Lawyers Tackling Global Poverty

The spring issue of Anticipations will be hitting doorsteps in the next couple of weeks. In this issue we turn our attention to International Development. Here John Bibby, Head of Communications and Policy at Advocates for International Development, takes a look at the role lawyers can play in helping to tackle global poverty.

By John Bibby. 

Ask someone to say what they think people working to tackle global poverty look like and, in general, they will name someone distributing food aid in a famine or doctor treating cholera in a refugee camp. Or – in the run-up to the G8 they might focus on politicians. Rarely, though, would anyone think to mention a qualified solicitor sat at their desk in the offices of a City law firm or barrister in their chambers.

This is now, thankfully, changing. An increasing number of politicians, policy makers and development organisations are beginning to see that the law can be both a barrier to development, where it is poor or unenforced, and a weapon for development, where good laws are upheld. In turn, an increasing number of lawyers are seeing the contribution that they can make with their legal skills. At Advocates for International Development (A4ID), which was established by a group of UK lawyers in 2006, we have seen interest from lawyers offering their skills on a pro bono basis increase every year.

Much of the support that A4ID lawyers provide is not particularly glamorous. They are – by and large – sat at their desks in City offices or chambers. But the support that lawyers provide through A4ID does empower others to work in disaster areas by, for example, giving charities greater clarity about their liabilities and legal risks when sending employees and volunteers to hazardous environments or supporting them to open new offices in unfamiliar legal jurisdictions with different regulations.

This does not mean, however, that the support that lawyers can give in the fight against global poverty is just isolated to back office facilitation. Lawyers working with us are also making an impact on the world stage through, for example, supporting the ongoing and arduous negotiations on the International Arms Trade Treaty, advising governments in the developing world on bilateral investment treaties and providing the basis for campaigns for legal reform by conducting in-depth comparative research.

The value of this support goes beyond a mere pounds and pence donation, but it is also important to recognise that by doing it on a pro bono basis, lawyers are saving development organisations money. In fact, since 2006 lawyers working through A4ID have provided over £25 million of legal support to charities, organisations and developing country governments, which could instead be spent on making a difference on the frontline.

Despite the progress that has been made in changing perception, however, there is still much more potential for the law to be used to tackle poverty. Every single aspect of the fight against world poverty – from AIDS to fair trade and climate change to gender equality – has a legal perspective that deserves recognition and exploration. If lawyers continue to embrace this agenda then the solutions to seemingly intractable global problems will be easier to find, but if neglected then the work of otherwise well-meaning development organisations, donors and charities will only ever be a sticking plaster.

John Bibby is the Head of Communications and Policy, Advocates for International Development.

Sadiq Khan focuses on victims but offenders also need to be high on the agenda

Georgia Hussey offers her views on the latest Fabian pamphlet launch.

Speaking at the launch of the Fabian Society’s ‘Punishment and Reform’ report, Sadiq Khan emphasised the need to put victims at the heart of the justice system. Khan has stressed the need to reshape the way victims are involved in the justice process, calling for a “significant shift in attitudes to and treatment of victims”.

Victim support is an area the Government appear to be falling behind on; discussing his victim support package in the House of Commons on Tuesday, Ken Clarke’s mention of victims of terrorism sparked criticism from Sadiq Khan. The Shadow Justice Secretary said that “after more than a year of delay, victims of overseas terrorism are still waiting for the compensation promised by this Government”.

But dealing with offenders should be key in any criminal justice policy, and the report, which hopes to inform the conclusions of the Labour Party’s policy review, showed a heavy focus on preventing people becoming offenders and re-offenders.

Barry Mizen’s presence at the launch steered the debate away from Khan’s focus on victims. Mizen, whose son was murdered in 2008, brought first-hand experience of how victims are involved in the justice system. However, as Mary Riddell, the chair of the debate, pointed out, Barry Mizen is not the ‘typical’ passive victim. He and his wife Margaret set up the Jimmy Mizen Foundation after their son’s death, which has helped many young people take on a positive role in their community. This kind of approach, he said, helps them become “responsible citizens in their communities”. As he writes in his chapter of the pamphlet, “getting justice for Jimmy was not just about punishment for his killer, it was about finding and exposing the truth of what happened to our son. What can we do to ensure young people don’t resort to violence against each other?”. His presence steered the discussion towards prevention, and supporting young people who might otherwise become offenders.

Adding another important voice to the ‘Punishment and Reform’ report was Baroness Jean Corston, who focused on female offenders in her contribution to the pamphlet. She noted that only 3.2% of women in prison are considered a ‘danger to the public’, but over 75% exhibit some kind of psychological disturbance. With an overwhelming majority of offenders being male, women are often overlooked in criminal justice policy. But these figures clearly show that many of the women in prison are “troubled rather than troublesome”. Any new criminal justice policy should incorporate ways to tackle this issue, and Cortson stresses the importance of giving those women an alternative to offending and reoffending. Early diversion into the mental health system instead of the prison system is key, and crucial support from women’s centres will help them get support, qualifications and skills that aren’t otherwise available to them.

Sadiq Khan’s call for a change in how the criminal justice system treats victims is a clear way to improve the system for the people in it, at little cost. However the debate must always centre on the offenders and on prevention. Greater support for victims cannot encroach on a commitment to eradicating a need for victim support; we need to work towards a society where there are no victims. Getting people more involved in their community, whether in a women’s centre or on youth projects, is a proven way to prevent people becoming offenders. Barry Mizen wrote that “trying to foster more civility and humanity in all aspects of life – from schools, to the streets, to prisons – is the only way to counter the incivility and violence”. This aim should not be forgotten.

Georgia Hussey is an intern at the Fabian Society.

The judiciary and civil society

In this member post, Young Fabian member Ellie Cumbo argues that ignorance of the legal system damages society.

Last week on the BBC’s Daily Politics, Daily Express journalist Patrick O’ Flynn reassured viewers that his “pro-European friends” had assured him that withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights would not mean leaving the EU. This was not much of an answer, but did pose a new and intriguing question, which is why a man who earns a living by writing about, and crusading against, our current human rights laws didn’t think it was his job to know the basic framework behind it.

A couple of weeks ago, the Home Secretary infamously offered an interpretation of immigration law so inaccurate that her own colleague the Secretary of State for Justice couldn’t contain his contempt.

And all of this just a month after a leaked memo revealed that the Government had intervened with magistrates to enable harsher-than-usual sentences for rioters, but failed to rouse any significant concern from the media, the Opposition or even the blogosphere about the vital constitutional principle of separation of powers.

How has it become not only acceptable but standard for people involved or interested in the running of the country to be quite ignorant of the legal principles and structures that regulate it? Not only does this impoverish our public discourse; it also trickles down into everyday life, including for people in the most traumatic circumstances.

In my work in criminal justice policy, I have been on the receiving end of a letter from a victim of crime who had approached a long list of criminal law firms seeking to “press charges” against his attacker. He was entirely unaware that criminal cases are taken by the state, not the victim, and that the decision by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to drop a case for lack of evidence is almost always the end of the matter. He was by no means the first I encountered who had never been taught the fundamentals of the justice system; he was merely the most damaged by it.

Believers in meaningful democracy must see the urgency of opening up the world of the judiciary, as much a branch of government as ministers and Parliament, to wider understanding, use and even challenge. How can it be, in 2011, that people are left to cobble together from Wikipedia and TV legal dramas an idea of who has to prove what, and to what standard, in a court case, or whom they can sue for a breach of their human rights (only the state or an offshoot of it; not a private individual or a business) or even the meaning of the word “evidence” (mainly what is said on the stand, not fingerprints and DNA).

An outline of the British legal system should be on the national curriculum. Until then, it should be the role of politicians, media commentators, and all who debate public policy, including at The Fabian Society, to educate themselves and so empower others.

Informed public scrutiny doesn’t cease to matter when a law is passed; it must also be present whenever that law is reinterpreted, assessed and, crucially in the case of the Human Rights Act, set to be scrapped by the very government whose powers it restricts.

Ellie Cumbo is a member of the Young Fabians.