Latest News 01/05/2024
Criminal Law
This edition’s section on criminal law will give an insight into some of the latest occurrences and developments. These will include an overview of the British Post Office scandal inquiry and the sharp rise in abortion convictions in England and Wales.
The Post Office Scandal
Between 1999 and 2015, more than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted for theft, fraud and false accounting, in cases brought against them by the Post Office. However, one sub-postmaster Alan Bates began raising concerns surrounding the technological system Horizon the Post Office utilised for accounting. He began to share his theory reaching out to other sub-postmasters who were experiencing similar issues.
The issues were raised by MPs who began expressing their worries prompting the Post Office to launch an inquiry, utilising the accountancy company Second Sight. Throughout their investigation they found the sub-postmasters were not thieves but instead the victims of a failing system. To appease politicians a mediation scheme was launched in 2012, which abruptly ended in 2015 as Second Sight was due to launch their final report.
This led to the creation of group litigation with Alan Bates as a forerunner along with 555 other sub-postmasters presenting their claims to the High Court of Justice. The sub-postmasters were successful in proving their case and awarded £11 million (following court costs) in December 2019.
Despite the High Court’s judgement many of the sub-postmasters still had criminal convictions, were denied compensation, and lacked answers. In May 2021 a public inquiry was launched to reveal the failings of the Post Office, revealing the enormous toll on the sub-postmasters’ lives following the convictions, this inquiry is ongoing. On 13th March 2024, the government introduced new legislation to speed up the quashing of sub-postmasters convictions and provide compensation.
But looking ahead, what can be learned from this? In a world where AI usage is increasing, maybe we should question our reliance on and trust in technological systems. A review of policy relating to internal organisations investigations may be needed to ensure there are measures to protect employees.
Rise in abortion convictions in England and Wales
In 2023 the US Supreme Court made the monumental decision to overturn Roe v Wade, removing women’s rights to have an abortion before 24 weeks. This decision was met with backlash from women’s rights activists and pro-choice supporters. Despite condemnation at the time from former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, there has been an increase in the number of women charged with abortion offences.
Between the years of 1967 and 2022, only three women were convicted of having an illegal abortion in England and Wales. Illegality is deemed when an abortion takes place after 24 weeks (six months) or consent has not been given. However, in the last 18 months six women have been charged with abortion offences and at least one was prosecuted on these grounds- but why the sudden spike?
Legislation surrounding abortion dates back to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, where terminating a pregnancy carried the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This was extended in 1929 to include an offence for ending the life of a capable infant. Despite the major overhaul of the abortion law in 1967 allowing abortion under 28 weeks (later decreased to 24 weeks in 1991), it is clear that issues remain.
Perhaps these laws rooted in Victorian values are to blame for the increase in charges against women or our neighbours’ decisions across the pond, but there is promise of reform from Labour MP Diana Johnson. Diana Johnson aims to reform the UK’s Criminal Justice Act to ensure prosecutions would end for women who terminate pregnancies after 24 weeks.
Public Law
In the previous edition, I gave a bit of a preamble as to how Public Law developments highlight the interplay between the judiciary and the executive; the tension between law and politics. About this theme, I analysed the Rwanda judgement, highlighting not only the reasoning of the Court but also the government’s response.
Since the release of the first edition of the Chambers Chronicles, the Safety of Rwanda Bill has passed both houses and received Royal Assent; the Bill is now an Act. This highlights the fast-paced and dynamic nature of Public Law - at any moment, either the Courts or Parliament could pass a judgement, or enact legislation, which changes the nature of the relationship between the UK’s political institutions. It’s truly exciting stuff, and it keeps public law barristers busy, both in their workload and the volume of legal research they have to undertake!
In this edition, I go beyond the UK courts and legislature, analysing the very recent judgement passed by the European Court of Human Rights, in response to a Swiss climate group claiming that their government’s inaction infringed upon their human rights. The judgement is a landmark one, setting a major precedent for further climate litigation.
Unprecedented Climate Litigation in the European Court of Human Rights: Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland App no 53600/20 (ECtHR)
On the 9th April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) made history, in their unprecedented ruling that a State’s inaction in fighting climate change is a violation of human rights. KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz (’Senior Women for Climate Protection’), a group of elderly women who all campaign for climate action, brought a claim against the Swiss government for their inaction. With multiple Swiss courts dismissing their claim, KlimaSeniorinnen took their claim to the ECtHR.
Their case reached the Grand Chamber (usually reserved for only the most important issues), and the Court was faced with big questions to answer.
Firstly, there was the issue of the nature of the claims brought against the State - specifically, the type of environmental harm and inaction. Most of the existing environmental case law referred to situations in which harm inflicted could be traced directly to a specific source; for instance, pollution linked to a certain landfill. The Court had little issues in enforcing State action in such cases, given that the harm could be tied to a certain instance of inaction.
However, KlimaSeniorinnen’s claim did not involve harm of this type. Given that the claimants were concerned by Switzerland’s inaction in meeting general goals for reducing CO2 emissions, their claims concerned harm which “remains largely irreversible for 1000 years after emissions stop.” Such harm is not really tied to a specific source - the harm caused by a general failure to deal with CO2 emissions is perpetual, and there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution to remedy this harm.
Opponents to ECtHR hearing claims like KlimaSeniorinnen’s would likely reason that disputes over the latter type of harm should be reserved for the legislative bodies to deal with. Nevertheless, the court held that “democracy cannot be reduced to the will of the majority … in disregard of the requirements of the rule of law”.
Another question - perhaps the most significant question - faced the Court: what would be the consequences of finding against KlimaSeniorinnen? Would a judgement in favour of the Swiss government render the Convention and Court irrelevant in protecting people from climate-caused harm, “one of the most pressing issues of our times”?
Conversely, what would be the consequences of finding in favour of KlimaSeniorinnen? Would it merely exacerbate the current, negative public scrutiny of human rights law, and the growing distrust of the ECtHR? Would the court be viewed as overstepping the line between law and politics?
With all these issues considered, the Court found in favour of KlimaSeniorinnen.
However, instead of enforcing a specific remedy for the Swiss government to abide by, the Court tempered the positive obligations derived from Article 8, by defining the scope of these obligations and prescribing a comprehensive set of criteria for States to fulfil.
In other words, the Court recognised that the States would be “better placed than the Court to assess the specific measures to be taken” - so instead of prescribing concrete measures, they simply provided criteria for all States to follow.
This case is, without a doubt, a landmark one, establishing a precedent set to impact the climate policies of all member States of the ECHR, and even States beyond. Despite the significant criticisms of the judgement, with some viewing it as an imposition on the States’ legislatures, it is certain to shape climate legislation for decades to come - especially as we reach that all-important year of 2050, which many States have set as a target for ‘net zero’.
Civil Law
Apple’s Labour Law Violations
One of the biggest factors dividing the world’s population in almost two halves is the Apple vs. Android conflict. Apple advertisements and sometimes loyalists (guilty as charged), praise the safety and privacy it provides to users. After all, we cannot ‘brag’ much about its features, can we? But does this ‘privacy’ come at the cost of workers’ human rights? #AppleToo members say it does. This group of ex and current Apple employees claim that the company’s ‘culture of secrecy’ preponderates and suppresses employees’ perturbations - be it issues at work or home. Rules at work prevent employees from talking about certain issues (wages, work conditions etc.) even among themselves! [1]
Moreover, Apple employees have alleged Tim Cook of being grating and strict when reacting to any information leaks. He has asserted that he holds the “power to identify” the ones involved in such conduct and that they do “not belong” at Apple. Other descriptive terms used by employees in honour of Apple’s work culture are - verbally abusive, harassing and discriminatory.
About a year back, two employees broke their silence and complained about Apple’s conduct and policies to the National Labour Relations Board. Some claims have recently witnessed their status turn from ‘alleged’ to ‘verisimilitudinous’ by NLRB’s finding that top Apple executives have violated the US federal law which allows employees to advocate their interests together. For reference, Apple’s conduct was contrary to Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which entrenches employees’ “[…] right to self-organisation, to form, join, or assist labour organisations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or the mutual aid or protection, […]” Additionally, Section 8(a)(1) states that “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7” is an unlawful labour practice. [2]
Meanwhile the Chinese factory - Zhengzhou Foxconn - is not on good terms with the Chinese labour laws either. In 2019, these violations were exposed as a result of slightly more dramatic circumstances. Undercover investigators got themselves employed at the factory for years. The subsequent findings depicted the abysmal state of labour wages which showed an insignificant increase; they were inadequate to support a comfortable family life. This is even though workers were made to contribute over time. If you think this is not disagreeable enough, during peak seasons the employees worked an average of 100 extra hours per month! [3] Following this, Apple conducted an investigation and affirmed some claims, promised to work on some and denied/justified the rest.
As far as the US is concerned, the NLRB has resolved to prosecute Apple in NLRB administrative court if the parties fail to settle. [4] Chinese state firms and government departments on the other hand have recently started instructing employees against using Apple devices to switch to local brands. But we are yet to see any clear updates on amelioration of the work conditions.[5]
[3]https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/china-apple-accused-of-violating-labour-laws-as-employees-at-iphone-factory-found-working-100-hours-of-overtime-being-punished-for-not-meeting-targets-incl-co-comments/#:~:text=9%20Sep%202019-,China%3A%20Apple%20accused%20of%20violating%20labour%20laws%20as%20employees%20at,for%20not%20meeting%20targets%3B%20Incl.
[5]https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-ban-apples-iphone-accelerates-bloomberg-news-2023-12-15/
Family Law
Lavanya Dev-Kauffmann
Welcome back to the Family Column! This week I thought we’d focus on one recent reform and what that means for widening access to justice as one of the biggest barriers at the Family Bar.
What’s Happening in Family Law in the UK?
Legal Aid Means Testing Reform
Legal aid serves as a crucial lifeline for individuals, often residing in impoverished conditions, offering support during critical junctures like facing eviction or seeking protection from abusive partners for themselves and their children. However, accessing this assistance requires undergoing a means test. Among those
poised to benefit from imminent adjustments to legal aid means testing, innocent individuals who have endured miscarriages of justice or suffered personal harm stand out.
The forthcoming alterations will ensure that specific types of compensation no longer automatically disqualify victims of miscarriages of justice from obtaining legal aid when pursuing accountability in court. Presently, compensation received through the miscarriage of justice compensation scheme is subject to means testing within the legal aid process, potentially causing victims to delay seeking compensation while seeking justice through legal channels.
According to a press release from the Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Chalk, believes certain compensation payments will no longer render individuals ineligible for legal aid support, thus safeguarding their access to justice.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/news/victims-given-greater-access-to-justice-through-legal-aid-reform )
Over the next two years, exemptions from means testing will be extended to:
Minors in need of legal representation
Parents contesting challenging medical decisions, such as the withdrawal of life support for their children
Individuals representing themselves in the Crown Court
These reforms mark a significant stride towards broadening access to justice for low-income individuals previously excluded from free legal counsel under the former system. Additionally, the thresholds for eligibility will undergo review every three years.
The changes are stated to occur in four stages:
Exemption from means testing in certain civil legal aid areas
Revision of the civil means test and contributory system
Introduction of new means tests for criminal legal aid
Elimination of Crown Court capital passporting for homeowners receiving benefits
I would recommend reading the full press release for more information: ‘Victims given greater access to justice through legal aid reform’ (14 March 2024)
Commercial Law
Commercial law is a dynamic and complex area of the legal profession, encompassing a wide range of issues with significant impact on the global economic and political landscape. The importance of commercial law is reflected in "The Lawyers" top 10 cases of 2024, illustrating how legal disputes in this field resonate with current events and broader societal concerns. In this article, I will discuss two notable cases from this list, highlighting their implications for the commercial sector.
The first case, AerCap Ireland v AIG Europe and Others, heard by Mr Justice Butcher, shows the relevance of commercial law with international politics and economics. This case involves AerCap, an aircraft leasing company, which made an insurance claim for the non-return of 116 aircraft and 23 engines from Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. The claim was based on insurance policies that covered "Contingent and Possessed" assets, along with additional coverage from "Operator Insurance Policies" or a "cut-through clause" in an "Operator Reinsurance Policy."
The respondents were brokers in “operator reinsurance policy” relevant to AerCap. The issue in the case lies in that AerCap requested the insurance documentation as to carry through with their claim they would require evidence. McGill was concerned with whether providing such information would be in contradiction to sections 28 and 29A of Russian Sanctions. The court had to determine whether disclosing the documentation would contravene these regulations. Justice Butcher ruled that providing the documents would not violate the sanctions, as the connection between brokering services and the original lessee was deemed too tenuous. Additionally, the court found that the "lessor" was not considered a person connected with Russia under regulation 29A, allowing AerCap to proceed with its claim. This decision has broader implications for the commercial insurance industry, particularly in contexts affected by geopolitical events like the Ukraine invasion.
The second case, set for trial in October, is Shepherd Construction v Kingspan and Others, a significant case in the field of construction law. This case will involve a £70 million claim by Shepherd Construction against 12 defendants, including the building materials company Kingspan. The core issue is the alleged non-compliance of four cladding systems in the Colindale building in London with building regulations. The trial, expected to last 11 weeks, is anticipated to set a landmark precedent regarding fire safety in the wake of the Grenfell Tower disaster. The leading counsel for Shepherd Construction is Sean Brannigan KC of 4 Pump Court, while Rachel Ansell KC, also of 4 Pump Court, represents Kingspan entities.
These two upcoming cases illustrate the diverse scope of commercial law, from insurance claims related to geopolitical events to construction disputes with implications for public safety. Commercial law serves as a critical framework for addressing complex issues in a rapidly changing world, demonstrating its relevance and impact on contemporary society.
This Month’s Article For The Legally Curious
Is AI The Future of The Legal Profession? Swasti Mehta
Judges have shown quite a bit of reluctance to allow the adoption of AI by lawyers in the courtroom. However, I wonder whether this actually deters lawyers, or is it more like ‘well, if I don’t mess it up, no one will know?’
Recently, Judge John Nalbandian - 6th Circuit Judge in the US - in an extrajudicial speech at the University of Nevada, opined that blanket bans on the use of generative AI by lawyers in court is not a pragmatic stance. He reflected upon the positive impact AI like ChatGPT might have on the profession labelling such restrictive rules “misplaced” and “problematic”.
Furthermore, he noted that AI is similar to any other technology; it has beneficial facets while also posing its own challenges. I, personally, am very sceptical of AI. However, apart from the fact that AI will ease the workload of lawyers, potentially reduce the fee charged from clients for legal services, it is also a technology which is inevitable. It is out; it is free; and everyone is using it. In such a circumstance, banning is not the solution, regulation is.
To this effect, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in November last year, became the first federal appeals court to propose an AI-related rule. The said rule requires lawyers to disclose the use of AI in generating filing and citations. Moreover, they are required to certify that they checked the legal analysis for accuracy. But, this view is not held popularly and many courts have banned and outrightly rejected the use of AI.
The adoption of AI has been so rapid that some of us, arguably, trust AI more than our own brains now! But one must be careful and wary of “AI hallucinations”. Recently, Michael Cohen, a former lawyer (he was disbarred), generated 3 non-existent cases and presented them in court through his lawyer. The Judge called this incident “grossly negligent” but did not sanction him. However, not all lawyers seem to get lucky. Two New York lawyers were sanctioned in June 2023 for submitting fake cases and a Colorado lawyer was temporarily suspended from practising in November.
It is tacit, that AI policy at this stage is varying from court-to-court and judge-to-judge. But till we receive a common AI-policy or the unified stance of courts on it, it is better to brush up your research skills, or if you are trusting AI with your work, at least verify the story it is very kindly cooking up specially for you.
Mini-Pupillage Applications:
Mini - Pupilage
London
Fourteen (Family)
mini-pupillage in July 2024, deadline: 31 May 2024.
mini-pupillage in September 2024, deadline: 31 July 2024.
mini-pupillage in November 2024, deadline: 30 September 2024
1 GC ( Family)
Applications received between 1st April – 30th June, will be considered for mini-pupillages taking place between October – December 2024.
Lincoln House Chambers (Civil law):
Application window: 6th May to 17th May 2024, period of mini-pupillage: 10th June to 28th June 2024
Henderson Chambers (Professional Injury & Clinical Negligence):
September – December 2024: MIDDAY 19 July 2024
4-5 Gray's Inn Square (Employment)
Application deadline: 10th May 2024 18:00.
Fountain Court Chambers (Civil Fraud, Employment, Professional Negligence):
25th of October deadline for mini-pupillages in the winter period December/January
Keating Chambers: Energy, Professional Negligence, International Arbitration.
Applications for a placement between November and January must be received by 1st September (Round 2). Therefore the next application deadline is 1 September 2024. Apply here.
7 King's Bench Walk: Banking and Finance, Commercial Litigation.
September mini-pupillage, application form deadline 30/08/24
1 Garden Court: Family
Deadline 30th of June.
Landmark Chambers: Planning, Property, Public and Administrative
application window: 1st August to 30th November, intake: February and March.
Garden Court Chambers - Public, Family and Crime.
September 2024 Mini Pupillage, 3rd June 2024 applications open, 9th August 2024 applications close 10am deadline.
Lincoln House Chambers: (Crime)
Tier 1 (third year law students):
Application window- 6th May to 17th May
Date of mini-pupilage- 10th June to 28th June
Tier 2 (just an interest in law):
No confirmed dates as of yet but check here for updates- https://www.lincolnhousechambers.com/about/recruitment/mini-pupillages
Landmark Chambers (public)
31st July deadline, 3rd years only
Francis Taylor Buildings (public)
31st of August deadline
Cornerstone Barristers (public)
31st of July deadline
3PB Barristers (public)
Applications considered monthly
42 Bedford Row: Family
Deadline 21st of June
29 Bedford Row: Family
Deadline 30th of June
Queen Elizabeth Buildings: Family (financial remedy, matrimonial finance, international work)
Deadline 30th of June
South-East
Cornwall Street Barristers ( rolling applications) civil, criminal, family and public
3PB Barristers (Winchester and Bournemouth): Crime
Applications considered on a monthly basis.
Application form can be found at https://www.3pb.co.uk/mini-pupillage/
Midlands
3 Paper Buildings: mixed set
Areas of Practice likely to be observed during mini-pupillage:
London - Personal Injury, Education, Construction, Family, Employment, Intellectual Property, Bankruptcy/insolvency, Property and Tax
Oxford - Family and Civil.
Winchester- Crime, Family, Personal Injury
Bournemouth - Crime, Family, Civil
Birmingham - Family, Employment and Civil
Bristol - Civil, Employment and Family
North-East
St Pauls Chambers (Criminal)
Autumn competition window - 1st September to 30th September
New Park Court (rolling deadline) Criminal
Park Square Chambers, Leeds & Middlesbrough: family
Deadline 30th of June.
9 Park Place Chambers, Leeds : Crime, Civil Family and more (mixed set)Application deadline 30th June
Mini-pupilage occurs in September
Application form can be found at https://www.9parkplace.co.uk/recruitment/
South-west
3PB Barristers (rolling deadline) Criminal
St John’s Chambers, Bristol ( rolling deadline) commercial, wills & trusts, public and administrative, family, crime, civil.
Queen’s Square Chambers, Bristol : Family
Deadline 28th of June
North-West
Exchange Chambers, Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds (rolling applications) civil, commercial, criminal and family.
15 Winckley Square: Family
June 7th deadline
Academic Articles and Links:
Criminal Law
New Park Court, Civil Briefing- The forfeiture rule and assisted suicide by Ashley Tucker https://www.newparkcourt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Civil-briefing-January-2024.pdf.
2 Bedford Row has insights in all areas of criminal law, top Legal 500 chambers
25 Bedford Row are criminal defence barristers who have released an engaging seminar series on updates at the criminal bar, international and regulatory crime. They also have some seminars scheduled for the future.
One Pump Court- The Trafficking Defence in Criminal Law: Nexus and Compulsion
Commercial Law
Have a look at many of Gatehouse Chambers’ insights such as their recent property webinar on the 7th of March and analysis of some of the recent cases they have represented in.
Fountain Court Chambers has also provided some recent insights into relevant commercial issues in law. Make sure to also listen to their podcast series!
One Essex Court have an insightful seminar and webinar series alongside publications on a wide range of contemporary commercial law topics
Publications: Insight - One Essex Court (oeclaw.co.uk)
Seminars: Insight - One Essex Court (oeclaw.co.uk)
Webinars: Insight - One Essex Court (oeclaw.co.uk)
Public Law
Garden Court Chambers have released some very useful social welfare updates relevant to public law, have a look at the updates in the case and their analysis of new case law.
Matrix Chambers have released some helpful analysis of their recent cases in the High Court on human rights and public law.
For those of you interested in environmental, planning and public law Francis Taylor Buildings have an ongoing Environmental Law Blog which includes updates on the most pressing issues in this area of law. To read their environmental blog you can sign up and subscribe for free!
Analysis of their recent high profile public law cases can be found below
Landmark Chambers’ website includes many interesting cases on planning, environment and human rights.
Civil Law
Now even robots might make you socially anxious! (Will the actions of these guys soon be considered under civil law?)
AI making musicians insecure…
Blackstone Chambers, has a wonderful sports law podcast worth listening to:
Family Law
“'It could have been me': judges apprehensive about security, family division president tells MPs”
Read about the recent concern regarding security in the Family courts as compared to in Criminal courts after last year's attack:
Upcoming Events:
Access to the Bar
Within this month’s ‘Access to the Bar’ section, I introduce you to Bright Network, a great all-rounded resource, to introduce those exploring their options or wanting to widen their experiences towards a career in Law. I then focus on opportunities for state school students. Having recently been made full-time CEO of The 93% Club, Sophie Pender is a fitting example of how to break boundaries in many sectors in which state school students are often underrepresented.
‘Graduate Careers for Bright Minds’
Bright Network connects ‘the next generation with the opportunities, insights and advice to succeed as the workforce of tomorrow’. By creating your own profile, Bright Network advertises internships, graduate jobs, industrial placement and career advice. It combines the data you provide, based on your interests, to offer targeted and personalised opportunities. Its deadline tracker is particularly impressive as this enables students to keep up-to-date with exciting opportunities. Whilst this is not directly related to a career at the Bar, it is a great starting point for students to widen their knowledge on what a career in Law entails. Bright Network’s notable clients include: Dyson, KPMG, Goldman Sachs, PwC, BrewDog, McKinsey & Company, American Express, Teach First, Deloitte, Clifford Chance and Slaughter and May.
Upcoming events:
‘Guilty or not guilty… you decide! Have you ever wanted to see how a murder trial plays out? Well, as part of the University of Law’s live virtual experience, audience members will witness a live mock murder trial from start to finish and be part of the voting jury - from the comfort of your own home! Join us as a team of actors and student barristers take on the challenge of proving guilt or innocence for the poisonous murder of Miss Felicity Elkington… at her own birthday party. The final decision is with you. Olivia Craven thinks she’s getting away: will you prove her wrong?’ - 6th June 2024
State2Bar
State2Bar was created to reduce the stark social mobility gap in the legal industry. They aim to increase accessibility to the bar for state-educated students through advocacy, collaborative working, financial support and community. This newly-founded legal charity is definitely one to follow! It’s Trustees include: Emily Martin (Senior Clerk at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers); Duncan McCombe (former Chair of the Young Bar of England and Wales) and Richard Fielder (Chief Compliance Officer at ICBC Standard Bank plc with over 22 years’ experience in the financial services sector)
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/state2bar/ Website: https://www.state2bar.org/
The 93% Club was founded by Sophie Pender (https://www.linkedin.com/in/sophiepender/ ) . In 2014, she became the first in her family to attend university. Having grown up on a council estate, she worked part-time alongside her studies. She first formed The 93% Club at the University of Bristol and it has since expanded into a vast social enterprise and membership network designed for state-educated students, undergraduates and professionals.
Members are able to find graduate jobs and internships in an exclusive ‘careers supermarket’
The 93% Club Durham features student representatives from each college.
They advertise exclusive events for Durham University Students and wider 93% Club opportunities.
Helen Grindrod Social Mobility Prize 2024
Applications open mid-May and CLOSE June
Lincoln’s Inn has launched a new outreach prize for second year undergraduate law students to improve access to the profession for those from low socio-economic backgrounds.
Applicants must have attended a state school or a private school with the help of a means tested scholarship and meet one or more criteria:
Ever been in receipt of free school meals
First in their family to attend university
Have parent(s)/guardian(s) who received income support or they themselves are in receipt of income or housing benefits
Spent time in care during their school years
Refugee status
Those who are or have been a young adult carer
Eligible for a maintenance loan from Student Finance of more than £6,700 per year
The 2023 prizes included:
A monetary award of £250
Prize Winners Summer School in July
Free membership of Lincoln’s Inn
A mentor
A mini-pupillage at a local or London Chambers, funded from the Inn’s Mini-Pupillage Grant Scheme
St John’s Chambers (Bristol) BarNone initiative: part of the mini-pupillage applications.
St John’s Chambers intends to allocate a minimum of 50% of mini-pupillages to applicants from BAME backgrounds and state schools, aiming to stimulate increased interest from these underrepresented cohorts. The overarching goal is to enhance both the diversity and calibre
of talent within the Bar.
The Inner Temple PASS 2024/25 is now OPEN
PASS is a leading programme designed to support aspiring barristers who are not due to start the Bar course until Autumn 2025 at the earliest. PASS
was established in 2012 by the Inner Temple and 62 partner chambers across a range of practice areas.
The scheme aims to support high achieving aspiring barristers from under-represented backgrounds.it provides a focused professional and advocacy skills development programme.
Please note the deadline is Monday 24th June 2024 at 23:55
To be eligible for PASS you must:
Have attended a state school for the majority of both your secondary and sixth form education (ages 11-18)
Be on course for (or have achieved) at least a 2:1 in your undergraduate degree
You must also meet at least one of the following criteria:
First generation of your family to access higher education
Recipient of free school meals at any point
In the care of the Local Authority at any point in your schooling. This is often referred to as being ‘care experienced’.
When you were aged 14, the main household earned worked in one of the following professions:- technical and craft occupations (eg. motor mechanic, plumber, printer, electrician, gardener, train driver)- routine, semi-routine manual and service occupations (e.g. postal worker, machine operative, security guard, caretaker, farm worker, catering assistant, sales assistant, HGV driver, cleaner, porter, packer, labourer, waiter or waitress, bar staff)OR- were long-term unemployed- you are in receipt of income or housing benefits (eg. job seeker's allowance, PIP. Student finance is not included in this)
Please read the summary for applicants before applying.
Successful participants will develop professional and advocacy skills beneficial to pursuing a career at the Bar, access a mini-pupillage in chambers without financial obstacles and increased understanding of the routes to the Bar, including an awareness of how to access funding and support.
Opmerkingen