Human Rights.... and wrongs

Hi guys.

One’s life is seriously hectic right now.

Since writing last time, I have been accepted onto the Masters in European Law at the University of Birmingham, due to commence in October 2010. The Times currently ranks Birmingham as 7th in the country, so you can imagine my delight at being offered a place.

HOWEVER....

There’s a problem. The offer is conditional on proving at least a 2:1 from my law degree BEFORE the LLM starts, but being an Open University student, I won’t know my final score until December – two months too late.

The course chairman personally reviewed my case, but refused to ‘bend the rules’ so that I can begin in October. He invited me to re-apply after October, and indicated that, in effect, the offer is simply being deferred a year (until 2011).

The downside is that I’ll have a gap-year following graduation which I don’t really want. At 29, my legal and biological clock is ticking! On the other hand, the Masters at Birmingham is very highly regarded. It presents candidates with rights-related study options to pick from, such as anti-discrimination, human rights, etc – all in the wider context of EC law. And the final dissertation project (15,000 words) allows scope for creativity. Hence, I plan to wait for it. That way, I’ll be coming to the Bar with experience AND specialist knowledge to boot. Speaking of which....

I completed my third mini-pupillage today at a prominent Midlands set. The week was interesting – but that’s what everyone says, right?

Oh, straight up. Fellow barristers-to-be, let us be honest for a moment. Mini-pupillages (the ordinary, non-assessed ones) are vital insofar as they give us a taste of life at the Bar. We get to bend a barrister’s ear (when the moment is right!) and see what goes on behind the scenes. Mini-pupillages are important, but calling them ‘work experience’ is really going too far. A much more accurate description is ‘work shadowing.’ Some barristers try harder than others to make us feel included, but to avoid disappointment, I find it’s always best to arrive with low expectations – then anything is a plus!

My week centred mainly on the Employment Tribunal. I observed a case of unfair dismissal, and one of indirect sex discrimination. Basically, the ‘indirect’ bit means treating a female worker the same as a man, but in circumstances where this puts her at a disadvantage compared to a man doing the same job. Thus, the discrimination is subtle. It could be, for example, a refusal to permit flexi-time so that, effectively, any woman who cannot work full-time following maternity leave is out of a job. I am definitely considering further study in this area of law.

Unfortunately, there was nothing for me to see at the newly-opened Administrative Court in Birmingham. In fact, it was made clear that, realistically, London is the place for judicial review work.

Can't complain though. The internship of a lifetime is about to commence for me, but first, I must sit exams on Contract and Tort (sigh).

Nearly forgot to tell you: I was almost BUSTED today. After leaving chambers, I nipped across to Tesco for a carton of banana-flavoured milk (yeah, yeah - OK). So I’m driving slowly along this busy shopping street when, suddenly, from out of the blue, two boys in that colour appear, standing before my car, glaring disapprovingly through the windscreen at some geek in a suit with the wheel in one hand and a litre of banana milk in the other.... that being me!

I couldn’t bear to tell them the truth: that I’d choked a dry sandwich down at chambers and drank but a single coffee all day, hence one’s incredible thirst. Oh, and that, naturally, I hope to become a barrister! Instead, I just apologised and took the lecture – which was cut short due to traffic growing impatiently behind me. At least I wasn’t booked, for that would surely have been ironic!

To my credit, I drive automatic. This frees my left hand for extra-vehicular activities. Then again, I can’t see that argument holding much sway with Their Worships!

Will write again when the exams are over.

Ciao
x

Call me ‘Tony the Tiger’ this week, for everything I touch turns to gold (though it has nothing to do with eating Frosties – sorry Kellogg’s).

For the first time during my degree, I’ve scored a hat-trick of distinctions. My last three assignments were graded: 89% - 85% - 90% - wicked!

So I’m on the pigs back, truly. If I can achieve 70% in the October law exam, this virtually ensures a 2:1, unless, for some reason, my final year goes drastically wrong.

Between now and the exam, I have a great mini-pupillage lined up (my third), and any day now, the latest edition of ‘Citizen’ goes to press.... and I’m in it!

‘Citizen’ is the official magazine of Unlock Democracy – available as hard copy, or downloadable from their website. My piece proposes a judicially-declared Bill of Rights for the UK. I just hope the judges see it!

Following the exam, I embark on the internship of a lifetime – which I’ll blog about next year (in general terms) to avoid any chance of breaching confidentiality. This much I will say: It concerns the fight for human rights, and I cannot wait!

Speaking of human rights....

I found it amusing that the Chief Constable of South Wales, Barbara Wilding, used her status as Britain’s most senior policewoman to issue a so-called ‘warning’ through the Daily Telegraph. Apparently, any change in the law on assisted suicide must not become a way for families to rid themselves of the burden of elderly relatives. Thanks for the warning, Barb.

Her message is not without merit, but it conveys the same old worry which has prevented change in the past. It was of no comfort to Diane Pretty (2002), the remarkable woman who wanted to die on her own terms, with dignity, but was instead forced to wither painfully. Her loving husband could only observe, unable to act, even though his wife longed for death. She was beyond help and explicit in her desire to die, but the courts said ‘no.’

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, is working on a revised policy, and in my opinion, he is the right person for the job. As a former human rights barrister, Starmer worked on numerous praiseworthy cases, including his representation of the ‘McLibel Two’ – a couple sued by McDonalds for publishing a leaflet which revealed the truth behind the fast food giant’s practices.

During this, the longest trial in English legal history (314 days), McDonalds hired a QC whose earnings were £2,000 per day. Meanwhile, the unlucky (and unemployed) defendants did not even qualify for Legal Aid, as libel cases were exempt at that time. Working for free, Starmer QC took their appeal to the European Court and succeeded in changing the law for future libel defendants.

Hence, Starmer has a heart. He cares, and is sufficiently experienced to foresee the potential pitfalls of a revised policy on assisted suicide. I’m confident that any change he makes will be sound and in the public interest, especially where terminally ill members of the public (like Diane Pretty) are concerned.

In other news....

Did you know that prisoners have more right to smoke than psychiatric patients?

Personally, I find the habit disgusting. However, I recognise that smoking is an addiction like any other, and painful to the individual who is suddenly forced to withdraw. Their Lordships were less understanding, though.

In Regina (E) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (2009), it was decided that patients detained on high-security wards are not permitted to smoke because psychiatric hospitals constitute a ‘place of work’ under the Health Act 2006. Meanwhile, Regulations passed pursuant to the Act do permit smoking in prisons under a special exemption. Apparently, this exception for prisoners does not serve to discriminate.

The patients argued that Article 8 (Respect for Private Life) prevents the State from interfering with personal activities conducted within the privacy of one’s home. In this regard, the detained patients were equating hospital life with ‘home life.’

However, their argument was rejected. The hospital may be home to the patients, but it is not a ‘private home’ as envisaged by Article 8. Hence, they are not permitted the same freedom to act as persons living in private homes outside the hospital. The patients are entitled to a measure of privacy, but this does not cover smoking.

I have yet to read the judgment in full, but even with the Court’s rejection of Article 8, I fail to see the distinction between prisoners and psychiatric patients which justifies the former being allowed to smoke.

Any helpful comments would be appreciated.

It’s now 2am and I fancy a snack. Praise be to God for giving us 24-hour Tesco!

x

As a person with a disability, I hold a blue badge which entitles me to free parking in so-called ‘disabled bays.’ It’s a handy little concession – almost worth having one's leg amputated for, but not quite. Still, there are people worse off than myself. Anyway...

This evening, after gym, I decided to stop by my local Tesco.

There was a bay available, but the driver in front nipped in there before I could. Fair enough. But, as I was passing, I watched the cheeky sod spring out of his car with no physical disability, and no badge to display. It’s bad enough when someone (mis)uses a badge which has been provided for another, but rotten when they don’t have a badge at all.

To be honest, you expect a certain number of people to do this. Drivers are selfish, and that’s life. However, this particular selfish driver got under my skin. So, after parking my vehicle a short distance away, I walked back to see how many of the five disabled bays were being used legitimately. And the survey revealed: NONE. Every single bay was occupied by non-disabled drivers during a quiet, non-busy period.

I passed in front of the bays, slowly. The first thing I encountered was three guys standing in a bay, all gathered round their mate’s car, admiring it like they were in the Maserati showroom (except this banger was no Maserati). I stood next to them for about fifteen seconds, listening as the owner described the modifications he’d made to his car so it would go faster, crash harder and justify the higher insurance male drivers must pay. The budding young ‘Clarkson’ failed to twig that a one-legged man on crutches had joined his audience, albeit briefly.

The driver sitting in bay four was more alert. He whipped his mobile phone out when he saw me coming. In all my years, I have never seen anyone compose a text message with such intense, unflinching concentration. At least he knew he was in the wrong.

I approached the alleged ‘security guard’ and explained the situation. I pointed to the five disabled bays and told him that not a single one was being used by disabled drivers (including this disabled driver). The guard was a brainless heathen – proving you don’t need qualifications to work in security. He looked at the bays, then looked down at my disability, then gave that pathetic, clichéd gesture that says ‘what am I supposed to do?’

Funny, but if the idiot saw me stash a packet of bacon under my coat, I’m certain he would wrestle me to the ground as I attempted to flee the store – disabled or not.

I took my complaint to the front desk where a female member of staff showed more concern. I explained that whilst I cope well with my disability, there are others who don’t. It’s not always easy to spot when a person has a physical affliction, but you can believe they struggle with the smallest of tasks – like carrying their shopping across a car park, especially in inclement weather. Yet, these same people are too proud to admit when they need help. They would rather suffer in silence than make a big fuss and show the world how disabled they are. That is why the perfectly able-bodied should not be using disabled bays without genuine cause.

I doubt my complaint made any difference.

In the past, I have seen people using the bays for various selfish reasons. An older gentleman once parked his new sports car in a disabled bay to reduce the chance of it being scratched in a regular, smaller bay. I know this is true because I watched him obsessively checking his paintwork for scratches upon returning to the vehicle.

I’ve seen that regular people use disabled bays during rainy weather, simply because the bays are situated closer to the entrance. And, whilst not wishing to offend the ‘bigger’ readers out there, I have witnessed instances of very fat people using disabled bays so they can benefit from a short walk to the entrance. This occurs even during pleasant weather, when there are plenty of regular spaces available. Of course, not every overweight person suffers from this mentality, but it shows that for many people, obesity stems from chronic laziness.

For my own part, I wish to stress that, as an individual, I am far from perfect. I have my faults and occasional obnoxious traits. But even with a disability, I would give up my seat for a person who needed it more, or deviate from my route if it meant helping a blind person. I think these are basic qualities instilled within most of us. Yet, surely, it says something about society when drivers are ignoring wheelchair symbols marked on the road, large as life, in bright white paint.

I’m no fan of Traffic Wardens, but I see now that criminal sanctions, such as fines, are the only way to prevent anarchy on our roads. For today’s drivers, it seems as though sat-nav has replaced the moral compass.

The situation infuriates me, but with exams and an internship soon to commence, there is little I can do for now, except to dedicate the Dennis Leary song “Asshole” to the ignorant stars of tonight’s post.