SLSA E‐Newsletter

Publication Date01 June 2017
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12031
Date01 June 2017
1
                      (      (           
N e w s l e t t e r
                                                   
Socio-Legal
     
No 79
"'(&
Between 5 and 7 April 2016 Lancaster University Law
School welcomed around 500 delegates from across the
world for SLSA 2016. The conference saw more than 500
papers prese nted, a long wi th 20 posters, acr oss 53
streams, showing the continuing growth of the conference
and the SLSA more generally.
Away from the conference’s parallel sessions, delegates had the
opportunity to visit Lancaster Castle and wander through the
360 acres of park and wo odland c omprising Lanca ster
University Campus. On the first evening, delegates enjoyed a
wine reception and paella evening, with music from Quay
Change and a collection of fantastic posters submitted to the
Poster Session. On the second evening, delegates attended the
conference dinner and prize-giving, including the well-deserved
Prize for Contributions to the Socio-Legal Community, awarded
to Martin Partington. Musical entertainment during the dinner
was again provided by Quay Change, with after-dinner dancing
accompanied by Undercover Manchester.
The SLSA continued to offer support to enable postgraduate
researchers to attend the conference through its travel bursaries
funded through the generosity of the Journal of Law and Society
and Soc ial and Legal Studi es. A total of 18 po stgraduate
researchers from the UK, Europe and further afield benefited
from the scheme. We also continued to offer hardship funding
for colleagues in circumstances which would otherwise prevent
their attendance. Additionally, for the first time, we were able to
offer support to allow attendance by a number of charitable
organisations so that they could share their work with delegates
and build links for future collaboration. The organisations
sponsored were the Birchall Trust, the Chartered Institute of
Arbitrators, the Scottish Refugee Council, South Lakes Citizens
Advice and Survivors Manchester.
We are ver y gratef ul for al l the har d work th at the
conference team, the Online Store team, University Catering,
At the SLSA Annual Dinner, current SLSA chair Rosemary Hunter
congratulates our first ever chair Martin Partington on receiving the
Prize for Contributions to the Socio-Legal Community
and our student ambassadors did in the run-up to and during
the conference itself: also, to all of the stream and theme
conveners who organised and chaired their individual sessions.
Finally, thanks to the conference sponsors for their continued
support. Without all of these people, the event could not have
been the success that it was.
Although the weather was typically Lancastrian, we hope all
of the delegates who attended enjoyed their time at Lancaster
University and we look forward to seeing everyone again at
Newcastle 2017.
Tom Webb and Siobhan Weare
See pages 13–15 for reports on some 2016 streams and themes.
"") $&.#&
#"(&)(#"'(#(
'##  #!!)"(-
 #&"#!"(#"'
This prize was launched in 2011 and in its first five years has
been awarded to Mavis Maclean, Phil Thomas, Roger Cotterrell,
Sally Wheeler and Martin Partington. The winner receives £500
and lifetime membership of the association. SLSA members are
invited to submit nominations for this year’s prize. There are no
specific criteria. Nominators should simply state in 100 words
why the person they are nominating would be a worthy
recipient of the prize. The prize is funded by a private sponsor.
Visit the website to find out why the five previous winners
were chos en wwww.slsa.ac.uk/index.php/prizes-grants-and-
seminars/prizewinners.
Nominat ions should be sent by email to
eadmin@slsa.ac.uk. Closing date: 4 September 2016.
!!&'$&"+ '
Membership fees are due on 1 July 2016. The annual full
membership fee is £40 (student rate £20).
As we are currently experiencing some tec hnical problems
with our Paypal facility, members are req uested to renew their
subscriptions by standing order (please make sure that it is for
the correct amoun t) or via bank transfer t o the SLSA account.
lbank: Co-operative Bank
lsort code: 08-92-99
laccount number: 65209341
laccount name: Socio-Legal Studies Association
Please make sure your that name is attached to the bank
transfer.
Alternatively, you can send a cheq ue made out to the
‘Socio-Legal Studies Associ ation’ to SL SA Treasurer, Mark
O’Brien, School o f Law, Faculty of H umanities and S ocial
Sciences, Oxfor d Brookes University, Headin gton Hill Hall,
Oxford OX3 0BP.
sl s a notice b o a rd
                      (      (           
2
)$!$ "&'!%%%$!&!$#
%%* '&("  &&
E
CHAIR
&>B4
%!)
e
A>B4
VICE-CHAIR AND SEMINAR COMMITTEE
&>B840A38=6
)=8E4AB8CH>58A
e
A970A38=6170
SECRETARY
4E8=A>F=
%D44=LB)=8E4AB8CH4;50BC
e
:1A>F=@D102D:
TREASURER
!0A:#LA84=
#G5>A3A>>:4B)=8E4AB8CH
e
1A84=1A>>:4B02D:
MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY
!04170A38=6
+0AF82:)=8E4AB8CH
e
RECRUITMENT SECRETARY
H3800H4B 'A4?A4B4=C0C8E4
0A3855)=8E4AB8CH
e
70H4B;2502D:
PUBLISHER LIAISON
A0=28B8=6
+4BC
e
5:8=6F4BC
"(&"(#"  '#"'#(('&$
'70A>=>F0=
38=1DA67)=8E4AB8CH
e
B2>F0=4302D:
"4FB;4CC4AB?>=B>AB78?
(74Socio-Legal Newsletter 8BB?>=B>A431H 02>=B>AC8D5;0FB27>>;B8=C4A4BC438=?A>C8=6
B>28>;460;BCD384B8=C74)5 H>DA8=BC8CDC8>=F>D;3;8:4C>142>;E438=C78B 8=8C80C8E4
?;40B42>=C02C' '2708A&>B4
e
A>B4
"4FB;4CC4A020342B?>=B>ABK0A48A:142:0A3855 0F'27>>;4=CA45>A'>28> 460;
'CD384B#G5>A3)=8E4AB8CH>5G4C4A4=C)=8E4AB8CH)=8E4AB8CH>5 8E4A?>>;C74 '"4F20BC;4
)=8E4AB8CH">AC7DE4AB8CH>5">CC8=670LB)=8E4AB8CH
4;50BC)=8E4AB8CH>5 4824BC4A)=8E4AB8CH>5'745584;3)=8E4AB8CH>5'CA0C72;H34)=8E4AB8CH>;;464
>=3>=)=8E4AB8CH>5+0AF82:)=8E4AB8CH>5+4BC5->A:
(74=4FB;4CC4A8B0;B>B?>=B>A431H C74Journal of Law and Society
. . . n e w s l e t t e r s p o n s o r s . . . n e w s l e t t e r s p o n s o r s . . .
EDITOR: NEWSLETTER, WEB, eBULLETIN
!0A84'4;F>>3
e
>31C8=C4A=4C2>
WEBMASTER
43!44AB
)=8E4AB8CH>5->A:
e
943A:02D:
SOCIAL MEDIA
4=4=3AH
)=8E4AB8CH>5 443B
e
974=3AH;443B02D:
GRANTS COMMITTEE CHAIR
4BBDC7
A035>A3)=8E4AB8CH
e
96DC71A035>A302D:
NEWCASTLE 2017 CONFERENCE ORGANISERS
4E8=A>B1H
"4F20BC;4)=8E4AB8CH
e 
:4E8=2A>B1H=4F20BC;402D:
"8::8>334=&0BD;
"4F20BC;4)=8E4AB8CH
e
=8::86>334=A0BD;=4F20BC;402D
POSTGRADUATE REPRESENTATIVE
"0C0;84>A14CC
G4C4A)=8E4AB8CH
e
=424G4C4A02D:
SLSA EXECUTIVE MEMBERS
80=3B78061>A
'#')=8E4AB8CH>5 >=3>=
e
30B>0B02D:
>8B8118=6B
A8BC>;)=8E4AB8CH
e
;>8BB18118=6B1A8BC>;02D:
'0A07;0=3H
'745584;3)=8E4AB8CH
e
B1;0=3HB745584;302D:
"FD346>78=FD10
06>B)=8E4AB8CH"864A80
e
D278=FD10D=8;0643D=6
0CA4
4=C)=8E4AB8CH
e
42;>0CA4:4=C02D:
0E4>F0=
A8BC>;)=8E4AB8CH
e
3B2>F0=1A8BC>;02D:
"0>
)=8E4AB8CH>5+4BC
e
=2A4DCI54;3CF4BC
0A;0A85>
4824BC4A)=8E4AB8CH
e
22;4824BC4A02D:
8;;82:8=B>=
'745584;30;;0
e 
98;;382:8=B>=B7D02D:
>=0C70=0AC>=
+0AF82:)=8E4AB8CH
e
960AC>=F0AF82:02D:
"48;A0558=
#?4=)=8E4AB8CH
e
=48;6A0558=>?4=02D:
$4CA0!07H
'#')=8E4AB8CH>5 >=3>=
e
?4CA00B02D:
4=90;32>=54A4=24
>A60=8B4A
e
1
!82704;(7>=
)=8E4AB8CH>5 443B
e
=;443B02D:
(>=54A4=24>A60=8B4A
e
CF411;0=20BC4A02D:
5>/8-591=
(74>?8=8>=B4G?A4BB438=0AC82;4B8= C74
Socio-Legal Newsletter 0A4C7>B4>5C74 0DC7>AB0=3=>C=424BB0A8;H
C7>B4>5C74' '
sl s a news
3
                      (      (           
&&'"' ''(&!'
"(!'
The SLSA Executive Committee has decided to review and
rationalise our streams and themes for the purpose of
future conferences.
There is a feeling that the boundary between ‘streams’ and
‘themes’ has become blurred, that we have drifted away from
the original concept of ‘themes’, and that there ought to be space
for people to organise panels which don’t necessarily fit within
a stream or theme. Accordingly, for the future:
la stream is a grouping which is expected to continue from
conference to conference (and may choose to have its own
page on the SLSA website);
la theme is a one-off grouping for the purposes of a single
conference which reflects a current hot topic of debate or an
issue of emerging importance, and which would be expected
to attract at least six papers – there will be a maximum of
seven themes per conference;
la panel is a single session made up of three to four papers.
In line with these revised definitions we will be taking the
following actions:
1. Current stream and theme convenors will be invited to re-
apply over the summer for recognition as a stream and
members may also apply to estab lish new streams. If
members would like to be involved in convening an existing
stream, they are encoura ged to ap proach the curre nt
convenor to discuss that possibility. A stream must have at
least two custodians (two convenors or a convenor and
deputy-convenor) and an articulated rationale as to why it is
likely to be of ongoing interest to conference attendees.
Streams may cover a single topic area (e.g. ‘EU law’) or may
be cross-cutting (e.g. ‘Exploring legal borderlands’); their
subjects may be substantive, methodological (e.g. ‘Research
methodologies and methods’) or theoretical (e.g. ‘Systems
theory thinking’). Decisions on the recognition of streams
will take account of the need to avoid overlaps with other
streams and to maintain a mix of subject area and cross-
cutting streams.
2. There will be a call for themes ahead of each annual
conference. Themes must conform to the definition above
and will be specific to a single conference. Any theme
wishing to continue beyond a single conference will need to
apply for recognition as a stream and meet the criteria for a
stream in point 1 above.
3. There will also be the possibility for people to propose
panels that do not fit within either a stream or a theme.
We hope members, conference attendees and convenors will
find this revised arrangement clearer, more comprehensible and
conducive to interesting and lively conference discussions.
' '$#'(&#!$((#"
At SLSA 2016, we held our fourth exhibition of posters in what
has now become one of the regular fixtures of the conference.
Delegates were invited to view the posters at the end of the
Tuesday sessions and the judging took place the next day. The
judges were Rosemary Hunter (SLSA chair), Martin Partington
(winner of the 2016 SLSA Annual Prize for Contributions to the
Socio-Legal Community) and Charlotte Bendall (then SLSA
postgra duate r epresentative ). Out of a stro ng fiel d,
congratulations go to the judges’ choices as joint winners:
lBruno Obialo Igwe, Maynooth University: ‘The impact of
domestic violence legal regulation and enforcement in
Ireland on Nigerian immigrants’;
lStacy Sinclair, University of Westminster: ‘Designing +
(dis)assembling disputes’.
The w inning pos ters are availab le on t he website at
wwww.slsa.ac.uk/index.php/17-events/272-poster-exhibition.
@?@=1%%::@-8;:21=1:/1>
= C74' '==D0;>=54A4=24F8;;147>BC431 HC74
)=8E4AB8CH>5"4F20BC;45A>F0=38=  F4
F8;;1460C74A8=60CC74 )=8E4AB8CH>5A8BC>;5A>F
-=/4=F4F8;; 146>8=6C> 443B)=8E4AB8CH
30C4BC>142>=58A
' ',"+'
On 6 April 2016 at our Lancaster conference, SLSA members
gathered for the AGM. The meeting was well attended and
SLSA officers reported on another busy and successful year for
the association. At the meeting four new members joined the
Executive: Natalie Corbett, Exeter University; Jill Dickinson,
Sheffield Hallam University; Neil Graffin, Open University; and
Petra Mahy, SOAS, University of London.
SLSA members are invited to propose items for inclusion on
the agenda of future Executive Committee meetings. The next
meeting is on 14 September 2016. If you have any suggestions
for agenda items for the meeting, please contact Kevin Brown
ek.brown@qub.ac.uk.
Minutes from pas t meet ings a re av ailable at
wwww.slsa.ac.uk/index.php/executive#meet.
%%/;:?-/?01?-58>
%;/5;13-8!1B>8 1??1=
!0A84'4;F>>338C>ASocio-Legal Newsletter
)
 033;4B03+78CBC01;44=C(  
t

e
>31C8=C4A=4C2>
"4GC2>?H3403;8=4"/?;.1=
"4GC?D1;820C8>=30C4!;A19.1= 
%%-095:
(74' '70B0343820C434 5>A0??;820C8>=B5>A0=3
@D4A84B01>DC0;;?A8I4B2>4C8C8>=B0= 35D=38=6B274=C02C
e
03
%%;:85:1
+41
e
943A:02D:
+41438C>A!0A84'4;F>>3
e
>31C8=C4A=4C2>
'>280;55824A4=4=3AH
e
974=3AH;443B02D:
' '#"-#"&"'
One-day conferences have always been a key part of the SLSA’s
work. Past conference topics have included: exploring the ‘socio’
in socio-legal studies; equality, human rights and good relations;
justice, power and law; new ethical challenges in socio-legal
research; socio-legal studies and the humanities; exploring the
legal in socio-legal studies; and exploring the comparative in
socio-legal studies. If you have an idea for organising a one-day
conference, please contact eadmin@slsa.ac.uk.
sl s a news
                      (      (           
4
!(-#)&,
Jill Dickinson was appointed as a member of the SLSA
Executive Committee at this year's Annual Conference.
I am delighted to be joining the SLSA’s Executive Committee
and am really looking forward to working with the rest of the
team on some of the many different things that the SLSA is
involved with.
I initially came across the SLSA when I gave my very first
conference presentation at the Annual Conference in York. I was
pleased to find such a supportive atmosphere for my first outing
as a researcher. For that first paper, I presented some of the
research findings from my LLM on home defence. Time has
truly flown by since then and, having found how much I
enjoyed the rese arch el ement of my role in acade mia, I
embarked upon a part-time PhD and am now almost two years
into it, studying alongs ide my senior lecturer role, all at
Sheffield Hallam University.
My PhD focuses on law and shopping centres within an
urban regeneration context. My interest in this area stems from
the 10 years that I spent in practice as a commercial property
solicitor, specialising in retail property portfolio management.
Working with shopping centre management teams, I enjoyed
seeing new spaces being developed, reconfigured or put to
different uses, knowing that I had had a part to play in
assembling the supporting legal documentation.
However, another element of my role involved supervising
trainee solicitors and work placement students. It was this
particular aspect that prompted my move into academia. I enjoyed
working alongside both the trainees and the students, finding it
really rewarding to help them to develop their careers. I can’t
believe that was eight years ago and I haven’t looked back since!
Having found opportunities to teach both property law and
careers development at the university, I have been able to
combine the best of both worlds. Research-wise, this continued
interest in all things space, place and people recently led to me
co-developing and convening a new ‘Spatiality and inclusivity’
stream for SLSA 2016, together with my colleague Dr Vicky
Heap. It was great to have the opportunity to propose and run
this new stream which attracted papers on a broad range of
subject s: squatter -settlements and spacia lity case law,
collaborative learning spaces, and our own paper which focused
on ant i-social b ehaviour is sues and s hopping cen tre
management.
Whether you want to gain feedback on a paper, propose and
convene a new stream, take part in the new Mentoring Awards
or apply for funding, the SLSA continues to support both new
and more -established research ers th rough a collab orative
environment. As such, I'm very pleased to have this opportunity
to work with the rest of the Executive Committee in helping to
take forward the SLSA and its various initiatives from here.
' '!4=C>A8=6F0A3B
=4F0??;820C8>=3403;8=4B
Applica tions are invited for the se a wards aimed at
supporting travel and accommodation for SLSA members
who wish to visit and spend up to a week working with a
chosen mentor. Applicants must be paid-up members of the
SLSA who are not currently undertaking a PhD.
Full details are available at wwww.slsa.ac.uk/
index.php/prizes-grants-and-seminars/mentoring.
Enquiri es abou t this scheme should be dir ected t o
eadmin@slsa.ac.uk.
Three annual deadlines have been introduced for this
relaunched scheme: 1 October, 1 February and 1 June.
' ''!"&#!$((#"
+""&'
This y ear, three proposals were succes sful an d the
subcommittee awarded £9510 from the prize fund. Full
reports on all three events will appear in the autumn issue
of the newsletter.
The closing date for the nex t round is 12 December 2016. See
website for details: wwww.slsa.ac.uk/index.php/prizes-grants-
and-seminars/seminar-competition.
Imagining the State for Progressive Politics, 19–20 May 2016,
Kent Law School, University of Kent
Davina Cooper, £3618
This workshop started from the premise that how concepts, such
as the state, are imagined and understood depends on what they
are being imagined for. While conceptual thinking is shaped by
the social conditions, problems and challenges of its time and
place, some ways of thinking about states appear to advance
critique far more than they advance transformative thinking.
This workshop explored forms of state conceptualising and
reimagining that hold some promise for transformative social
politics, addressing the state’s relationship to progressive social
change as well as the contours of hoped-for worlds.
Reproductive Futures: Reproductive choices?, 1–2 July 2016,
Southampton University
Natasha Hammond-Browning and Claire Lougarre, £3392
This meeting is designed to bring together academics working
on human reproduction from legal and ethical perspectives in
order to consider and reflect on the next era in this field. The key
objective of the meeting is to facilitate the cross-fertilisation of
ideas on issues that are currently on the reproductive radar,
broadly co nceived. T hese ideas wil l i nclude bot h a re-
engagement with established ‘traditional’ debates (in light of
recent developments) and ‘new’ challenges posed by emergent
technologies. Among others, topics include surrogacy, abortion
and assisted reproductive technologies. Confirmed speakers
include Julie McCandless (LSE), Kirsty Horsey (University of
Kent), and Rita D’Alton Harrison (Royal Holloway). Please
registe r through the E ventbrite website :
wwww.eventbrite.co.uk/e/reproductiv e-futures-reproductive-
choices-tickets-25195019983.
Labour Law for a Warming World? Exploring the intersections
between work, regulation and environmental sustainability,
12 September 2016, Institute for Advanced Study, University
of Warwick
Ania Zbyszewska, £2500
This interdisciplinary, exploratory seminar, sponsored by the
SLSA and the University of Warwick Faculty of Social Sciences,
will bring together labour lawyers and socio-legal scholars
interested in work regulation in conversation with researchers
in environmental sustainability, climate justice and international
development to reflect on:
1. whether labour law and regulation of work – as currently
conceiv ed an d ins titutionalis ed – can p lay a role in
facilitating the develop ment of more socially cohes ive,
egalitarian and ecologically sustainable labour regimes in
the future; and
2. how the adoption of a broad ecological perspective, or one
that is grounded in a notion of long-term sustainability (in
its social, ecological and economic dimension), challenges
labour-law frameworks and whether it can be usefully
applied to rethinking and revitalising the discipline.
The seminar is free to participants, but space is limited so please
registe r b y c ontacting the se minar orga niser Dr Ania
Zbyszewska at ea.zbyszewska@warwick.ac.uk.
sl s a news
5
                      (      (           
)-)$'!
At SLSA 2016, for the third year running, a ‘buddy-up’
scheme w as organi sed bet ween ac ademics and P hD
researchers. Ruth Brit tle, AHRC/M3C -funded PhD
candidate at the University of Nottingham, took part.
The purp ose of th e schem e is to g ive PhD student s an
opportunity to discuss their research and ideas with a leading
academic in their field and to help them get the most out of the
conference. I was paired with Dr Dallal Stevens who is an
associate professor at the University of Warwick whose research
interests include refugee and asylum law and policy. Her
current interests focus on the protection of refugees and forced
migrants in the Middle East.
Dallal and I met for our ‘buddy-up’ session over lunch and
it gave me a valuable opportunity to discuss my research project
with someone who is a renowned expert in refugee law and
policy and has researched and written extensively in the field. I
presented a paper in the ‘Refugee and asylum law: theory policy
and practice’ stream which was coordinated and chaired by
Dallal. My research is focusing on children’s rights in asylum
procedures and, in particular, the role of the best interests
principle in a child’s claim for asylum. My initial question in my
research project considers whether the best interests principle is
a gateway or barrier to international protection.
Dallal gave me valuable and insightful feedback on my
research project, challenging me to delve more deeply into the
policy angle and suggesting I explore the UK approach to
unaccompanied children, both in policy and legislation. She
provided some literature recommendations and suggested I
consider studies that have been carried out by other researchers
into the asylum system in the UK. As well as receiving excellent
academic advice from her, I was also interested to hear about
Dallal’s own research and developments in academic research
on refugee and asylum law more generally.
The buddy-up scheme is an excellent way to meet experts in
your field (outside of your supervision team) in a convivial and
nurturing environment and is very useful in furthering your
academic networks. I would encourage more academics and
PhD students to get involved in the scheme at the SLSA
conference in 2017.
I would like to thank Dallal for being my academic ‘buddy’, and
Charlotte Bendall, who recently stepped down as the postgraduate
representative, for coordinating the scheme again this year.
' '##"&( 
$&.'
Nominations are now open for this year’s book and article
prizes. There are four prizes:
lthe Hart Socio-Legal Book Prize;
lthe Socio-Legal Article Prize;
lthe Hart Socio-Legal Prize for Early Career Academics;
land the Socio-Legal Theory and History Prize.
The closing date is Monday 3 October 2016. Public ations
published in the 12 months up to 30 September 2016are eligible.
The first three prizes are generously sponsored by Hart
Publishi ng. The Socio-L egal The ory and H istory P rize is
sponsored by a private benefactor and the same rules apply for
this as for the other book prizes, but no book or author will be
eligible to win the Theory and History Prize and the Book Prize
or Prize for Early Career Academics in the same year.
The winners of all the book prizes will receive £250 and the
winner of the article prize will receive £100. Winners will be
invited to participate in special sessions at next year’s Annual
Conference in Newcastle. Full details can be found on the SLSA
website wslsa.ac.uk and follow the prizes links. If you have a
query abo ut a ny o f th e pr izes, please con tact
eadmin@slsa.ac.uk.
' ' #
The SLSA blog went live on 15 June 2016. The blogeditors are
inviting contributions for future issues. If you have an idea for a
short article (maximum 1000 words) on a hot topic of interest to
your SL SA colleagues a nd others, pl ease email
eblogeditors@slsa.ac.uk.
'' #&"#!"(#"'
As a member of the Academy of Social Sciences (AcSS), the
SLSA can nomina te eminent s ocio-legal scholars for
appointment as academicians. Full details of the process are
availab le on the AcSS website ww ww.acss.org. uk. Th e
paramount requirement for successful nomination is ‘evidence
of eminence and impact of the nominee’s contribution to social
science’. Please send nominations (maximum 500 words) to
SLSA chair Rosemary Hunter erosemary.hunter@qmul.ac.uk.
' '14=458CB
Benefits of SLSA membership include:
lthree 16-page (minimum) newsletters per year;
lpersonal profile in the SLSA online directory;
ldiscounted SLSA Annual Conference fees;
lweekly ebulletin;
leligibility for grants (research, fieldwork and training),
Seminar Competition, prizes and Mentoring Awards;
lmembers’ priority in newsletter publications pages;
ldiscounted student membership (with first year free);
lfree annual postgraduate conference;
lstudent bursaries for SLSA Annual Conference;
ldiscounts on subscriptions to a selection of law journals;
l20 per cent discoun t on Ashg ate, Ha rt, Palg rave
Macmillan and Routledge books bought online;
lspecial membership category for retired members
. . . and much more. Visit wwww.slsa.ac.uk for details.
;88;B?41%%
w
FFFB;B002D:
&B5??1=
w
7CC?BCF8CC4A2>
-/1.;;7
w
FFF50241>>:2>D?B
5:710:
w
FFF;8=:438=2>D?B'>28> 460;'CD384B
BB>280C8>=
. . . stop press . . . stop press . . .
(74=4GC' '$#'(&)(#"&"F8;;147>BC431HC74
>=3>='27>>;>52>=>F -:@-=C(78B0==D0;
4E4=C8B5A44C>0CC4=30 =38=2;D34B>E4A=867C022>30C8>=0=3
CCA0E4;D;;34C 08;BF8;;140==>D=2438=C74
0DCD:44?C7430C4B 5A44
p e o p l e . . .
%&! '$4->.11:35A1:-;:-8/4-5=5: /=595:;8;3C
-:0/=595:-86@>?5/1-?-:3;=':5A1=>5?C
sl s a grant s ch e m e s
                      (      (           
6
'D
A0?78234B86= 28E8;B>284CH0=3 C742DAA4=C
=46>C80C8>=B5>AC7442>=>;460;A4D=85820C8>=>5H?ADB
Amanda Perry-Kessaris, Kent University, £2730
How did, do and could civil society actors use graphic media to
communi cate econ o-legal a spects of t he curren t Cyprus
reunification negotiations? During the l ast major round of
negotiations, which ended in the failed 2004 An nan Plan,
communication seems to have been limited to text-heavy policy
booklets. Today we see fantasy news programmes set in 2030 to
highlight the p otential eco no-legal gai ns of reconcil iation;
animations covering Cypriot ethnographic history and the legal
intricacies of bi-zonal bi-communal federation; and information
design, distributed via social media, communicates data about
levels of interpersonal trust on the island which are crucial
determinants for its econo-legal future. Increasingly, there are
examples of more interactive, potentially dialogic, designs for
peace: one project allows users to move through demographic
and cultural time in the divided city of Nicosia between 1878
and 1974, overlaid with contemporary music; another uses 3D
modelling to allow members of the public to sketch possible
plans for the town of Varosha which has been deserted since the
1974 Turkish invasion. Funding from the SLSA will allow me to
travel to Cyprus to conduct visual research and to interview
civil society actors behind these and other projects. This will
help me to understand the benefits and limitations of adopting
a graphic approach in this context. Funding will also pay for
Greek language training so that I can interpret a wider range of
communications. The research is important and original because
it prefig ures the academic dimensions of an emergent field of
practice – graphic design for econo-legal change – which is
evident in an international constellation of government ‘policy
labs’ using design thinking and practice to improve policy-
making and impleme ntation. The arti cle in whi ch I first
identified synergies between graphic design and econo-legal
change won the 2015 SLSA article prize. Follow my progress on
Twitter @aperrykessaris.
1>AC8>=CA0E4;C744G?4A84=24 >5F>AC74A=
A4;0=3CA0E4;;8=6C>A40C A8C08=C>0224BB01>AC8>=20A4
Marie Fox, Universi ty of B irmingham, and S heelagh
McGuinness, University of Bristol, £2237.60
Restrictions on abortion in Northern Ireland are coming under
increasing levels of scrutiny by the media, the courts and NGOs.
Of particular concern is that women in Northern Ireland who
wish to access abortion services are forced to travel to another
part of the UK – and then are required to pay. The overall aim of
this study is to examine the experience of these women. With
funding from the University of Birmingham we undertook an
online survey of the experience of women who travel from
Northern Ireland to England to access abortion services and
conducted a review of academic literature in this area.
The second stage of our research will involve three further
objectives:
1. to undertake interviews with women who have travelled
from Nort hern Ir eland to Englan d to acce ss abort ion
services;
2. to undertake interviews with key stakeholders who have
facilitated women’s travel from Northern Ireland to Great
Britain or represented them in court; and
3. to analyse the transcripts of these interviews in order to assess
the extent to which Marcia Inhorn’s ‘reproductive exile’
framework is reflective of the experience of these women.
' '&"('!'
Applications are now open for the next round of Research
Grants and PhD Fieldwork Grants.
The Research Grants Scheme has been running since 1999 and to
date has funded 103 socio-legal research projects. The scheme
aims to support work for which other funding sources would
not be appropr iate and to e ncourage so cio-legal research
initiatives in a practical way.
Applica tions for t his year’ s round are now inv ited.
Applications are considered only from those who are fully paid-
up members (or registered as free student members) of the
SLSA, wherever they live. Applications must be made using the
Applicat ion Packa ge avail able on th e SLSA web site. Th e
Application Package is subject to change so please make sure
that you download the latest version.
The deadline for applications is 31 October 2016. Individual
awards are up to a maximum of £3000. Decisions will be made
no later than 31 January 2017. The Research Grants Committee
takes the following elements into consideration:
lclarity of the aim(s) and objective(s) of the research
originality, innovativeness and importance of the research;
methodo logy (inc luding co herence w ith aim(s ) and
objecti ve(s), practicab ility a nd, if app licable ethical
considerations); budget; and potential impact;
lfunding will not normally be provided for conferen ce
attendance or to subsidise postgraduate course fees;
lfunding will not be provided via this scheme for one-day
conferences or for seminar series;
lfeedback will be given to unsuccessful applicants;
lno member will receive more than one grant per year;
lExecutive Committee members are not eligible for the
scheme.
For more information and to help you decide whether your
project is appropriate for an SLSA grant, visit the SLSA website
where there are examples of project summaries, reports from
past grantholders, a full list of previous grantholders and project
titles and Dermot Feenan’s instructive article on submitting
your applicati ons, firs t publish ed in SLN 66 :4–5.
wwww.s lsa.ac.u k/index .php/pri zes-gran ts-and-s eminars/
small-grants.
84;3F>A:5D=38=65>A$7BCD34=CB
In January 2013, in response to the number of applications from
postgraduate students, the SLSA Executive agreed to create a PhD
fieldwork scholarship, with separate selection criteria, under the
general umbrella of the grants scheme. The scheme’s aim in both
cases is to support work for which other funding sources are not
available and to encourage socio-legal research initiatives in a
practical way.
Applications are now invited for the fieldwork scheme for
the year 2017. Applications to the scheme are considered only
from those who are fully paid-up members (or registered as free
student members) of the SLSA, wherever they live. Funding will
only be made available to students who have completed their
first year of study by the time the grant is to be taken up and
who are not in receipt of ESRC or AHRC funding. Applications
must be made using the PhD Fieldwork Application Package
available on the SLSA webs ite where yo u will also f ind
examples of previous awards made under the general grant
scheme. Closing date: 31 October 2016.
If you have any queries about this scheme, please contact
eadmin@slsa.ac.uk.
Below and on the next three pages, we publish summaries
from the four projects being funded in the latest round of grant
awards, plus reports from three completed projects.
sl s a grant s ch e m e s
7
                      (      (           
$A>3D2C8>=>5C74 BC0C4C74A>;4>55>A4BCA867CB
;468B;0C8>=2>>284CH8==380
Meenakshi Narayan, Michigan State University, £3000
This research project examines the production of the state within
the context of Indian forests, by investigating the role of forest
communities and civil society organisations in mobilising a
rights-based legislation. In December 2006, the Government of
India passed the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA), legally
acknowledging the rights of eligible tribal and forest-dwelling
communities to live in, use, manage and conserve forestland.
Nearly a decade since its enactment, evaluations of the Act have
reveale d its inconsi stent imp lementation betw een state s,
genders, communities and individuals. While significant, I
argue that these analyses have paid inadequate attention to the
agency of communities and civil society organisations (CSOs) in
engaging with the law. My research foregrounds the dialectical
engagem ents betw een stat e actors, CSOs and for est
communities, at both the local and national levels, as they
engage with the law. At the local level, I will focus on how the
Chenchu, a hunter-gat her community of And hra Pradesh,
interact with local state actors and CSOs through each of their
varied goals and aspirations in relation to the law. At the
national level, I will examine civil society networks’ use of email
listservs as a means of consolidating local experiences of the
FRA to forge a national-level engagement with the law. Tying
together the local and national-level articulations of actors as
they engage with this rights-based legislation, I argue that the
state, as an always incomplete project, is produced through the
interactions of state actors, civil society and those at the margins
of the state.
E0;D0C8=6A8B: 0=3A4B?>=B818;8CH8=C743>
E8>;4=2438B2;>BDA4B274
Marian Duggan, University of Kent, £1005
On I nternational W omen’s Day 2 014, Ther esa May MP
announc ed the natio nal i mplementation of t he Dom estic
Violence Disclosure Scheme as part of broader strategies to
reduce violence against women in the UK. It emerged following
the murder of Clare Wood by her former partner George
Appleton in 2009 and the subsequent coroner’s investigation
which suggested that people should have the ability to make
inquiries to the police about a partner when they have concerns
or suspicions about potentially violent behaviour.
The resulting scheme – also known as ‘Clare’s Law’ – allows
people the right to ask for information from the police about a
partner’s past if they have concerns about their own safety. In
the first year of national operation, almost 4000 applications and
1300 d isclosures were made. On this basis, media reports
regular ly claim that the scheme h as been ‘ successful’ in
‘preventing domestic violence’ and has ‘saved lives’.
However, as no research has been conducted into the
scheme, all we kno w at the mom ent i s the numb er of
applications and disclosures. Therefore, my research seeks to
answer several key questions.
lHow is the scheme operating in practice? Does this match
how it was intended to operate?
lHow is the scheme regarded by members of the statutory
and third sectors tasked with implementing it?
lWhat are the pros and cons of the scheme in its current
guise?
lWhat action was taken by those to whom disclosur es
were/were not made?
lCan this scheme prevent domestic abuse?
Qualitative research is being undertaken with police officers,
independent domestic violence advisers, domestic abuse service
providers and scheme applicants. I am very grateful to the SLSA
for providing grant money to cover the transcription costs of
this research.
8=0;A4?>ACB
(74;468C8>=>57H3A0D;825A02CDA8=6A46D;0C8>=
?>F4A?A49D38240=3?D1;82?0AC828?0C8>=
Joanne Hawkins, Bristol University, £1617.60
The research engages with an issue of significant importance in
the fracking debate: what makes a regulatory decision regarding
fracking legitimate to the public and to what extent does
participation play a role? A fieldwork grant from the SLSA was
used to conduct empirical work which enabled the research to
actually ask those affected by fracking decisions what it was that
they perceived as a legitimate regulatory decision. The research
conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with
members of the pu blic living within two mi les of a
current/proposed shale gas exploration site at five locations
across the UK . An additio nal focus gr oup with in dustry
members and a semi- structured inter view with an
environmental regulator were conducted in order to contrast
perceptions and provide perspective and comment on findings
from the interviews with members of the public.
The researc h revealed some unexpe cted them es when
considering the key factors that influenced the public perception
of legitimate regulatory decision-making. The research contests
and contrasts the existing literature on regulatory decision-
making and publi c participati on through hig hlighting the
demand, among the public interviewed, for expert-led decisions
justified by information. There was a clear lack of demand for
increased public participation in the data with a corresponding
reasoning that members of the public were not qualified/did
not possess the relevant skills or experience to contribute to
decisions regarding fracking. It became clear that the way in
which the public defined an ‘expert’ was of central importance.
While the definition was primarily connected to the possession
of scientific skills and qualifications, it emerged that this alone
was insufficient to guarantee a scientist would be regarded as an
expert. There were a number of additional factors which shaped
social trust and determined which scientists the public were
prepared to trust in decision-making. It was clear that trust was
a foundational factor in shaping interviewees’ desired model of
decision-making and that at present there is a significant lack of
trust in b oth deci sion-making procedur es and their
accountability (due to the perceived absence of expert-led
decision-making).
Yet, despite this clear demand for expertise and information,
the research also revealed that the data was highly complex and a
number of contradictions (between what interviewees wanted and
the assumptions that underpinned such desires) were present.
These complexities were visible in the expectations underpinning
what expert-led decision-making would achieve, the type of
regulatory controls that experts would implement when
managing risk and in the assumption that increased information
to justify decisions would always correlate positively with the
perceived legitimacy of decisions. Despite this, the research
showed that, contrary to the existing literature, the solution to such
complexities does not lie in increased public participation and
deliberation (the demand for which was absent in the data). The
research re-contextualises the traditional debates over the public’s
role in decision-making in the context of an environmental
problem with significant local impacts. This offers a fascinating
insight into how well-established theories of legitimate regulatory
decision-making, focusing on increased participation, from across
disciplines actually contrast empirical data on public perceptions
of the key legitimating factors in regulatory decision-making.
sl s a grant s ch e m e s
                      (      (           
8
D38280;2>20C8>=8=C74=6;8B7H>DC72>DAC
4G?A4BB8=6B4=C4=28=64G?;0=0C8>=BC> H>D=6>554=34AB
Max Lowenstein, Bournemouth University, £758
There is little recently published qualitative research on the
actual workings of youth courts, including the extent of judicial
participation and engagement within them (Lowenstein 2015).
The importance of gathering qualitative data matters because it
helps us to understand youth sentence explanations, informs
judicial training and provides an understanding of how court
culture changes over time (Allen et al 2000). Most studies, not all
focused on England and rarely including qualitative data, date
back to the late 1970s and early 1980s and hint at marginal
judicial participation (Weijers 2004: 23–30). This small pilot
project, funded by the SLSA, has qualitatively investigated
(Kvale 1996: 200–04) the sentencing explanations from those
who predominantly produce them, namely magistrates. Such
sentencing explanations and the way they are communicated
(expres sed) ma tter be cause th ey can pr omote o ffender-
understanding of the sentence and help to prevent future re-
offending (Home Office 2001). Furthermore, they form part of
the statutory duty to give reasons for and explain the effect of a
sentence passed in court (s 174, Criminal Justice Act 2003).
This research has considered the expression of sentencing
explanations through face-to-face/telephone interviews with 16
youth court magistrates across Southern England. Indicative
shared judicial perceptions (norms) regarding their sentencing
explanation experiences in court were provided. The results
have been briefly summarised as:
1. The source(s) which inform sentence explanations – youth
offenders themselves, their parents/guardians and the pre-
sentenc ing report s of y outh offen ding team s ( YOTs)
mattered most for all 16 ma gistrates as they regularly
engaged with young offenders.
2. The influence of other cour troom actors – those who
regularly engaged (see 1 above) with the young offender
and could further explain the sentence mattered most for all
16 magistrates.
3. The extent of judic ial pe rceived particip ation and
engagement with young offenders, including the recidivist
impact – this was predominantly judicially perceived as
very high, but with moderate recidivism declining with
higher seriousness offences. The key seriousness principles
were offender culpability and offence harm (Sentencing
Council 2004). YOT support was predominantly viewed as
crucial to explaining the meaning of seriousness principles
to the youth offender.
4. The predominant mode of expression (positive to negative)
– the informal youth setting helped to provide a detailed
hearing, predominantly focused up on positive sentencing
expressions that promoted youth understanding and sought
any necessary support/treatment.
5. The detaile d r easoning b ehind sen tence exp lanations
beyond what we currently know – we currently know that
this reasoning involves sentencing explanations that focus
upon human behaviours, language simplification and moral
education (Weijers 2004: 30). Beyond this, family/care-giver
support dy namics, c ountering peer-gro up pressur es,
underst anding re ligious an d cultura l differe nces and
influencing young offenders’ personalities via empathetic
examples of offence harm mattered most when addressing
their specific welfare needs. Parenting orders also mattered
as they prov ided positiv e enf orcement to consens ual
parenting contracts.
To conclude, this pilot study provided key insights regarding
how sentencing explanations are applied and why they matter.
Youth offenders benefit from magistrates who have extensive
youth-sentencing experience and training. These judges can
provide valuable empathy examples that explain seriousness
principles to the y outh offender. Youth court magis trates
perceive th at they are si gnificantly engagin g with youn g
offenders. However, they do recognise the limits of the ir
sentencing explanations upon youth recidivism, particularly as
offence ser iousness increase s and where re-offen ding has
become persistent. YOTs and family care-givers appear to be
very important and positive influences upon youth offenders
and the youth judiciary can utilise these support services
beyond the court to support the chosen sentence. The ultimate
goal is that youth offenders fully engage with and properly
understand their sentences, as they attempt to rehabilitate
themselves.
References
Allen C, Crow I and Cavadino M (2000) Evaluation of the Youth Court
Demonstration Project, Home Office Research Study 214
Home Office (2001) The Youth Court. The changing culture of the youth
court – good practice guide, Lord Chancellor’s Department
Kvale S ( 1996) Intervie ws: A n in troduction to qual itative resea rch
interviewing, Sage
Lowenstein M (2015) ‘Exploring sentencing practice in England and
Wales’ in J Roberts (eds), Sentencing Young Offenders, Palgrave
Macmillan
Sentenci ng Council (2004) Overa rching Princ iples: Seri ousness
wwww. sente ncingc ounci l.org. uk/wp conten t/upl oads/w eb_
seriousness_guideline.pdf
Weijers I (2004) ‘Requirements for communication in the courtroom: a
comparative perspective on the youth court in England/Wales and
The Netherlands’ 4(1) Youth Justice 22–31
D0;A4?>ACB >53>
Oona Brooks, University of Glasgow, £1741.41
This research report highlights findings from a study that used
Scottish police data to undertake exploratory analysis of dual
reports (DR) of domestic abuse (DA). DRs occur when both
parties i n a relatio nship ar e reporte d to the polic e as
perpetrators of DA simultaneously. As such, these potentially
conflicting accounts present a particular challenge to both
conventional understandings of DA and the police response to
these offences, yet there is a paucity of research evidence about
this issue. This study used anonymised quantitative data from
three Scottish police divisions to examine the nature of DR
incidents, how common they are, and how the police respond to
them. A total of 532 DR incidents recorded within the context of
' '&4B40A27(A08=8=6A0=CB
=4F0??;820C8>=3403;8=4B
Applications are invited for these grants aimed at supporting
training in social science research methods and the use of
data analysis software (eg SPSS and NVivo) for SLSA
members who do not possess but wish to acquire these skills
and do not have access to sources of institutional support to
do so. The grants will cover the cost of attendance at a
relevant training course offered by an established provider.
See, for example, the courses offered by the National
Research Methods Training Centre at the University of
Southampton wwww.ncrm.ac.uk.
Eligible applicants will be members of the SLSA who are
early or mid-career researchers and not currently
undertaking a PhD. Full details are available at
wwww.slsa.ac.uk/index.php/prizes-grants-and-
seminars/slsa-research-training-grants.
Three annual deadlines have been introduced for this
relaunched scheme: 1 October, 1 February and 1 June.
so c i o -l e g a l n ew s
9
                      (      (           
a heterosexual relationship in 2012/2013 were identified for
further analysis using a police database.
Key findings include the following:
lDRs acc ounted for 5.4% of recor ded d omestic abus e
incidents.
lThe most commonly recorded DR incidents are threatening
and abusive behaviour, common assault, breach of the peace
and bail offences.
lIt is estimated that 3% of incidents with a male perpetrator
occur within context of a DR compared to 16% of incidents
with a female perpetrator.
lOnly 40% of DR incidents are reported by victims, while half
(50%) are reported by a third party.
lThe vast majority of DR incidents (97%) resulted in a crime
or offence being recorded by the police. This figure is
markedly higher than for other domestic abuse incidents –
50% of domestic abuse incidents reported to the police in
Scotland as a whole in 2012/2013 resulted in a crime or
offence being recorded.
lThe proport ion of inc idents rec orded as a crime and
subsequently reported to the procurator fiscal (PF) in the DR
sample is also greater than the equivalent proportion for
Scotland as a whole (64% compared to 39%).
A8=
The Research Committee of the Criminal Cases Review
Commission (CCRC) has issued calls for proposals for three new
project s: ‘Legal a id and legal represe ntatives’; ‘Young
offenders’; and ‘Northern Ireland non-Troubles criminal
convictions’. Closing date for all three calls: 31 August 2016. The
CCRC is not able to offer funding but can offer access to data,
relevant contact details, support for funding applications and so
on. Ple ase visit the SLSA website fo r details.
wwww.slsa.ac.uk/index.php/news/research-and-
funding#CCRC
N e w s l e t t e r a d v e r t i s i n g
+470E40;8D=C>5B?024 0E08;01;48=C74=4FB;4CC4A5>A
03E4AC8B4;;>FB=> *(C>033
l
102:2>E4AJ
l
8=B834102:2>E4AJ
l
>C74A8=B834F7>;4?064B4G2;D38=6 ?064B0=3J
l
70;5?064J
l
@D0AC4A?064J
l
8=B4ACBJ5>A8=B4ACBBD?? ;8431H03E4AC8B4A
>=C02C
e
>31C8=C4A=4C2>
lIn cases where at least one report was made to the PF, the
majority (69%) had a report submitted in relation to both
incidents.
The Joint Protocol on Domestic Abuse agreed between Police
Scotland and the Crown Office and PF Service (revised in 2013)
stipulates that submitting a report to the PF in respect of both
parties should be avoided where there is reason to believe that a
counter-allegation has been made by the perpetrator. On the
basis of the statistical data extracted from the police database for
the current study, it is not possible to ascertain whether DRs are
being made in the context of a counter-allegation, the actual
dual perpetration of violence or self-defence. Nonetheless, in a
high proportion of DR cases, a report is being submitted to the
PF for both parties. This suggests that there may be challenges
for the police in determining whether counter-allegations are
being made.
Further qualitative research is required to explore this issue,
specifically the context within which DRs occur and the criminal
justice response to these incidents from the perspective of both
practitioners and victims.
This study was jointly funded by the SLSA, the Scottish
Institute for Policing Research and the Scottish Centre for Crime
and Justice Research.
 0=38=670?0AC=4AB78?B
In the last year th e British Ins titute of Inte rnational an d
Comparative Law (BIICL) and the Bingham Centre for the Rule
of Law (a constituent part of BIICL) have run two successful
worksho ps in p artnership wi th univ ersity-based resear ch
projects. The workshops brought together expert groups of
academics and practitioners, taking new research to practitioner
audiences, with those working in practice then providing input
and feedback into research questions, methods, outcomes and
ways forward.
One workshop, jointly run with the Institute for Arab and
Islamic Studies, University of Exeter, looked at non-violent
extremism. The other, with the China Policy Institute, University
of Nottingham, examined the rule of law and market governance
in China both ESRC-supporte d. Practitioner partic ipants
included people working in law and policy from government,
Parliament, business and civil society organisations, as well as
barristers and lawyers from major firms.
BIICL and the Bingham Centre work at the intersection of
academic and policy-oriented research. With strong links with
policy and professional communities, a central London location,
ESRC and AHRC recognition and a sharp awareness of the
research impact agenda, they welcome interest and proposals
from academics looking at research impact pat hways and
partnerships. Please visit wwww.binghamcentre.biicl.org and
wwww.biicl.org, or contact Patricia Ambrose via email at
ep.ambrose@biicl.org.
Lawrence McNamara
 'B?4280; 8BBD46D4BC438C>AB78?8=E8C0C8>=
5>A4G?A4BB8>=B>58=C4A4BC
The Journal of Law and Society (JLS) invites expressions of interest
concerning the guest editorship of the special issue (spring
2018). Readers are invited to contact the editor with their
proposal by 5 September 2016.
Send a list of authors, agreed and those yet to be confirmed,
and working titles of each contribution. Prepare one page
explaining the purpose and range of the collection. The material
must be ‘socio-legal’, fit the character of the JLS and have
current relevance and appeal to our international and diverse
readership. The issue must also be both thematic and coherent.
The issue is 75,000 words, inclusive of footnotes, and normally
carries between 8 to 10 papers. The deadline for completed copy
is November 2017. The JLS may provide funds to support a
meeting for the authors . The issue will also appear
simulta neously as a b ook pu blished by Wi ley-Blackwell ,
Oxford. A decision on the 2018 publication will be taken in
September 2016 thereby allowing the editor one year to produce
the copy.
The special issue for 2017 is titled ‘Austerity and law in
Europe’ and is edited by Marija Bartl and Markos Karavias
(University of Amsterdam).
Contact: Philip Thomas, JLS Editor, )Cardiff Law School,
Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AX ethomaspa@cardiff.ac.uk.
Phil Thomas
so c i o -l e g a l n ew s
                      (      (           
10
(74BC01;8B75C744=CA4>5 0F
0=3'>284CH0C0A3855)=8E4AB8CH
In December 2015, the Centre of Law and Society was jointly set
up by the Journal of Law and Society and Cardiff University to
encourage and provide an institutional framework for the
support of soci o-legal, so ciological, theoreti cal and
interdisciplinary research and education. It aims to provide an
academic environment in which academics and students, as
well as visiting scholars and fellows, can meet, discuss their
views and ideas, present research projects and outcomes, and
deliver lectures and seminars.
Closely linked to the Journal of Law and Society and its
activities, the centre will enable and raise the profile of high
quality socio-legal scholarship and promote innovative research
of international quality focusing on socio-legal, empirical and
theoretical analysis of legal institutions and processes and the
impact of social, political, economic and scientific influences on
law, le gal pr ofessions an d lega l act ivities. It specific ally
promotes sociological and socio-legal methodology, including
empirical research methods in legal science.
The centre’s mission is to build on existing research and
cooperate with other socio-legal institutions and centres in the
UK and abroad in the fields of sociology and social theory of
law, legal cultures, legal anthropology, legal education, legal
profession s and ethic s, compara tive socio logy of cri minal
justice, family law, law and religion, law and medicine, law and
environment, law and business regulat ion, and socio-legal
studies of EU integration.
The centre has a wide range of activities and research
programmes supporting the exchange and development of ideas,
through conferences, symposia, seminars, research methods
seminars, reading grou ps and worki ng paper elec tronic
publications, between academics, practitioners and others. It
maintains an electronic archive and online profile of socio-legal
activitie s, inform ation an d study m aterials, seminar s and
conversations with sociologists of law and socio-legal scholars.
On 9 and 10 June 2016, the centre hosted its first conference
‘Main currents in the contemporary sociology of law: the state of
the sociology of law and socio-legal studies in the UK and the
JLS’s contribution to it’. Some of the most distinguished scholars
representing different substantive areas of research who have
enormously contributed to and actually shaped socio-legal
studies in the last several decades and also collaborated with the
JLS such as Roge r Cotte rrell, W illiam Twinin g, David
Sugarman, Lind a Mulcahy, To ny Bradney, Fi ona Cownie,
Kieran McEvoy, Davina Cooper, Mavis Maclean, Dave Cowan
and Sally Wheeler – presented a synthetic review reflecting on
the meaning and context of the sociology of law and/or socio-
legal studies in their research areas of law and justice.
This event was followed by another successful conference,
‘Transn ational co nstitutional l aw and new pa tterns of
democracy’, organised by John Harrington, with Chris Thornhill
from M anchester Un iversity as the confer ence’s keyno te
speaker . Further more, the c entre or ganised a o ne-day
conference ‘Gender rules: research methods in law’ on 23 June
2016 w ith Joanne Conagha n, L izzie Barme s an d A nia
Zbyszewska as main speakers.
In the academic year 2016/2017, the centre will sponsor its
first annual theme on environmental law and anthropocentrism
in law, politics and philosophy under the title ‘The centre cannot
hold: beyond anthropocentrism in the anthropocene?’ to be
convened by Anna Grear.
The centre also has a research visitor scheme which is open
to very early career scholars and PhD students to come, conduct
and present their research at Cardiff School of Law and Politics.
The visitors are provided with accommodation, work space and
related facilities in the School of Law and Politics. In exceptional
circumstances, they can be offered limited financial support for
expenses related to their visit. Deadline for the next academic
year’s applications: 15 September 2016.
The centre’s Executive Committee members are Ambreena
Manji, Lydia Hayes, Jiri Priban (director), Roseanne Russell and
Stewart Field. For further information, see the centre’s website
and/or contact t he centre’s director Jir!Priban
epriban@cf.ac.uk.
Jiri Priban
(74=4FB;4CC4A=443BH>D
The next copy deadline is 17 October 2016. Please send your
lnews
lpublications
lresearch
lnew jobs/promotions/awards
larticles
levents and
linformation on streams and themes
to M arie Selwo od emariese lwood@btinter net.com or
t01227 770189.
modern age. With this in mind the ESRC and AHRC are
launching a call that takes a longer-term, cross-cultural and
global look at the experiences of, and challenges presented by,
forced dis placement. Fundi ng is avai lable for innovat ive,
interdisciplinary proposals of up to £300,000 of between six to 24
months’ dur ation. Applic ants are requ ired to clea rly
demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of their pro posed
work. It is a requirement that projects include a combination of
social scien ce and arts and humaniti es expert ise and
approaches. Closing date: 20 July 2016. See website for details:
wwww.esrc.ac .uk/funding/fundin g-opportunities/es rc-ahrc-
call-for-proposals-on-forced-displacement.
D=38=6>??>ACD=8C84B
%$8-=313=-:?>/;9
The ESRC invites proposals to take forward an ambitious
research agenda with the potential to effect significant economic
or societ al impac t. Propo sals ar e welcom ed for st andard
research projects, large-scale surveys, infrastructure projects,
and for methodological developments in any area of the social
sciences. Proposals should be between £1 million and £2.5
million for a period of between three to five years. This call
provide s o pportunities for promo ting innovat ion and
interdisciplinarity, both within and beyond the social sciences,
while excellent res earch within a part icular social sci ence
discipline is also welcome. Applicants are encouraged to submit
an early registration of interest by 8 July 2016. Closing date:
13 October 2016. See website for details: wwww.esrc.ac.uk/
funding/funding-opportunities/large-grants-competition-
2016-17.
%$E$/-882;=-8>;: 2;=/1005>
The ESRC and AHRC have launched a call for innovative,
interdisciplinary projects focusing on the experiences of the
forced displaced (both internationally and internally) whether
due to poverty, war, conflict, persecution or human rights
violations. Drawing upon funding allocated from the Global
Challenges Research Fund, this call explicitly recognises the
global and protracted nature of people displacement in the
pu b l i ca t i o ns
11
                      (      (           
>>:B0=3A4?>ACB
Intention, Supremacy and the Theories of Judicial Review
>7=!20AAH&>DC;4364J??
In the late 1980s, a vigorous debate began about how we may
best justify , in constit utional te rms, the Eng lish court s’
jurisdiction to judicially review the exercise of public power
derived from an Act of Parliament. Two rival theories emerged
in this debate, the ultra vires theory and the common law theory.
The debate between the supporters of these two theories has
never satisfactorily been resolved and has been criticised as
being futile. Yet, the debate raises some fundamental questions
about the constitution of the UK, particularly: the relationship
between Parliament and the courts; the nature of parliamentary
supremacy in the contemporary constitution; and the possibility
and validity of relying on legislative intent. This book critically
analyses the ultra vires and common law theories and argues that
neither offers a convincing explanation for the courts’ judicial
review jurisdiction. Instead, the author puts forward the theory
that parliamentary supremacy – and, in turn, the relationship
between Parliament and the courts – is not absolute and does not
operate in a hard and fast way. Rather, it functions more flexibly
with courts balancing particular Acts of Parliament against
competing statutes or principles. McGarry argues that this new
conception of parliamentary supremacy leads to an alternative
theory of judicial review which significantly differs from both the
ultra vires and common law theories.
Lawyers and Mediators: Services for separating families
!0E8B!02;40=0=3>7= 4:4;00A 0ACJ??
Do lawy ers make ma tters worse, or do they provide
information, advice and support which can help to prevent
disputes arising or manage them when they do? Do mediators
enable parties to communicate and reach agreements tailor-
made to their needs? Or, working outside the legal framework,
do they find it difficult to protect weaker parties and access
expert advice? What happens when lawyers become mediators?
This book will describe the structure of service provision and the
day-to-day work of lawyers, mediators and lawyer mediators,
drawing on empirical work carried out between 2013 and 2015
immediately after the recent changes to the management of
divorce and separation within the family justice system. The
reducti on in leg al-aided help in 2013 and the fail ure of
mediation to fill the gap in 2014–2015 have given rise to a
difficult debate. This book aims to provide an account of some
of the practical effects of these policies through a description of
the daily work of practitioners in the sector. It raises the
question of whether we need to choose between traditional legal
services and the new processes of private ordering or whether
intermediate positions might be possible.
Sentencing and Punishment: The quest for justice 
'DB0= 0BC>= 0=3 7A8BC8=4 $8?4A #G5>A3 )=8E4AB8CH $A4BBC7
43=J??
This text, now in its fourth edition, has always focused on what
counts as justice in sentencing and punishment by applying
penal theories and human rights to the issues covered. This
latest edition has fuller discussions of the impact of human
rights jurisprudence, particularly in relation to prisoners, but it
also reveals the tensions and limits, notably in relation to
prisoners’ voting rights and conditions for minors in detention.
Given developments in recent years, there is expanded coverage
of Sentencing Council guidelines and also rehabilitation in the
community. Material on young offenders has been restructured
and updated and the book includes two new chapters. ‘Impact
on victims and offenders’ considers the impact of the crime
and/or punishment on both sets of individuals and ‘Instead of
punishment?’ assesses the extent to which restorative justice,
principles of child welfare, and being mentally disordered lead
to approaches which are alternatives to punishment.
What is a Court?  )'( +>A:8=6 $0ACH &4?>AC
2>
F 7CC?9DBC824>A6D:F70C8B02>DAC
In 2015, JUSTICE launched a Working Party looking at ‘What is
a Court?’, challenging long-held notions of what is required of a
court or tribunal and intended to inform the reform programme
of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). The
report recommends, first ly, the reconception of cou rt and
tribunal rooms as ‘justice spaces’. This new model is defined by
its inherent flexibility and rejection of the over-standardisation
prevalent in existing courts and tribunals. Justice spaces should
be designed to adapt to the particular dispute resolution process
taking place within them, and the needs of users, rather than the
other way around. Secondly, the committee recommends a
flexible and responsive court and tribunal estate, made up of a
number of dynamic parts. The Worki ng Party suggests a
portfolio of Flagship Justice Centres; Local Justice Centres; ‘pop-
up courts’; remote access justice facilities; and digital justice
spaces. The Working Party emphasises the importance of
technology and its potential to meet user needs and maximise
access to justice. All the proposals are anchored in a commitment
to a core set of principled considerations. Finally, the report
makes p ractical recom mendations aime d at ensuring the
effective implementation of the HMCTS Reform Programme.
Property and Human Rights in a Global Context 
(8=6,D0=340=;;08=43B0ACJ ??
Property as a human rights concern is manifested through its
incorporation in international instruments and as a subject of
the law through proper ty-related cases consi dered by
international human rights organs. Yet, for the most part, the
relationship between property and human rights has been
discussed in rather superficial terms, lacking a clear substantive
connection or common language. That said, the currents of
globalisation have witnessed a new era of interrelation between
these tw o areas of the la w, incl uding t he emer gence o f
international intellectual property law and the recognition of
indigenous claims which speak to an engagement with human
rights law. This collection starts the conversation between
human rights lawyers and property lawyers and expl ores
analytical approaches to the increasing relationship between
property and human rights in a global context.
Unleashing the Force of Law: Legal mobilization, national
securit y, a nd ba sic f reedoms  4EH0=8 $A0 170C
$0;6A0E4!0228> 460;'4A84BJ??
This book uses multi-jurisdiction empirical data and draws on
cause-lawyering, political-lawyering and Bourdieusian juridical
field literature to analyse the invocation of legal norms aimed at
the protection of basic freedoms in times of national security
tensions. It asks three main questions. When do lawyers mobilise
for the protecti on of basic freedo ms? In what kind of
mobilisation do they engage? And how do the strategies they
adopt relate to the outcomes they achieve? Covering the last five
decades, the book focuses on the 1980s and the 1990s through an
analysis of legal work for two groups of independence seekers in
the 1980s – namely, Republican (mostly Catholic) separatists in
Northern Ireland and Puerto Rican separatists in the US – and
on post-9/11 issues concerning basic freedoms in both countries.
>DA=0;B
The European Journal of Risk Regulation will be published by
Cambrid ge Univer sity Pre ss from Janua ry 2017. I t was
developed and launched by Lexxion in 2010 in partnership with
editor-in-chief Professor Alberto Alemanno, of HEC Paris and
New York University, in response to an increasing focus on risk
globally and a significant increase in risk regulation. It will
continu e to be man aged by t he s ame editori al t eam.
www w.l exx ion .de /en /ze it sch rif ten /fa chz eit sch rif ten -
englisch/ejrr.html
ev e n t s
                      (      (           
12
D
G&$!" "!&H)(" # !&!" '$
SOAS, University of London: 29 July 2016
Speaker: Professor A delle Blackett, Professor of L aw, McGill
University, and SOAS Centenary Visiting Fellow. Se e website:
wwww.eventbrite.co.uk/e/afterno on-tea-seminar-on-law-
development-and-labour-tickets -25725481608.
D
% &+!$'$ !
University of Wollo ngong, Australia: 10 August 2016
Presenter: Professor Barbara Pini. Please see webs ite for details:
whttp://lha.uow.edu.au/law/LIRC /events/UOW213768.html.
D
)!' &'$ "!$! ! (%&+
Centre for Law and Culture, St Mary's Universit y, Twickenham:
5—6 September 2016
Please see website for details: wwww.ticketsource.co.uk/ event/
134274. Closing date for registration: 31 August 2016.
D
" %+ #"%' &&" $+!
#$& "!'$" )
8—9 September 2016 : Edinburgh University
This symposium aims to provide up-to-date informat ion on the
theory and practice of the application of neu roscience to the law. See
website for details: wwww.criminalbar.com/events/other-
events/q/date/2015/11/13/medic o-legal-symposium.
D
&! )& # "$&% %#!!
$%%&!$ "%%" !% "& 
University of Kent, Canterbury: 9—10 September 2016
Speaker: Carol Green house, Princeton University. See website:
wwww.kent.ac.uk/law/time/events /new-legal-temporalities.html.
D
$ ! )$"$  !")
American Express Community Stadium, Brighton: 13 September 2016
See University of Sussex website for details: wwww.sussex.ac.uklaw/
research/law-reform-now/crimin al-law-reform-now.
D
)'%&! '%&$&+#"% &$'&
$%$ "!$!
University of Leeds :13 September 2016
See website for details: wwww.law.leeds.ac.uk/events/2016/sch ool-
of-law-inaugural-postgraduate- research-conference-2016.
D
$  !!"' $)"$ ("# !&
!"$  )"$!& "!" $&!%"'&
SOAS, University of London: 15—16 September 2016
SLS (Society of Legal Scholars) Annual Seminar 2016. Attendance is
free, but registrati on is essential. Please see website for details:
wwww.soas.ac.uk/law/events/15se p2016-re-imagining-labour-law-
for-development-informal-work- in-the-global-north-and-south.html.
D
$ )" ! !)$!&)$"! $!
!$ #! %'$&+#"% &
! %!"##"$&' !&%
Open University, Milton Keynes: 15—16 September 2016
Please see website for details: wwww.slsa.ac.uk/images/
2016summer/Call_for_Papers-1.p df.
D
) $&)"$ %"#('! *#$&%F
 !"$ &(!%"  !%"! %
20—21 September 20 16: Institute of Advanced Legal Stu dies, London
Academic directors: Richard Ashcroft (QMUL); Nicolette Priaulx
(Cardiff University); Matthew Weait (University of Portsmouth).
Please see website for details: whttp://ials.sas.ac.uk/r esearch/
hart/wgh_legal_workshop_curren t_year.htm.
D
!''$  &!" &%! )!%"&+
%%"&"!
National University of Singapore: 22—23 September 20 16
Please see website for details:
whttp://law.nus.edu.sg/cals/eve nts/ALSA2016.
D
!!"(&!"$ !! "% $%
"($!! 
23 September 2016: University of Norway, Tromso, Norway
See website for details: whttps://en.uit.no/forskning/
forskningsgrupper/nyheter/artikkel?p_document_id=355759&sub_id
=443478.
D
"!%&&' &"!"!($ %&"! !"" &
&,!% #
Royal Irish Academy, Dublin: 30 June 206
See website for details: wwww.ria.ie/events/digital-citizensh ip.
D
%  !$ * ! !% &+ !
!")
Queen Mary Universi ty of London: 30 June 2016—1 July 2016
Please see website for details:
wwww.law.qmul.ac.uk/events/item s/167540.html.
D
!''$ ' !&% &+)"! $!
30 June—1 July 2016: University of Nottingham
Please see website for details: wwww.slsa.ac.uk/images/F lyer_
Law_conf_2016.pdf.
D
$#$"' &('&'$ %$#$"' &(" %
University of South ampton: 4—5 July 2016
This event is s upported by the SLSA and Centre for Health Ethics and
Law, University of Southampton. Attendance is free but places are
limited so please register through the website:
wwww.eventbrite.co.uk/e/reprodu ctive-futures-reproductive-
choices-tickets-25195019983.
D
%%"&"! "%"!& $"#""%&% 
"!$! 
4—7 July 2016: University of Durham
Stream: ‘Politics, “ market-making” and the organ t rade: empirical
accounts of (in)huma n practices’. Please see websi te for details.
wwww.nomadit.co.uk/asa/asa2016/ panels.php5?PanelID=4401
D
%$$ %$ & "%%&(
University of Bath: 5—7 July 2016
Please see webpage for details:
whttp://www.ncrm.ac.uk/RMF2016/ home.php.
D
!! "" "%&+! &&
$"%%$" %"!& $!&"!&$! ' !
$&% )
University of Liver pool London Campus: 7—8 July 2016
Please see website for details: wwww.liverpool.ac.uk/law -and-social-
justice/conferences/ending-chi ldhood-obesity.
D
&' &'$%) )!& !!' $% %$!
! &"$% "$&&$ )"$
10—14 July 2015: Vienna, Austria
This is the thi rd International Sociology Associat ion Forum of
Sociology. See websi te: wwww.isa-sociology.org/forum-2016.
D
$&% !#" !&##& &"$!
"$!%&"! '&'$! "$ &% &"
$&% !#' #"!
School of Law, University of Leeds: 11—12 July 2016
Please see website for details and booking:
whttp://store.leeds.ac.uk/brows e/extra_info.asp?compid=1&modid
=1&deptid=34&prodid=6181&searc hresults=1&catid=71.
D
'$! )+"" '$! %&"!!
$%"'$ #""$%&& !% !%!
#$& %"'&"!%
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London: 15 July 2016
Jointly organised by Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and UN
Human Settlements Programme. See website for further information:
wwww.sas.ac.uk/support-research/public-events/2016/urban-law-
day-2016-good-urban-legislation-resource-poor-settings.
D
!&$!&"! %"&+"$ $%$ "!
$%% "!! )"$  &!
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia: 19—23 July 2016
Please see website for details:
wwww.iec.mq.edu.au/research/cfrc/isra_2016.
D
)&H%!"$ &+"&&"")&&" %&)"$
& #"+ !&$&"!%#!%"'%&
SOAS, University of London: 27 July 2016
Speaker: Professor A delle Blackett, Professor of L aw, McGill
University, and SOAS Centenary Visiting Fellow. Please see website
for details: wwww.eventbrite.co.uk/e/domestic-work-the-
employment-relationship-and-social-justice-tickets-25705945174.
st r e a ms an d t h e m es
13
                      (      (           
D
'%& ' !$ &%)"! $!
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London: 14 October 2016
Please see website for booking and details: wh ttp://justice.org.uk/
events/justice-human-rights-la w-conference-2016.
D
)"$ "!&$% "'&"!+
The Post House, Stafford: 20 October 2016
Theme: Building peac e from the ground up. See website for details:
wwww.fmcstaffs.co.uk/training/b ooking.
D
"! )" !H% %&"$+"!+
!&$% #!$+"! $!
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London: 26 Octobe r 2016
See website: wwww.sas.ac.uk/support-research/public-events/2016/
doing-women-s-legal-history-call-papers. Closing date: 31 July 2016.
D
'($"!$!)!%"%'%&!&+
University of Leeds : 29—30 October 2016
Organised by the Centre for Law and Social Justice and School of
Law. Please see website for details: wwww.law.leeds .ac.uk/news/
2016/call-for-papers-uk-ivr-co nference-2016.
D
$%&$& !$ &)$ !")"$ ' !
$&%! &!"$ &"! "!&$" 
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London: 9 Novembe r 2016
Please see website for details. Abstracts to be sent to
eeliza.boudier@sas.ac.uk. See also: wwww.sas.ac.uk/support-
research/public-events/2016/re stricted-and-redacted-where-now-
human-rights-and-digital-infor . Closing date: 1 July 20 16.
D
&' &'$" ' !$&% !&' 
Mithras House, Univ ersity of Brighton: 10 November 2016
Please see website for details: whttps://blogs.brighton. ac.uk/
thefutureofhumanrightsintheuk. Closing date: 15 July 20 16.
D
%$'#& "!& #"$ &+) &'&'$ ")
!%" &+%" $%#
Griffith Law School , Australia: 30 November—3 December 2016
See website for details: wwww.legalscholarshipblog.com/2016/
05/17/disruption-temporality-l aw-the-future-of-law-society-
scholarship-brisbane-australia . Closing date: 30 June 2 016.
D
%"&+)! '&'$ 
Zagreb, Croatia: 1— 2 December 2016
Please see website for details: whttp://soclawzagreb.pra vo.hr.
Closing date: 1 September 2016.
D
%%!& "!$! &  &"!
10—12 December 201 6: Jawaharlal Nehru, Delhi, India
Theme: Thinking with evidence — seeking certainty, making truth.
Please see website for details: wwww.lassnet.org.
'(&!'"(!'
Following our successful 2016 Lancaster conference, some
of the stream and theme convenors report back.
39DBC824
This year th e stream had sessions on: participa tion in
administrative justice, exploring legal participation in tribunals
and courts; early twentieth-century appeals about national health
services; and a presentation on the UK Administrative Justice
Institute. The session on administrative justice and the courts
discussed ‘sufficient interest’, public interest in litigation and civil
society, and bringing the Russian state to court. Papers in the
ombudsman sessions discussed online activists, HMRC soft law
and lessons from the ombudsman, and the impact of judicial
review on ombudsmen. Finally, a series of additional papers
highlighted the wide terrain of the administrative system and the
influence of administrative decision-making on public life. These
included a case study of public authority compliance; combatting
corruption in Nigeria post its Administration of Criminal Justice
Act 2015; work capability assessment; and the meaning of
financial assistance for survivors of sexual victimisation.
Our stream covered a wide range of topics and brought
together current researchers in the field from across the globe to
share ideas and offer critical reflection on ongoing projects. We
look forward to next year and to welcoming existing and new
researchers to be part of the administrative justice stream.
Naomi Creutzfeldt en.creutzfeldt@westminster.ac.uk
and Richard Kirkham er.m.kirkham@sheffield.ac.uk
70;;4=68=6>F=4AB78?
This stream continues to thrive, as evidenced by the papers
presented at Lancaster. Sessions were scheduled across all three
days and were grouped under the themes of: common spaces
and the law; property and origins; property as a zero-sum game;
multi-level ownership; and researching lives and housi ng.
Discussions at the sessions were lively and, we hope, helpful
and constructive for the presenters and the participants alike.
The papers represented a very broad range of property law
in prac tice, theoret ical and his torical persp ectives, and
jurisdi ctions. We look f orward to contin uing at futur e
conferences, although we have ideas for some changes, perhaps
to the title of the stream. Sadly, this year was Penny English’s
last year as co-convenor. Many thanks to Penny for all her work
over the years, especially as she was responsible for starting off
the stream, initially as a new theme.
Sarah Blandy es.blandy@sheffield.ac.uk,
Penny English epenny.english@anglia.ac.uk
and Francis King ef.king@westminster.ac.uk
A82A8
We had another strong stream this year with 22 papers presented
in seven very well-attended sessions in which we heard a varied
and informative range of papers that addressed all levels of the
criminal justice system – from arrest, detention and bail through
to victim participation, juror directions and sentencing. A diverse
number of disciplines were represented and prompted discussion
from many different perspectives. The utility of a number of
offences and defences was also questioned and many speakers
looked to how the substantive law and criminal justice processes
could be improved. This was also the focus of our special session
from the Law Commission co-hosted by ourselves, along with the
‘Sentencing and justice’ and ‘Vulnerable suspects and defendants’
streams. In this very well-attended session David Ormerod QC,
law commissioner for criminal law, summarised the work of the
Law Commission and outlined the current programme of law
reform. David responded to questions and comments from
Journal of Law and Society (autumn 2016)
Articles
The cogs and wheels of reflexive law – business disclosure
under the Modern Slavery Act – Shuangge Wen
Developing a public interest mandate for the governance
and use of administrative data in the United Kingdom –
Graeme Laurie and Leslie Stevens
Inventing drugs: a genealogy of a regulatory concept –
Toby Seddon
What’s the use of a hashtag? A case study – Helen Carr and
Dave Cowan
Disability discrimination law in the UK and the new civil
rights history: the contribution of Caroline Gooding –
Nick O’Brien
Book reviews
Living on the Margins by Linda McDowell – Alice Bloch and
Sonia McKay
The Psychology of Tort Law by Sally Lloyd-Bostock – Jennifer
Robbenolt and Valerie Hans
Rethinking the Law School by Antony Bradney – Carel Stolker
European approach of placing the burden of proof squarely on
the employer must be followed by the UK Supreme Court. Xin
Zhang discussed her mixed methods study of migrant and
urban workers in China and the differences in their treatment by
employers in relation to accidents at work. She found that
temporary unskilled migrant workers were less likely to have
insurance therefore more likely to follow a private route for
compensation and less likely to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
Olawale Ajai looked at the ‘juridification’ of labour law from a
Nigeria n pe rspective, suggest ing that, despit e i ncreasing
workers’ rights, conditions might not be as good as we think
and making suggestions for reform.
It was particularly interesting to contrast the approach taken
by different jurisdictions to the protection of workers, consider
the gaps in each system and compare solutions. It is hoped this
stream will continue to attract a similar variety of contributions
at next year’s conference.
Margaret Downie em.downie@rgu.ac.uk
0F0=3=4>;814A0;8B
This theme met for the first time at SLSA 2016. As the march of
neoliberalism continues, scholars are increasingly examining the
impact of neoliberal policies on the operation, substance and
role of law in society. However, as they work across a diverse
range of areas, these scholars risk remaining disparate and so
the aim was to draw them together to identify common themes.
Nine excellent papers from scholars of various levels of seniority
were delivered across thre e sessions. Their subjec t matter
crossed jurisdictional boundaries and concerned employment
law, adult social care, judicial activism, criminal justice, debt,
housing , h uman righ ts and intern ational e conomic l aw.
Recognising that the boundaries of neoliberalism are contested,
the call for papers had defined it broadly as a political, social
and economic project which favours individual responsibility,
self-management, free markets and privatisation over state
intervention. While this provoked some discussion, speakers
focused on exploring how neoliberal policies are affecting law as
a social and political practice and changing the relationship
between the law, the individual and the state. Some considered
how cost and efficiency drivers, central to the neoliberal project,
are altering not only power dynamics in society, but also
broader conceptions of ‘justice’. Papers also deconstructed and
challenged narratives used to support neoliberal policies and
questioned the extent to which these policies deliver supposed
advanta ges of ‘c hoice’, ‘cost- effectiveness ’, ‘qua lity’ a nd
‘independence’, and if so, at what price?
Many thanks to the speakers involved and to all those
attending the sessions for their contributions and feedback.
Annette Morris eMorrisA7@cardiff.ac.uk
0F?>;8C82B0=3834>;>6H
In this, the theme’s second year, we received 12 abstracts from
five countries. Ultima tely, seven people pr esented. Papers
ranged over topics on: compassi on and judg ing (Derm ot
Feenan) ; the rise of depos it banki ng (Iai n Frame) ; the
contribution of constitutional courts to democratic transitions of
the Former Yugoslavia (Edin Hodzic); constituent power (Jack
Meakin); lawyering values in contemporary national security
litigat ion (Devya ni P rabhat); S chmitt’s co nstitutional ism
(Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis); and politico-legal forces driving the
Conserv ative Part y’s reform ag enda (Gary Wils on). The
methodo logical concern s ranged from: bro ad theor etical
analysis of the problematics (characteristic of sociology) of the
relatio nship between the st ate an d the p eople (Meakin ),
particularly in claimed moments of exception to the rule of law
such as th e rece nt EU/G reek b anking stand-off
(Tsarapatsanis); through deep analysis of difficult cases in post-
conflict constitutional courts for populations with significant
st r e a ms an d t h e m es
                      (      (           
14
delegates drawing on their own research to highlight areas ripe
for reform . He also enc ouraged delegates to respon d to
consultations to help shape the law moving forward.
We also heard from a number of early career researchers
who gave details of exciting new projects and who received
some valuable feedback from delegates. We hope this will help
them shape their research and, as always, we would look to
encourage researchers at all levels to contribute to the stream.
Vanessa Bettinson evbettinson@dmu.ac.uk
and Samantha Pegg esamantha.pegg@ntu.ac.uk
=5>A=
This stream is dedicated to socio-legal conversations about all
aspects of the growing interactions between information and
society. As society becomes more dependent on information and
data to make policy and enforcement decisions and ‘nudge’ the
behaviour of citizens, and the right to access informati on
becomes co ntentious, the strea m c onvenors believe that
information is becoming ever more important as a topic for
socio-legal engagement. The development of the stream shows
that this belief is shared by a number of academics, at all stages
in th eir career s. The c ollection, analysis, sharing,
communication and use of information are all topics of interest
and all featured during an excellent set of panels at SLSA 2016.
Some panelli sts addre ssed fam iliar top ics, such as
whistle blowing a nd survei llance, but c onsidered novel
theoretical perspectives or examined new empirical data; others
addressed novel topics, such as food-labelling and freedom of
information. Papers were accompanied by in-depth discussion
between the keen audience and presenters.
For the future, the convenors hope to see the stream continue
to grow, becoming a logical home for all those who study
interactions between law, information and society. We look
forward to an even more successful stream in Newcastle next year.
Richard Hyde erichard.hyde@nottingham.ac.uk
01>DA;0F
This year we had some lively contributions from around the
world. The UK’s recent introduction of the living wage was
evaluated by Keith Puttick, in particular its impact on hours and
occupat ional b enefits. This p aper ge nerated an anim ated
discussion about the role of state support and the social-wage
income. Polly Lord pl ayed excerpts fro m interviews with
farmers about th eir wo rking l ives. Their posit ion as
simultan eously employe r and work er was di scussed and
potenti al so lutions for this uni que form of prec arious
employment suggested. Margaret Downie examined recent
cases on the burden of proof in indirect discrimination cases,
contrasting the approach taken by the UK courts with EU case
law, and concluded that, if equality was the goal, then the
Social and Legal Studies 25(5) October 2016
Cohabitation’s boundaries and the confines of tradition –
Robert Leckey
After the war: displaced women, ordinary ethics, and
grassroots reconstruction in Colombia – Julieta Lemaitre
Reading ‘class’ in international law: the labour question in
interwar Egypt – Mai Taha
Intersexuality and the ‘right to bodily integrity’: critical
reflections on female genital cutting, circumcision, and
intersex ‘normalizing surgeries’ in Europe – Francesca
Romana Ammaturo
‘I think it’s rape and I think he would be found not guilty’:
focus group perceptions of (un)reasonable belief in
consent in rape law – Wendy Larcombe, Bianca Fileborn,
Anastasia Powell, Natalia Hanley and Nicola Henry
st r e a ms an d t h e m es
15
                      (      (           
ethno-n ational cle avages in order to test their inten ded
‘liberalising’ purpose (Hodzic); to a claimed shift from 1980s
radicalism to – based on interview data and analysis of court
cases – a form of legal formalism in, chiefly, US cause-lawyering
in contemporary national security cases (Prabhat). Gary’s paper
engaged directly with the party-political values underpinning
contemporary Conservative Party reforms. It is hoped that
future conference sessions on the theme will help develop
analysis of ideology and its political implications.
Dermot Feenan edermot.feenan@port.ac.uk
and Andrew Gilbert eandrew.gilbert@anglia.ac.uk
!4C7>3>;>6H0=33B
This year the stream was convened by Petra Mahy, SOAS, and
Eleanor Pritchard, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford. We
invited papers from all spheres of socio-legal and empirical legal
research which explicitly addressed methodology and methods
and received a great response. We held four panel sessions
including an ‘author -meets-reader’ session where SLSA
prizewinner Henry Yeomans discussed his book Alcohol and
Moral Regulation: Public attitudes, spirited measures and Victorian
hangovers (2014 Policy Press). Two papers explicitly addressed
ethical ques tions of rese arch metho ds: Amanda Keeling
discussed the difficulties of ensuring informed consent when she
was conducting participant observation with social workers and
their vulnerable clients, while Eleanor reflected on the ethical
problems of conducting fieldwork in post-conflict Kosovo. Then
we had a range of presentations on different empirical methods
and sources. Lois Bibbings introduced her research, using
historical textual sources, on British male conscientious objectors
from the First World War and their development of different
forms of ‘conscience’. Vanessa Richardson reported on her
interview research exploring participants’ experiences of having
been in care. Petra reflected on the problems with and solutions
to comparability in a stu dy of plural work regu lation in
Indonesia and Australia. Finally, we had a lively discussion
where Jo Samanta, Sarah Sargent and Kudret Yeldon presented
their experiences working with focus groups and the use of
grounded theory to analyse transcripts, and then Fabio Ferraz de
Almeida advocated the use of ‘natural’ conversational material
such as police interview transcripts with suspects.
Petra Mahy epetra.mahy@soas.ac.uk
&45D6440=30BH;D
C74>AH?>;82H0=3?A02C824
This t heme had a very s uccessful s econd confer ence in
Lancaster. Sixteen papers were offered and we had a range of
very interesting discussions dealing with global as well as UK-
specific issues, with speakers from as far afield as Australia.
What was particularly exciting was the number of presentations
by PhD students; it is clear that there is much excellent research
being undertaken on asylum-related topics and the field is
burgeoning. As the issue of forced migration assumes increasing
global significance, the role of socio-legal studies will be
extremely important in helping to develop imaginative but
evidence-based responses and we look forward to next year’s
conference to hear about new work.
Dallal Stevens ed.e.Stevens@warwick.ac.uk
'?0C80;8CH0=38=2;DB8E8CH
Being intentionally broad in scope, this new stream is designed
to explore the extent to which the design and development of
different spaces and places either entice or dissuade particular
social groups from engaging with them. The stream attracted
papers on a broad range of topics.
Firstly, Amy Ludlow and Ruth Armstrong presented their
paper on ‘Learning together in prisons: the transformative
potential of curating inclusive spaces of encounter’. It explored
the University of Cambridge’s Learning Together initiative, set
up with support from the Teaching and Learning Innovation
Fund. The scheme brings together students from prisons and
univers ities to study degre e-level mater ial in a pris on
environ ment. The pr esentation i ncluded some exc ellent
anecdotes, clearly illustrating the positive outcomes for all
involved. Convenors Jill Dickinson and Vicky Heap, Sheffield
Hallam University, presented a paper on ‘Place-making and
shopping centres: exploring the tensions between stakeholders
and the law’, analysing and evaluating potential conflicting
stakeho lder in terests in sho pping-centre manage ment.
Combining aspects of law and criminology, the paper draws
upon Jill’s PhD research into law’s role in shopping-centre
operations and brings in elements of Vicky’s research into
antisoci al behavi our (ASB ). In doin g so, it co nsiders t he
spectrum of different formal and informal mechanisms available
for managing ASB and its impact.
The stream concluded with a paper from Antonia Layard,
Bristol. Entitled ‘The spatiality of protest: Diggers 2012’, the
paper was framed around a case study of a group of squatters,
Diggers 2012, who established the Runnymede Eco-village on
disused l and owned by a p rivate p roperty-devel oper.
Developing methods in legal geography, the paper asked how
we might read cases spatially, drawing on insights from critical
legal studies and feminist legal practices, and, in doing so,
attempted to explore both the presence and absence of spatiality
in legal thinking and practices.
Jill Dickinson ejill.dickinson@shu.ac.uk
and Vicky Heap ev.heap@shu.ac.uk
*D;=4A01;4BDB?42CB0=3>554=34AB
This year we convened a new stream on ‘Vulnerable suspects
and offenders’. There have b een many changes in policies,
procedures and attitudes towards vulnerable witnesses in the
criminal justice system, but vulnerable suspects and defendants
have tended to be left out. We were delighted to have plenty of
interest in the stream and we held three sessions (nine papers)
which wer e well at tended. Key them es were : defin ing
vulnerability; identifying and responding to vulnerability (or
failing to) in various settings, including police stations and
courts; difference in attitudes/approaches where the vulnerable
person is a suspect/defendant (as opposed to a complainant/
witness) ; and dif ficulties in pers uading s takeholders that
processes may need to be adjusted t o accommodate vulnerable
suspects/defendants. Papers drew upon a mixture of empirical,
doctrinal and theoretical methodologies.
The theme of vulnerable suspects and offenders forms the
basis of work being done by the Centre for Evidence and
Criminal Justice Studies at Northumbria University. We hold
regular seminars and other events on this theme and welcome
new members interested in engaging in research on the topic.
Nicola Wake enicola.wake@northumbria.ac.uk
and Natalie Wortley en.wortley@northumbria.ac.uk
Social and Legal Studies 25(4) August 2016
Sexual violence in the digital age: the scope and limits of
criminal law – Nicola Henry
Legal knowledges and surveillance in the condo world –
Randy K Lippert and Stefan R Treffers
Forensic technologies in music copyright – Jose Bellido
Anti-tr afficking (I LL-) efforts : the legal regu lation of
women’s bodies and relationships in Cambodia – Clara
Bradley and Natalia Szablewska
Who dares fine a murderer? The changing meaning of
money and fines in Western European criminal systems
– Patricia Faraldo-Cabana

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT