right all thesame. As John Cooper QC elo-quently put it during the de-bate, ‘freedom of speech is adifficult best friend to have'.

Is it possible to strike a balance between the rightto free speech and the regulation of social media?

Most effective teaching methods for law students: we asked, you told us

‘Twitter’ Andreas Eldh http://www.flickr.com/photos/eldh/5858249526/

With university fees pushingthe limits of what is affordablefor a significant portion of thepopulation, prospective stu-dents are increasingly de-manding they receive valuefor money. In a climate whereeducation is becoming moresimilar to a commodity to bebought and sold, students are

paying particular attention tohow these goods are deliv-ered. Teaching methods can bepivotal in helping law stu-dents in particular grapplewith the technicalities of sucha challenging degree. Al-though a degree relies heavily

on independent study, lec-tures and tutorials are an im-mensely valuable tool,provided they are used theright way. Embracing the age of socialnetworking that we now in-habit, The Advocate took toTwitter to gauge the responsesof law students on the topic ofteaching methods, in 140 char-acters or less, naturally. One former studenttweeted that “engaging andpassionate tutors make topicsinteresting, encouragingwider reading” suggestingthat the passion of tutors andlecturers can be the spark thatignites curiosity in a topic. One can see a great deal oftruth behind this suggestionas, without an enthusiasticlecturer, attention is bound to

wane after 15 minutes. An-other student tweeted that themost effective teaching meth-ods were, “anecdotes, dis-cussing rationale, [and to]write key topics on [the]board”. This would suggestthat legal theory could bebrought alive through a morepragmatic approach. However the overwhelmingresponse was that it is vital forlecturers and tutors to be per-ceptive. Whilst lecturers maybe under the impression thatthe flurry of fingers in a lec-ture are typing up the ratio inthe High Trees case, the Face-book accounts open on thescreens say otherwise. Being aware of when atten-tion is beginning to drift andusing more pragmatic teach-ing methods would undoubt-

edly have a very positive im-pact on the learning experi-ence of the average lawstudent. Of course, it goes withoutsaying that a law degree willnot be handed to you on aplate. It involves a seriousamount of independent studyoutside classrooms and lec-ture theatres. It involves rigor-ous research and a heftyreading list. However it can also proveto be one of the most excitingand rewarding experiences ofyour life. So lecturers, try somethingdifferent, take a hands on ap-proach and tell when atten-tion is fading. And students,log out of Facebook, listen inthe lectures and learn sometruly fascinating stuff.

SMBCollege http://www.flickr.com/photos/smbcollege/5510558786/

THE ADVOCATECOMMENT Monday, 3rd December 2012

CLIMBING THE LADDER

Which University did you at-tend and what did youstudy?B.Sc. Environmental Geogra-phy at Queen Mary, Univer-sity of London.

How did studying a non-lawdegree affect your applica-tions?I started applying for trainingcontracts during the final yearof my undergraduate degreeat Queen Mary. Having studied a non-lawdegree, my applications werevery much centred on thetransferrable skills which Ihad obtained from my degreesuch as drafting, analysis,presentation, research and at-tention to detail. As I was approaching theapplication process from anon-legal perspective, it wasimportant to be aware of thetypes of skills that law firmsare looking for and ensuring

that it was these skills which Idemonstrated at interview.

Did you participate in anyextra-curricular activities?I was the President of a QueenMary Climbing Club, a repre-sentative of the student pas-toral care service and a RoyalGeographical Society ambas-sador as part of a geographymentoring scheme to enthusepupils to study geography atuniversity

What, if any, legal work ex-perience did you undertakebefore applying for a train-ing contract?I undertook vacation schemeswith a variety of law firms inan attempt to get a flavour ofthe type of law that I might beinterested in. I also undertookmini-pupillages with a varietyof sets with the view of con-sidering a career at the bar.

How many applications didyou make for a training con-tract?8 - 10

Did you participate in a vaca-tion scheme before yourtraining contract?Yes, although not with mycurrent firm, Orrick. Havingspoken with peers who havecompleted vacation schemes,they appear to be a great wayto get network and meet peo-ple, although they do not nec-essarily offer a fair taste of lifein a corporate law firm.

edgeable and avoided inad-vertent statements whichmight otherwise have demon-strated a lack of awareness orgenuine interest.

Why did you choose Orrick?Orrick is one of the top USbased law firms with ambi-tious expansion plans for theLondon office. The decision tojoin a US firm was largelybased on the substantial levelof client contact, quality ofwork, responsibility and au-tonomy which is availableand is not generally offered bythe top UK firms. It is also a very friendlyand non-pretentious law firmwhich recruits on merit. It of-fers a great opportunity towork with intelligent anddriven people from a varietyof backgrounds and countries.

What do you think was themost challenging part of theapplication process?The most difficult part of theapplication process was iden-tifying which firm offered the

type of work and culture inwhich I would be happyworking. There are many law firmswhich offer training contractsand with many of them try tosell themselves in the sameway it is difficult to distin-guish which firm is most suit-able. The best way to get a feelfor a firm is to speak to thestaff, attend open days andvacation schemes and speakto peers who have experiencesof the firm.

What is your best advice forstudents embarking on alegal career?Work hard and enjoy it! Youhave to enjoy the area of lawin which you intend to pursuea career and you have to bewilling to work hard at it. You should also have anopen mind about working inan area of law which you maynot have previously consid-ered. Many lawyers changetheir preference of legal fieldat some point in the first fewyears of their career.

Orrick, Herrington & SutcliffeLLP are a global firm whose areasof expertise include corporate, fi-nance, real estate, competition,employment and litigation.

Brad HillsonTrainee at Orrick

“You have to enjoythe area of law inwhich you intend topursue a career andyou have to be willingto work hard at it”

How did you make your ap-plication stand out?By ensuring it was down toearth, honest and concise. Ialso researched the firm sub-stantially before making anapplication so I was able toappear interested, knowl-

Erik Ahlgren

Hold on, you’re not telling meit has been six weeks already?Yep, a peek outside the win-dow reveals rolling hills andterraced houses with a partic-ular kind of crustiness, whichdoes not match that of innerLondon.

Reading week has come,and I’ve escaped to Yorkshire.The autumn leaves are falling,and much like a World War IIinfantry company on leave,the class of 2014 has dispersedacross Europe to indulge inseasonal festivities and gen-eral debauchery. Sure, some ofus may actually do some read-ing, but maybe the true valueof this week off is that it pro-vides us with a chance tomeditate and reflect over ourlives as Law students.

The start of a new academicterm is a bit like the beginningof a new year. There are loadsof resolutions for the futureand overall optimism as towhat will be achieved thistime around. Perhaps it is notentirely inappropriate to be abit cynical when everyonesuddenly pledges to turn intoa new and better person. Butbeing a Law student, hope-fully you are actually capableof some self-improvement.

Well then, not counting revi-sion weeks and exam time, aquarter of the year has alreadypassed. Now is the time toevaluate your performanceand determine if you wouldhave been better off as an Eng-lish Lititerature student. Whathave you achieved so far?

Did you get organised?Look, old bean, doing yourreading and making notes foryour tutorial is not that hard.Going back after your seminarand drafting a model answerfor the problem question is thevery least you ought to expectfrom yourself. In fact, I’mgoing to assume you’ve al-ready got your Law degreefigured out, because other-wise you should be doing Phi-losophy or something.

Okay, we have establishedthat you will get a First. Butyou want to be prepared forthe next step when you getthere. Did you already re-search the subject of yourMasters’ degree? Maybe youpublished some articles on pe-ripheral topics? Okay good, Imean let’s face it, if you can’tget ahead you might as wellstudy Politics or InternationalRelations. I am confident thatduring these last few weeksyou have compiled a shortlistof universities with good LLM

programs and looked into ac-commodation prices. Makesure your future flat has adouble bed, since you will beliving with your best friend’ssister after graduation. If youcan’t get with your bestfriend’s sister you shouldprobably be doing Maths.

Maybe you are not the aca-demic type. Your hunger forblack letter lamentations issaturated and you need to beout there as soon as possible,applying your skills and earn-ing your living. The solicitorsamongst you will alreadywork part time in respectablehigh street firms, and for read-ing week you are most likelyin the office, covering for skiv-ing trainees who would ratherpass out in Shoreditch after anintense Guy Fawkes’, or pulldecadent all-nighters in con-junction with the US election.Money never sleeps. Yes, as afuture solicitor you are on topof everything and you’vemade makeshift wallpaperout of the Lex 100 pages. Youwill get thirty training con-tracts, pick your personalMagic Circle favourite and doyour international seat inHong Kong, before it wascool. Quite frankly you aremore concerned right nowwith making partner before

30. If you weren’t such a rain-maker you would have gonefor Biochem, right? That’swhat I thought.

Then again, some men andwomen are destined to wear awig. You’ve known since youwere twelve that a barrister’spath is for you, and you’vesomehow found time for aformal visit to every Inn, twicethis term. Whichever one youchoose will surely be happy toaccept you on its highestscholarship. Perhaps espe-cially so since you are quitechummy with a few QCs andbelong to a circle that lunchesat a manor house in Surrey,those rare weekends whenthere is nothing at theSupreme Court deserving ofyour attention. There is sim-ply no limit to how far youwill go. You are a veritableZiggy Stardust in silk. At thisrate you will be a visiting pro-fessor at your old College be-fore you enrol in third year.What matters now is the nextgeneration. Will your childrenbe called to the bar before theyare born? Who will rememberyour talents in a thousandyears? By now all you shouldfeel is the panic to secure yourlegacy, if not, you may simplybe on the wrong damned de-gree.

A message from the mid-termNews Briefs

The College of Law hasbeen awarded university statusand from now on will beknown as the University ofLaw. The university’s chief ex-ecutive Nigel Savage said in astatement, "We will help to bring diversityand increased student choice tothe higher education spectrum;broaden access to the legal pro-fession, and export high qual-ity British education to aspiringlawyers across the globe".The institution has been able toaward degrees since 2006.

Lord Chief Justice LordJudge has revealed that he is toretire in summer 2013. One thepotential candidates to replacehim is Court of Appeal judgeLady Justice Hallett, whichcould bring focus back to theissue of judicial diversity. Othercandidates include Lord JusticeLeveson, Lord Justice Hughesand Lord Justice Thomas.

Lord Phillips of Worth Ma-travers who recently retired asPresident of the UK SupremeCourt has rejoined his formerchambers. Lord Phillips re-turned to Brick Court Cham-bers, which he joined originallyin 1974, where he will act as anarbitrator.

5

THE ADVOCATE Monday, 3rd December 2012COMMENT

that leaving autonomy to eachcountry is a good thing, espe-cially for countries like the UKwhere parliamentary sover-eignty is such a supportedvalue.

However, how may a coun-try sign up to the Conventionto protect rights of which thecontents are unknown? Howdo they go about enacting leg-islation and judging caseswhen the basic substance ofthe right they are upholding isnot internationally defined?And perhaps most impor-tantly, what is the point ofhaving this article if there isno internationally recognisedstandard by which countriesparty to the Convention mustconform in order to preservethis right? In short, the firstissue is that torture in itself,without any sort of guidanceother than the one sentence inthe article, becomes almostwholly subjective which nodoubt causes internationaltension between countrieswhich seem to have higher orlower standards.

Not only is this conflict in-ternational but even takingthe UK as an example, therehave been an amount of seem-ingly contradictory cases interms of what the scope of themeaning of ‘torture’ shouldinclude. Initially this scopewas set in The Greek Case(1969) in Strasbourg where itwas said that there would bea very high level of crueltyneeded for the use of this arti-cle. However, since then thestandard has been loweredconsiderably after the Euro-pean Court of Human Rights’decision in D v United King-dom [1997] and this authorityhas been used in England tocover actions such as the de-nial of social support to asy-lum seekers, (R (Adam,Limbuela and Tesema) vHome Secretary [2005]).

Since torture is an absoluteright, there is no distinctionbetween the standard of treat-ment for the ordinary publicand for criminals. This isproblematic. If one looks atthe exact wording of the arti-cle there are in fact two rightsencompassed under oneheading; torture and inhumanor degrading treatment. In re-ality these two rights are usedinterchangeably.

Most debate stems from thefact that what constitutes thissort of treatment is decided ona case-by-case basis with allcircumstances considered.This is quite obviously thefairest way to go about judg-ments but it means that we areleft with an array of mis-matching cases. For example,what may be inhuman treat-ment for a child will be com-pletely different from that of

an adult which in turn will becompletely different from thatof a criminal since, jurispru-dentially, a certain amount ofdegradation is to be expectedin punishment. There is alsouncertainty about what con-stitutes degrading or inhu-man treatment since againthey are rarely treated sepa-rately. What standard thenshould the European Court ofHuman Rights actually en-force?

In summary there are twoproblems with the wording ofthe article: firstly, torture as aninternational standard, is notdefined and secondly there isno foundation for a distinc-tion between the public andcriminals without the occur-rence of mismatching cases.

These problems are at theroot of the international appli-cation of the Convention andneed to be considered fullyhowever, one solution at leasttemporarily seems apparent.It is submitted that in orderfor the law to be internation-ally clarified the article shouldread: ‘No one shall be sub-jected to torture or to inhu-man and degrading treatmentor punishment’. In terms ofthe first problem, althoughthis does not provide a defi-nite international standard, itwould bring countries to-gether in the application of thearticle because, since the word‘torture’ is used almost alter-nately with this phrase, itgives at least some sort of in-dication of the high level thatis needed to invoke this arti-cle.

With regards to the secondproblem, joining the two cate-gories creates a foundation forthe different standards to becomplied with concerning thedistinction between the publicand criminals. Since a smallamount of degradation is in-herent in punishment cou-pling it with inhuman makessure that whilst criminals getgenuine protection of thisright, they do not seek to takeadvantage of that protectionwith adverse outcomes. Thusthe standard first set in Stras-bourg is maintained.

Whilst, on the other hand,since ‘inhuman’ and ‘degrad-ing’ are left for national courtsto determine this leaves roomfor the necessary considera-tion of all circumstances.

This alteration would ap-pear to be a way for nationalcourts to continue a fair andjust consideration of cases butwhilst doing this, to portrayan international front regard-ing the high standard of tor-ture initially set byStrasbourg, albeit theoreti-cally.

6

Tarn Newson

In light of the recent failingsby local authorities to recog-nise abuse occurring withinthe family home, in cases suchas Baby Peter, surely the ille-galisation of chastisementseems necessary?

However, in 2012, the lawstill enables a defence of ‘rea-sonable chastisement’ when-ever a parent is charged withassault following physicalpunishment of their children.

Before the Children Act2004, whether the defence wassuccessful depended on casefacts and juries’ perspectiveson what was proportionate ordisproportionate.

In the case of Smith (1985)LJ May suggested that theprosecution had to show that,‘they did more than inflict,merely moderate and rea-sonab-le physical chastise-ment of the child’. In this caseit was held that a bruise madeby a belt was beyond whatwas reasonable.

However, in B v Harris(1990) it was held that strikinga child with a belt was not dis-proportionate.

Some clarification was of-fered in the landmark case ofA v UK (1998), when Englishlaw was scrutinised by the Eu-ropean Court of HumanRights (ECtHR). This caseconcerned a boy, age nine,who was repeatedly beaten byhis stepfather with a gardencane. The stepfather wascharged with actual bodilyharm but was acquitted as hisactions were found to be nomore than reasonable chas-tisement. When taken toECtHR, it held that the UKhad breached Article 3 of theECHR by failing to provide

the child with protection forinhumane and degradingtreatment.

As a result of the judgmentthe UK government said thatfurther foundations wouldneed to be established to givechildren better protection.

In 2004, during a debate inthe House of Lords concern-ing a passage of the Children’sActs Bill which sought toabolish the defence of reason-able chastisement; 250 peersvoted to retain that defence,75 voted against.

Shortly afterwards, how-ever, the Lords did pass s.58Children’s Act 2004 which re-moved the defence for parentsor adults who caused a childunder 16 to suffer grievousbodily harm or actual bodilyharm.

That defence remains avail-able for parents who are onlycharged with a common as-sault under s39 Criminal Jus-tice Act 1988.

In July 2007, the CrownProsecution Service noted thatthe threshold for the commonassault is set higher so that aninjury including ‘grazes,scratches, abrasions, minorbruising, swelling, superficialcuts or a black eye’ wouldamount to actual bodily harm.

However, if the injuryamounts ‘to no more than red-dening of the skin and the in-jury transient and trifling’ thedefence is available to the par-ents.

To smack or not to smack?

Yes: The long-term effects and im-plications of sustained orperemptory parental physicalabuse seem inimical. Onecould cite children mimicking

their parents in their forma-tive years and then perpetuat-ing and encouraging‘copy-cat’ abuse towards theirown children. The allied med-ical repercussions, particu-larly deep-rootedpsychological problems, areaxiomatically serious and inmany cases profound.

There has been some sug-gestion that the UK shouldsign up to the United NationsConvention on the Rights ofthe Child (UNCRC).

Of particular importance isArticle 19, which ensures the‘protection from all forms ofphysical or mental violence’and Article 37, which statesthat ‘no child should be sub-jected to torture or other cruel,inhumane or degrading treat-ment or punishment’.

The Elliman and Lynch(2000) study claimed that theoverall effects of chastisementinclude antisocial behaviour,abuse of future partners andpoor academic performance.

In 1998, the National Soci-ety for the Prevention of Cru-elty to Children (NSPCC)noted that the problem withdisciplining a child is thatwith every form of physicalpunishment the effectivenessof the discipline decreasedevery time it is applied. Thisresults in increased intensityof the force and thus crossesthe line of controlled force intoabuse.

No:For hundreds of years parentshave been using force to disci-pline their children. JudithMasson suggests,

‘chastisement is not reason-able without justification. Aparent who hits a child to

Continued on page 7

Should reasonable chastisementof children be banned in the UK?Whether Parliament should legislate in increasingly controversial area

‘The Houses Of Parliament’ Garry Knight http://www.flickr.com/photos/garryknight/4404488882/

COMMENT

THE ADVOCATE7 Monday, 3rd December 2012

Continued from page 6punish misbehaviour or tostop a dangerous action such

as a running into the roadmay be acting reasonably, onewho hits their child gratu-itously or to vent their ownfrustration is not, and conse-quently has no defence to acharge of common assault’.

“How capable are chil-dren at distinguishingwhat constitutes pro-portionate force andd i s p r o p o r t i o n a t eforce?”

In 2011, the Telegraph notedthat children are more awareof their rights, and as such,they are accusing parents andthreatening them with socialservices.

In banning smacking, afloodgates argument arises inthat prosecutions could bemade for the slightest touch.How capable are children atdistinguishing what consti-tutes proportionate force anddisproportionate force?Would any ban on chastise-ment and smacking in partic-ular, interfere and have anundesirable impact on the ex-pression of religious and cul-tural freedom? Arguablycertain religions, condone theuse of physical punishment asa means of chastisement.Some religions permit lightbeating at the age of 10 if achild fails to pray.

However, like most reli-gions, counselling and guid-ance from elders couldhighlight the incongruitiesabout what would largely beconsidered unacceptable be-haviour in the broader contextof social and cultural changesin attitude.

In conclusion, it seems puz-zling that the law has recog-nised physical assaultsinflicted upon adults and notchildren. Section 58 CA 2004seems inadequate, as it doesnot satisfy the requirements ofthe UNCRC. It seems to placea considerable amount ofpressure on the medical pro-fession and continues to sendthe message that smacking isacceptable.

The NSPCC Director andChief Executive Mary Marshsaid: “Bad legal reform isworse than no legal reform….Violence towards children isstill legally acceptable – aslong as you are careful not toleave a mark.”

Whether reasonable chas-tisement is justified, by an ar-gument of a family’s privateautonomy, family integrityand the child’s happy familyunit, seems to remain unan-swered.

Megan Jones

To what extent should the lawbe allowed to play a part in aman's decision to live or die?

Since the passing of the Sui-cide Act 1961, which decrimi-nalised suicide, it would seemthe choice to end one's life isbeyond the reach of the law.However, this simplicity ismerely superficial. Section2(1) of the Act states that "aperson who aids, abets, coun-sels or procures the suicide ofanother, or attempt by anotherto commit suicide shall be li-able on conviction on indict-ment to imprisonment for aterm not exceeding fourteenyears". Therefore, whilst de-criminalising suicide, the Sui-cide Act does not abolish theoffence complicity in suicide.The existence of such an of-fence is well-meant, to protectvulnerable people from beingpressurised into committingsuicide by family, friends or,even, healthcare profession-als.

However, what happenswhen a person wishes to endhis own life, but is unable todo so due to his medical con-dition? Does such a personnot have the same right aseveryone else to choose, how,and when he dies? How canthe denial of such a person'spersonal autonomy and rightto control his own life, anddeath, be justified?

The court was faced withsuch questions in the case ofNicklinson v Ministry of Jus-tice which was decided in Au-gust. The case attracted aconsiderable amount of mediaattention, and related to TonyNicklinson, who suffered astroke which left him paral-

ysed below the neck and un-able to speak. Due to his poorquality of life, which he de-scribed in his statement to thecourt:

"I need help in almostevery aspect of my life. I can-not scratch if I itch, I cannotpick my nose if it is blockedand I can only eat if I am fedlike a baby.... I have no pri-vacy or dignity left. I amwashed, dressed and put tobed by carers who are, afterall, still strangers".

He wanted to end his life,but could not do so on hisown. Therefore, he wished toenlist the help of a doctor tobring his life to an end. How-ever, as the law stands at pres-ent, the doctor would be liablefor prosecution under Section2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961.Nicklinson was seeking a dec-laration from the court that itwould not "be unlawful, onthe grounds of necessity, forMr Nicklinson's GP, or an-other doctor, to terminate...MrNicklinson's life".

Mr Nicklinson argued thatthe common law should bedeveloped to provide a lawfulmethod of ending his suffer-ing, by ending his life at a timeof his choosing, with the assis-tance of a doctor, in controlledcircumstances that have beensanctioned by the court.

Mr Justice Charles acceptedthis argument and permittedMr Nicklinson to seek judicialreview of the matter.

This decision was reversedby Lord Justice Toulson, MrJustice Royce and Mrs JusticeMacur in the High Court, whorefused Mr Nicklinson per-mission to take his case to theCourt of Appeal. The judgesgave considerable weight to

the fact that it has been held ina number of cases such asAiredale NHS Trust v Blandthat it is for Parliament, notthe courts, to decide whetherto change the law on euthana-sia or assisted suicide. AsLord Reid stated in Shaw vDPP "where Parliament fearsto tread it is not for the courtsto rush in."

Whilst this is the orthodoxview on the relationship be-tween Parliament and thecourts in the UK, and the re-luctance of the judiciary totread on the toes of Parlia-ment is understandable giventhe almost sacrosanct positionof the principle of Parliamen-tary Sovereignty within theUK, can such a position al-ways be justified?

After all, is it not the duty ofthe courts to step in whereParliament refuses to legislateto elevate injustice? This isprecisely the issue in this case;Parliament has rejected everyattempt to change the law oneuthanasia and assisted sui-cide.

“An individual isforced by law to con-tinue with an undig-nified and, at times,harrowing life”

Lord Joffe unsuccessfullyintroduced Bills in the Houseof Lords in 2003, 2004 and2005, and Lord Falconer at-tempted to amend the Coro-ners and Justice Act 2009. Theamendment was defeated.

Mr Nicklinson's case clearlyshows that there is neither thelegal nor political willingnessin the UK to change the legal

status quo regarding assistedsuicide and euthanasia.Whilst it is understandablethat politicians do not want toput their heads above theparapet for fear of losing pre-cious votes, and that thecourts do not wish to be seento be meddling in matters thatare beyond their powers, canthe current situation be al-lowed to continue?

The current legal position islacking in basic humanity.Rather than allowing a con-senting adult to end his lifehow, and when he wishes todo so, he is forced by law tocontinue with an undignifiedand, at times, harrowing life.And what other options doeshe have except for living, per-haps for another ten or twentyyears with no hope of any im-provement in his condition, inlimbo, waiting for death?

Following the court’s ver-dict, Mr Nicklinson refusedfood and water, and as a re-sult, died of pneumonia.Whilst this ultimately broughthis suffering to an end, it ishard to argue that such adeath was dignified, or thatthe law should force a man toturn to such actions. Mr Nick-linson's death would havebeen painful and lingering,whilst watching this unfoldwould be distressing and har-rowing for his family.

In order to ensure that fur-ther individuals and theirfamilies, do not have to suffersuch an undignified, inhu-mane death, it is high timethat the state realised that de-spite the law's ability to con-trol and shape the way we liveour life, it should not be usedto tell us how and when itshould come to an end.

The law: a matter of life and death?The law should not force individuals to suffer undignified, inhumane death

‘Royal Court of Justice (England)’Cristian Bortes http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Courts_of_Justice_(England).jpg

Monday, 3rd December 2012

THE ADVOCATECOMMENT8

Tracy Senjule

It is perhaps the mostprovocative drug-relatedissue to concern the law inthe United States of Americasince the legalisation of mari-juana for medicinal pur-poses. Both Washington andColorado took the matter toballot, the votes in each cul-minating to the same end: thepossession of marijuana byan adult is no longer a crimi-nal offence under the law.This new development issubject to condition, ofcourse. Before any cannabisenthusiasts can breathe asigh of relief, the federal gov-ernment must decide to ei-ther approve or dispel of the

laws that are a clear contra-vention of the nationwideControlled Substances Act.

In the meantime, prosecu-tors throughout Washingtonhave thrown out all pendingcases regarding marijuanapossession, while their coun-terparts in Colorado are con-templating whether to followsuit. If the law garners fed-eral approval, adults will bepermitted to carry up to anounce of the substance asearly as 6th December 2012.Similar law in Colorado stip-ulates decriminalisation willcome into effect in January of2013. In addition to beingpermitted to possess anounce or less of cannabis,adults are also allowed to

own up to six marijuanaplants each.

While the laws appear at

first glance to be quite lenientthey are subject to limita-tions. Commercial sale inboth states is still prohibited,although it is expected to be

permissible by 2014. Col-orado has also stressed thatdriving while impaired andusing in public places con-tinue to be illegal acts. Ulti-mately, the decision is one ofthe federal government. WithObama having just securedhis second term in office,while it is a hot topic in therelevant states, possessionlaws may not be at the top ofthe President’s agenda.

In the event that both Col-orado and Washington se-cure legitimacy of the newlaws with the federal stamp,this would undoubtedlyhave serious implications onthe law in America. Consid-ered to be the most conserva-tive nation when addressing

controlled substances and al-cohol, this move is not onlyprecedent setting but also in-dicative of a more liberalstate.

The UK has also put sig-nificant pressure on the gov-ernment in the past. Manybelieve the legislative regula-tion of cannabis to be one an-swer to a failing war ondrugs. If controlled like alco-hol, perhaps the crime associ-ated with this area wouldfall. The opposite too can besaid, however.

Only time will tell inwhich direction this area ofthe law will go. For now, thefate of cannabis in Americaand the UK overall remainshazy.

New Cannabis laws no breath of fresh air for USWith citizen votes enabling the decriminalisation of marijuana possession in Washingtonand Colorado states, the American federal government is now faced with the final say.

miss.libertine http://www.flickr.com/pho-tos/8364994@N02/4834872285/

Stacee Smith

Although arguably the richestcountry on earth due to its gasreserves, Qatar lacks one ofthe most basic human rights;freedom of expression.

This is evidenced by the ar-rest of poet Mohamed Ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami who has beenimprisoned since 16th No-vember 2011.

The charges against him,which have not been clarifiedby the authorities, are said torelate to “inciting the over-throw of the ruling regime”.Such an offence carries thedeath penalty under article130 of the Penal Code ofQatar, and “insulting theEmir” can lead to 5 years im-prisonment under article 134.

In his poem ‘Tunisian Jas-mine’ Ajami expressed his

support for the Arab Springand said, “we are all Tunisiain the face of repressive coter-ies” and he criticises “all Arabgovernments” as “indiscrimi-nate thieves”. Ajami both re-cited this poem and uploadedit to the internet. Passages in-sulting the Emir of QatarSheikh Hamad bin Khalifa AlThani also appeared online ina poem he wrote in August2010.

Amnesty Internationalclaim Ajami is a “prisoner ofconscience” who merely gave“peaceful criticism”. Theyalso allege that he has beendetained in isolation and washeld incommunicado formonths before being allowedfamily visits.

It is believed that he isbeing detained in Doha’s Cen-tral Prison and facing a secret

trial in further violation of hisrights. Amnesty Internationalclaim that, “his lawyer report-edly had to provide a writtendefence of his client afterbeing barred from attendingone of the court sessions”.

According to HumanRights Watch, Ajami’s courthearing has been postponedfour times, with the next trialdate having been scheduledfor November 29th 2012.

The right to free expressionis a fundamental human rightenshrined in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights,adopted in 1938 by the UnitedNations General Assembly.Article 19 stipulates:

“Everyone has the right tofreedom of opinion and ex-pression; this right includesfreedom to hold opinionswithout interference and toseek, receive and impart infor-mation and ideas through anymedia and regardless of fron-tiers.”

Although Qatar has not rat-ified the International Con-vention on Civil and PoliticalRights, Human Rights Watchhas said that the United Na-tions Human Rights Commit-tee has made it clear that,“insulting a public figure doesnot justify penalties” and thatall public figures, “includingthose exercising the highestpolitical authority such asheads of state and govern-ment” can justifiably be sub-ject to criticism.

Furthermore, article 47 ofQatar’s constitution guaran-tees freedom of expression

and opinion “in accordancewith the conditions and cir-cumstances set forth in thelaw.”

Qatar is also a party to theArab Charter on HumanRights and has pledged to re-spect the right to free expres-sion under article 32 of theCharter. Article 14 of the Char-ter highlights the right to atrial within a reasonable timeas well as the principle thatpre-trial detention should bethe exception not the rule.

Article 13 of the ACHR stip-ulates that where there are nogrounds for the trial to be heldin private, it should be heldpublicly.

Joe Stork, Deputy Directorof Middle East and NorthAfrica Human Rights Watchdivision, has implored thestate prosecutor to respect in-ternational standards on dueprocess, the right to a fair trialand to refrain from prosecut-ing Ajami solely for exercisinghis right to free expression.

Ironically, Jan Keulen, direc-tor of the Doha Centre forMedia Freedom has said thatQatar “has been in the frontline worldwide regarding thedefence of safety of journalistsand freedom of the media”.The popular television newsnetwork Al Jazeera set up in1996 is based in Qatar and hasbeen the voice of the Arabworld. In 2008 Qatar alteredits media law with the imple-mentation of the Doha Centrefor Media Freedom. The DohaCentre for Media Freedomwas created to promote press

freedom and quality journal-ism in Qatar and the region.

In June of this year Qatar’sShura Council approved adraft media law, which, ac-cording to Keulen, still doesnot meet international stan-dards. This is because, whilstit calls for the abolishment ofthe criminal penalties for jour-nalists, article 53 prohibitspublishing information thatwould “throw relations be-tween the state and the Araband friendly states into confu-sion” or “abuse the regime oroffend the ruling family orcause serious harm to the na-tional or higher interests ofthe state.” Journalists who failto comply could be fined asmuch as 1 million Qataririyals (US$ 275,000).

The draft media law wouldforce Qatar-based journaliststo practice the self-censorshipthat plagues the state of jour-nalism in many countries inthe Gulf region and has led toa rise in citizen journalism.

As stated by Philip Luther,Amnesty International's Di-rector for the Middle East andNorth Africa, Qatar needs tolighten its regulations on free-dom of expression so as toguarantee that “poets, blog-gers, journalists and everyoneelse can express their thoughtswithout fear of arrest, secrettrials or other harsh repercus-sions.”

In the meantime however,the world watches and hopesfor the best, not only forAjami, but the future of theQatar.

Qatari Poet: A “Prisoner of Conscience”

Ajami detained over comments about Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani (above)World Economic Forum http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/4654906589/