Our 2021 Essex Law Research Blog Awards

Photo by Danny Howe

The results for the Essex Law Research Blog Awards are in and the Law School’s Research Visibility Team are delighted to announce the winners for the 2020-21 academic year.

The winners are those whose blog pieces attracted the highest number of views in the 12 months leading up to the Law School’s Research Away Week, which took place in the week commencing 12th July 2021.

Our contributors distinguished themselves in the following three categories.

Congratulations to all!

Throughout the next academic year, the Essex Law Research Blog will continue celebrating the efforts and energy our colleagues in the School of Law put into sharing world-class legal research!

We are taking a short summer break

Photo by Simon Berger

As of Monday, 2nd August 2021, the Essex Law Research Blog will be on a short hiatus.

We will be publishing intermittently over the next month but the full normal service will not resume until September, when we will return to share more research ideas and news from our School.

The Law Research Visibility Team sends all our readers our best wishes for a refreshing summer!

European Commission’s Proposals to Revise Labelling Rules for Alcoholic Beverages

Image courtesy pxfuel

Dr Nikhil Gokani, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex, writes on the European Commission’s Roadmap on the ‘Proposal for a revision of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, for what concerns labelling rules on alcoholic beverages’.

This post is based on the response written by Dr Nikhil Gokani (Vice President, EUPHA-LAW) and Professor Amandine Garde (President, EUPHA-LAW; Law & NCD Unit, University of Liverpool) on behalf of the European Public Health Association.

In 2011, the European Union adopted Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. Article 9 of this Regulation requires food products to be labelled with a nutrition declaration and an ingredients list. However, Article 16 of this Regulation specifically excludes alcoholic beverages from these requirements.

In 2017, the European Commission published its Report regarding the mandatory labelling of the list of ingredients and the nutrition declaration of alcoholic beverages which concluded, as public health and consumer protection organisations had been stating for many years, that no objective grounds justify the absence of information to consumers on ingredients and nutrition information on alcoholic beverages.

On 24th June 2021, the Commission released a Roadmap and Initial Impact Assessment on proposals to remedy the illogical and harmful labelling exemptions for alcohol. The Initial Impact Assessment identified three options. Option 0 would maintain the status quo. Option 1 would require mandatory nutrition and ingredient information for alcoholic beverages to be given off-label (for instance, on websites or on apps). Option 2 would require mandatory nutrition and ingredient labelling to be given directly on the label. Only option 2 should move forward for the following reasons.

Alcohol consumption is a significant public health concern

Alcohol consumption is associated not only with non-communicable diseases but also injuries and infectious disease. There is a direct relationship between higher levels of alcohol consumption and developing some cancers, liver diseases and cardiovascular diseases; and the level and pattern of drinking has a relationship with ischaemic heart and cerebrovascular diseases. Alcohol is a psychoactive substance which has dependence-producing properties, and the excessive consumption of alcohol ranks among the top risk factors for disease, disability and mortality. It is a causal factor in more than 200 disease and injury conditions.

Current ingredient and nutrition labelling on alcohol does not inform consumers

Alcohol commonly contains a variety of ingredients, such as wheat, barley, corn, rye, grapes, hops, histamine, sulphites and brewer’s yeast. One gram of alcohol contains seven calories, and together with sugar, heavy intake can significantly contribute to overweight and obesity.

There is increasing evidence that there is a deficit in consumer knowledge and understanding of the nutritional content and ingredients of alcoholic beverages as well as the consequences of alcohol consumption. Across the EU, consumers are interested in alcohol labelling.

In its 2006 Alcohol Strategy, the EU specifically aimed to ‘provide information to consumers so that they can make informed choices’ and to inform consumers about ‘the impact of harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption on health’. This is in line with the long held view the EU that well-informed consumers are empowered to make healthy purchasing and consumption decisions. As the Commission has plainly acknowledged in its Report regarding the mandatory labelling of the list of ingredients and the nutrition declaration of alcoholic beverages in 2017, there are no objective reasons for the exemptions.

Ingredient and nutrition labelling would promote high level of consumer and public health protection and promote the functioning of the internal market

It is extremely concerning indeed that alcoholic beverages containing more than 1.2% by volume of alcohol are exempt from the requirement of displaying a nutrition declaration and ingredients list. Once again, nothing justifies such an exemption on such harmful commodities.

Even when a nutrition declaration is provided on a voluntary basis, it can be limited to an energy-only declaration. This is insufficient. Effectively implemented nutrition and ingredients labelling would inform consumers about the content of alcoholic beverages and contribute to empowering consumers to make healthier alcohol purchasing and consumption decisions. This is particularly important bearing in mind the evidence referred to above regarding, firstly, the deficit of consumer information on alcoholic beverages and the appetite for such information, and secondly, the relationship between alcohol consumption and a wide range of diseases.

Moreover, several Members State have proposed or introduced measures acting on the derogation for ingredients labelling in Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, as well as measures on nutrition labelling. Bearing in mind that alcoholic beverages are traded extensively within the internal market, there is a compelling rationale for the adoption of an EU-wide harmonised approach to the regulation of nutrition and ingredients labelling of alcoholic beverages to reduce market fragmentation.

On-label information is far more useful to consumers

It is well-established that, to be able to effectively inform consumers, information should be easily available, salient and well-perceived by consumers. On-label information is more readily accessible for consumers, particularly within in-store environments. Bearing in mind that consumers do not always search for nutrition and ingredient labelling, on-label information is more likely to be seen and read, which is particularly true for members of lower socioeconomic groups. This has been reflected in EU food law since the EU began regulating food information in the late 1970s. There is no reason to treat alcoholic beverages more leniently than other foods.

Option 2 of the Initial Impact Assessment is the only evidence-based option to meet the EU’s objectives of promoting a high level of consumer protection and public health.

The EU should also introduce other effective labelling, including front-of-pack labelling, to help empower consumers

The envisaged measures of back-of-pack nutrition labelling and ingredients labelling are just two forms of labelling to help inform consumers. To empower consumers to make healthier decisions, the EU should also develop proposals for mandatory front-of-pack labelling, mandatory serving size recommendations and per portion nutrition information, guidance on moderate levels of drinking and warnings on the health effects of consuming alcohol.[13] The Commission’s intention in the EU’s Beating Cancer Plan to make proposals on health warnings on alcohol labels by the end 2023 are supported. Not only does the WHO European Action Plan to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol 2012–2020 call for ‘labelling similar to that used for foodstuffs, including alcohol and calorie content’ but also health warning. Moreover, empowerment by information can only be successful if voluntary forms of information and marketing are also regulated.

Over the years, the EU’s response to alcohol related harms has been substandard and it is high time that it rectified this failure through the adoption of evidence-based measures intended to limit the appeal, the acceptability and the affordability of alcoholic beverages. It is only then that it can claim that it has indeed complied with the obligation it derives from the EU Treaties and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms to ensure a high level of public health protection in the development and implementation of all its policies, including its internal market and consumer protection policies.

Incendiary Speech Acts, Lawfare and Other Rhetorical Battles Against the Rule of Law

Photo by Chris Brignola

Dr Carla Ferstman, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Essex


The rule of law is embedded in UK law since the Magna Carta. Its importance to the proper functioning of democracies has been affirmed by the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission and the United Nations, among others. As Lord Bingham wrote, at the core of the rule of law is the notion ‘that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly administered in the courts’. Respect for the rule of law means that even the rights and interests of those who are derided in society are safeguarded in the same way as anyone else. In a society governed by the rule of law, both the government and members of society must accept that from time to time, the outcomes of judicial proceedings may not be to their liking or accord with where they consider justice lies.

Respect for the rule of law has been recognised and affirmed as a defining principle of UK democracy. But at the same time, there is a sense amongst some in government that the rule of law is being used as an arsenal against the Government. The Lord Chancellor has recently stated, ‘I believe it is incumbent upon me to ensure that the rule of law itself cannot be misused to in effect weaponise the courts [what some would term ‘lawfare’], against political decision making.’

But hasn’t the Government’s anti-‘weaponization’ gone too far? What is happening is simply an attempt to limit the power of law over the executive and to shut down those lawyers who represent clients whose claims are perceived to counter government policies. There is no ‘lawfare’ plot being prepared by over-zealous lawyers; to the contrary, what we are seeing is government reticence about the placement of law and lawyers in an effective democracy: it is a problem about respect for the rule of law.

The legislative attack

There is an increasing amount of law – some proposed, some already adopted – which seeks to restrict access to justice, constrain the powers of the courts to decide or award remedies, and/or introduces new arbitrary powers. This has been done by concentrating power in the hands of the executive and simultaneously blocking or severely limiting the role of the judicial and legislative branches of government which traditionally afford key safeguards for the rule of law.

To name a few recent examples, efforts have been made to limit parliamentary scrutiny (in the case of the adoption of the Coronavirus Act 2020) or to avoid parliamentary scrutiny altogether (the attempt to prorogue parliament to fast track the withdrawal from the EU). The government has also sought to reduce access to courts. Significant restrictions on access to legal aid already came into force in 2013, and in this same direction are the efforts to restrict judicial review and to amend or repeal the Human Rights Act ‘to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government’, and to place certain powers and decisions beyond the reach of judicial review. So far, the Independent Review of Administrative Law did not find any real need for reform of judicial review. Whilst the review of the Human Rights act was still pending at the time of writing, the Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights conducted its own review, ultimately concluding that there was no basis to reform the Act.

Planned restrictions are gaining force. The Environment Bill, now in its final stages of review, curbs the power of the courts to afford tangible remedies for breaches of environmental law.  There are more planned restrictions for immigration and refugee law. In its March 2021 policy statement: ‘New Plan for Immigration’, the Government sets out its plan to prevent immigrants and refugees from challenging deportation orders via judicial review. The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act puts a time limit on civil and human rights claims that can be brought against the military for alleged abuses committed overseas. The government also sought to curtail prosecutions for overseas military abuses including those amounting to crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, though most of these measures did not survive parliamentary scrutiny. These curtailments are now resurfacing for Northern Ireland: on 14 July, the Government justified its plan for amnesties related to ‘the Troubles’ by saying: ‘We believe this approach is also important to provide certainty for the vast majority of former soldiers and police officers who put their lives on the line to uphold democracy and the rule of law while acting within the law themselves, and who now just want to live out their retirement without the fear of unfair investigations.’ The government’s characterisation of Troubles investigations as “unfair”, feeds into its unhelpful and incorrect narrative that law is the problem.

Pushbacks against the rule of law, a strong judiciary and an able barare often couched in terms of the improper use of the courts for political objectives. But when one pares back the veneer of the justifications, it is about the majority not wanting to be challenged on its actions and policies; the tyranny of the majority suits the majority just fine.

The attack on the legal profession

The ‘legislative attack’ has been matched with attacks on the legal profession – both against judges and lawyers, and to an extent, their clients. Over the past decade, the Government has used incendiary language with increasing frequency against lawyers and others who have sought to advocate publicly and before the courts against a string of government practices and policies. Incendiary language is never appropriate; it fosters divisiveness, it discourages respect for a plurality of views, can damage reputations and can also put people’s lives at risk.

The Government was criticised for her lacklustre defence of the High Court judges – termed by the Daily Mail as “enemies of the people”, with Lord Thomas subsequently revealing: ‘It is the only time in my career I have had to ask police to give us a measure of advice and protection in relation to the emotions that were being stirred up. … I think that it’s very wrong that judges should feel it.’ Following Priti Patel’s reference to asylum lawyers as ‘activist lawyers’ frustrating the removal of migrants, a man with a knife threatened to kill an immigration solicitor, launching a ‘violent, racist attack’. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has asserted his party’s intent to stop ‘the whole criminal justice system from being hamstrung by what the home secretary would doubtless – and rightly – call the lefty human rights lawyers, and other do-gooders.’

Solicitor and senior partner at law firm Leigh Day, Martyn Day, was called by Jonny Mercer MP, during a Parliamentary hearing, ‘dishonest’ with the work of his firm bringing claims against the Ministry of Defence characterised as ‘entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility’. These statements were made despite Leigh Day having been cleared of any wrongdoing by the Solicitors Regulatory Tribunal.  

The government has referred to claims against the military as “vexatious”, “spurious”, “unpatriotic” and “wholly without merit”. UK law provides a clear meaning for vexatious claims which are those brought without any foundation whatsoever. The Government appears to adopt this language as political rhetoric to admonish those bringing the litigation. Not only is it self-serving, in that the civil claims were brought against the Government, but there is little to suggest that the claims were vexatious in actual fact. To the contrary, it has been made clear that many of the claims regarding military abuses were credible and convincing. As the International Criminal Court prosecutor recently stated:

[…] there is considerable reason to treat with caution the suggestion that the allegations which have been the subject of criminal or civil proceedings in the UK resulted from vexatious claims, or to characterise one of the main solicitor firms involved, Public Interest Lawyers (‘PIL’), and its former principal Phil Shiner, as vexatious litigants. Indeed, your letter provides a more accurate reflection of the situation when you observe that, “we have settled many of the civil claims made by Iraqi nationals against the MOD and we fully engaged with the courts to deal with those cases”.

Fatou Bensouda, ICC Prosecutor

The government is protected in making public statements, which is justified because of the general interest of the public to be kept informed about current debates. The broad privileges given to members of the executive usually insulate them from legal repercussions for statements made on the job. But privileges aren’t absolute; nor should they be used as a license to mislead or to stoke divisive narratives. This point is made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights: ‘It is wrong for public office holders such as Ministers to refer generally to lawyers as “ambulance-chasing lawyers” (or other politically charged and inaccurate terms) when they represent members of the Armed Forces, veterans and civilians in their claims against the MoD—many of which claims have been very well founded claims against the MoD. The calculated and repeated use of such derogatory language by Ministers towards legal professionals is unbecoming and undermines democracy and the rule of law.’

At worst, particularly when the statements relate to ongoing proceedings, (as was the case with some statements about alleged army abuses) they fall foul of the sub judice rule, which prevents officials from commenting on ongoing proceedings. This rule recognises that comment on the (lack of) merits of a case in a public forum without due process of law, may affect the fairness of the proceedings, or the perception of fairness. Conduct, including speech acts, that is calculated to prejudice the proceedings undermines public confidence in the rule of law and will constitute contempt of court. The sub judice rule is well-recognised and well-practiced; frequently, the government has refrained from commenting on ongoing cases.  


One should not underestimate the long-term impact of attacks on the rule of law. The rule of law is there to protect everyone. It is a short-sighted strategy to weaken law and legal structures for quick political gains. Next time around the stakes may be different, with new issues to confront, with different actors promoting new agendas. But all a weakened rule of law will do is make it more difficult to navigate the many complex problems all governments continue to be confronted with.

School of Law and Human Rights Centre Host Workshop on Critical Perspectives on Global Law and the Environment

Photo by Mike Erskine

On 22-23 April 2021, the School of Law and Human Rights Centre (HRC) held a workshop bringing together scholars at an early stage in their careers to support the development of research on critical perspectives on global law and the environment.

The workshop was organised by Emily Jones, Eliana Cusato, Judith Bueno De Mesquita and Birsha Ohdedar (all Lecturers in the School of Law and Human Rights Centre).

The workshop aimed to foster and develop the emerging area of critical scholarship on law and the environment, specifically among early-career researchers. In confronting global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, freshwater scarcity and other symptoms of planetary breakdown, it has been noted that traditional approaches of environmental law have only managed to save “some trees” but failed to keep “the forest” (Bosselmann, 2010). The current environmental crises intertwine with poverty, inequality, and gendered and racial hierarchies that stem from colonial origins and replicate in the postcolonial and neoliberal worlds. Therefore, the challenge laid down for critical scholarship is to interrogate (and re-imagine) the role of law in the unending drive for economic expansion, unbridled exploitation of people and nature, rather than merely attempt to mitigate its excesses (Gonzalez, 2015).

Workshop partipants during the second day of the work-shop

In recent years, an emerging body of work broadly re-examines environmental law from a critical lens. These include perspectives that account for: Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and Global South-North relations; critical interrogations of human rights and the environment; innovative research methods; new materialism; and climate and environmental justice. This workshop builds on these critical perspectives with the aim of fostering a new generation of scholars.

The workshop had 18 early-career scholars participating, with a cross-section of representation from early-stage PhD researchers to those up to 5 years into their post-PhD academic careers. The virtual workshop meant participants were based across the globe, including from Europe, Canada, Turkey, Brazil, Australia, Barbados, and India, with representation across genders.

Each participant in the workshop produced a paper in advance of the day. The workshop adopted an innovative format by pairing up participants to present on each other’s paper rather than their own. The format resulted in greater engagement, feedback and the development of presenting work that is not their own, concisely and clearly. Each paper was closely discussed with other participants and invited senior discussants, providing an opportunity to gain a range of feedback on their work.

In between the two days of discussion, Prof. Carmen Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Loyola University of Chicago, delivered a keynote address on the topic of racial capitalism and global environmental law.

Keynote speaker Professor Carmen Gonzalez and the organisers of the workshop

A symposium edition of the Asian Journal on International Law is planned for 2022, as a workshop output, which will showcase some of the presented papers.

The workshop complements the work at the School of Law and HRC in this area, including through a research cluster on Human Rights and Environment and recent symposiums on human rights and climate change, albeit bringing a more focussed critical perspective.

Community and Connectedness in Clinical Legal Education: Before, During and After the Covid-19 Pandemic

Photo by Unsplash

Lee Hansen and Liz Fisher-Frank, Lecturers in Law, University of Essex

As the pandemic transformed the way that we connect with others, we have been reflecting on the impact for clinical legal education and the place of community in law clinic activities.

In June 2021, we spoke to the joint conference of the International Journal of Clinical Legal Education and the Global Alliance for Justice Education. We reflected upon the Essex Law Clinic’s sense of community and interconnectedness before, during and after the pandemic. In this blog post, we highlight some of the main points covered in our presentation.

In recent years, the Essex Law Clinic (ELC) had been making significant strides in extending its service into our local community, undertaking a broad range of outreach activities alongside its campus-based clinic. This had improved access to justice for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups across Essex.

Some of this work had already been explored in a presentation we gave to the 2019 conference of the International Journal for Clinical Legal Education in Bratislava on Outreach Clinics in Areas of Deprivation. In that talk we had highlighted the challenges and impacts on community, student learning and wellbeing entailed by this work. Furthermore, we assessed ways to develop our existing outreach work in Jaywick, Colchester and across the Tendring area.

This work was halted upon the arrival of the pandemic. We speedily managed to take our advice service online ensuring many clients were able to benefit from the practical and improved accessibility for some that online advice allowed. However, for groups served in the outreach clinics the move to online delivery may have created barriers to access.

Our presentation drew upon Charles Dicken’s novel, A Christmas Carol, which itself engages with themes of community and isolation. Our reflective process was mapped against the sense of revelation in the novel, where the ghosts of Christmases past, present and future provide Ebenezer Scrooge a window into the strengths and challenges for community around him.   

Reflecting on our pre-pandemic clinic

We looked at where we were two years ago in developing, as we saw it at that time, our community outreach work. Internally, we were focusing on student community, recognising that developing and cementing our law clinic student community was a work-in-progress, needing thought and planning particularly around student teamwork.

Reflecting on our pandemic impacted clinic present

Externally, we recognised the links we have lost in the local community as services were suspended or even shut down due to Covid-19, with many contacts moving on or facing redundancy. Equally, we acknowledged the frustration of not being able to reach the clients we most wanted to due to the barriers faced in accessing the Virtual Law Clinic.

This negative was balanced with an unexpected positive when looking at our internal sense of community. Lockdown, and the enforced isolation experienced by so many students, galvanised us into action. We pushed forward with initiatives to promote our clinic community, to help students engage with the clinic and with each other. We created a newsletter, Clinic Connect. We hosted regular zoom ‘drop-in’s’ for students to chat with us about law, the Clinic and/or anything else. Although, undoubtedly, there was far more that could have been done, the pandemic propelled us into a sharper focus upon student connectivity and engagement with the Clinic.

Reflecting on our potential clinic futures

We are working towards re-establishing our links with external contacts, to ensure our outreach work can resume as soon as it is possible to do so. We are looking at developing new contacts, to change our service in line with the changes other services have had to make during this period of, what we hope to be, ‘recovery.’ It is even more important to us now to rebuild our outreach work and to again, make it a key facet of the Clinic.

We will continue to work on the progress made to date in relation to our student connectivity. Zoom has enabled more effective teamwork to take place, allowing students easy access to meeting up to prepare for cases in advance. We will ensure that when face-to-face returns, this progress too will be replicated. In fact, the dawning of our understanding, due to the pandemic, of the importance of our connectivity both in and outside of the clinic has meant we would like to see this as central concept in all our work in the clinic.

Reflection on the Law Clinic’s relationship with the local community and the development of an internal community of practice in the past, present and our possible futures, in the context of this pandemic, has provided a useful tool for our planning and we can see the transformative potential for the future.

University of Essex 2021 Research and Impact awards

Photo by Jungwoo Hong

As the academic year comes to an end, we want to take a moment to recognise the incredible work and successes of our researchers in the School of Law at the University of Essex.

Colleagues continue making important contributions to the University’s research mission through exceptional performance and we have plenty to celebrate this year.

Staff from across the University were recognised at the 2021 annual Excellence in Research and Impact Awards, which took place on 29 June 2021. The awards showcase some of the best examples of how our University’s research positively influences people’s everyday lives.

The School of Law was strongly represented with three winners and a runner-up, demonstrating the School’s breadth of work and commitment to world-class, transformational research.

School of Law prizes

Dr Haim Abraham won the award for Best Research Impact by an Early Career Researcher for his project Access to Surrogacy in Israel which addressed discrimination in Israel’s surrogacy law. Dr Abraham commented:

‘The nomination and award are a great honour and a privilege. The support of my colleagues in the School of Law and the University for a project aimed at advancing LGBTQ+ rights demonstrates our deep commitment to equality and diversity, and our drive to bring about positive change in the world.’

Judith Bueno de Mesquita received a joint award for Best International Research Impact for her project titled Realising the right to health. Her research examined the expectations (or norms) in relation to the right to health, in the context of specific health issues, with a focus on sexual and reproductive health and rights. The award was shared with Professor Thankom Arun from the Essex Business School. Judith stated:

‘The Human Rights Centre and School of Law are famous for their commitment to and history of engagement in human rights practice, through research-informed partnerships with governments, international organisations and activists. My research is shaped by this tradition and commitment to improve human rights on the ground. I dedicate this award to my outstanding research partners at the national human rights institutions in Azerbaijan and Kosovo and at the UN Population Fund, whose knowledge and commitment was incredible and made change possible.’

Dr Emily Jones was a runner up for the Outstanding Early Career Researcher award for the Faculty of Humanities. Dr Jones’ work spans the areas of feminist approaches to international law, international environmental law, science and technology and international law, gender and conflict and the regulation of contemporary and emerging military technologies. Dr Jones, who was recently elected to Senate (the supreme academic authority of the University) said:

‘The award is a recognition of my contribution to the research environment at Essex, including my work in fostering interdisciplinary links across Departments and Faculties at Essex’.

Dr Alexandros Antoniou won The Conversation Award for the Faculty of Humanities for his article titled The Johnny Depp libel trial explained. His piece looked at the Hollywood actor’s defamation claim against The Sun over the publication of an article characterising him as ‘wife beater’. The Conversation awards go to the writers of the best-read articles over the last 12 months. More than 102,265 readers accessed Dr Antoniou’s article which was published on 3 November 2020.

Congratulations to all! Onwards and upwards!

Success at the SLS ‘Make the News’ Competition

On 30 June 2021, the Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) announced that Dr. Eden Sarid, Lecturer in Law at the University of Essex, was one of the winners in its Make the News competition for his project Freeing Our Cultural Treasures from a Copyright Limbo.

The SLS’ competition presents early career researchers with a unique experience to learn more about getting your research noticed by a wider audience. A meeting will now be scheduled for all four of the winners to make their pitches to the judging panel of Catherine Baksi (The Times and The Guardian), Joshua Rozenberg QC (BBC, Law Society Gazette) and Thom Brooks, the SLS President.

In a statement to our Research Blog, Dr. Sarid explained that his project:

‘aims to propose a novel solution to a major copyright challenge, of orphan works. Orphan works are items – such as photos, music, or books – which are subject to copyright, but whose copyright owners cannot be located and therefore permission to use the works cannot be granted. Currently in the UK, a limited licensing scheme results in millions of orphan works remaining unavailable to the public. Based on a theoretical examination of copyright justifications, the project advances a framework that will allow public access to these works.’

Look out for Dr. Sarid making the news in coming weeks and months!