The research combined a doctrinal analysis of the relevant law, policy, and secondary sources with interviews with a range of stakeholders including adult survivors of modern slavery who had been in prison in the UK, NGOs, prison administration and staff in all three devolved jurisdictions, solicitors, police officers, and other experts. A survey was also conducted with Modern Slavery Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) recently appointed in all prisons in England and Wales.
Dr Jovanovic and the IOM UK hosted a high-profile launch event on 28 November 2023 with more than 110 people in attendance, both online and in person. The speakers were the Chief of Mission of the IOM in the UK, the Executive Secretary of the Council of Europe’s expert group on human trafficking (GRETA), the Policy Lead on Modern Slavery at His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), the Director of Policy Impact at Modern Slavery PEC, and Head of Policy and Public Affairs at Hibiscus Initiatives.
From left to right: Ann Snowden (HMPPS), Petya Nestorova (GRETA), Christa Rottensteiner (IOM UK), Marija Jovanovic (University of Essex), Olivia Hesketh (Modern Slavery PEC).From left to right: Ann Snowden (HMPPS), Petya Nestorova (GRETA), Patrick Burland (IOM UK)
The report reveals the reality of how countries treat modern slavery survivors, which is more complicated than commonly thought. Dr Jovanovic pointed out that contrary to the clear and express international obligations of states to identify and protect the survivors of modern slavery and prosecute and punish the perpetrators, “it is not out of the question that there might be more survivors than perpetrators in UK prisons”. Instead of being protected, many survivors are sent to prisons sometimes for the crimes they were forced to commit by their traffickers. Jakub Sobik from the Modern Slavery PEC said: “Prisons represent a missing piece in the UK’s response to modern slavery – this groundbreaking research is the first one to fill this gap, even though there’s clearly more to uncover.”
Audience at the launch event
The research identified key challenges in the UK’s complying with its international obligations to identify and protect every survivor of modern slavery, including those in prisons. They include: the lack of systematic information-sharing between prisons and the designated Home Office Competent Authorities in charge of victim identification; insufficient training of prison staff about the issue of modern slavery; prison staff not being authorised to refer potential victims to the National Referral Mechanism designed to facilitate victim identification and support; and barriers to disclosure in prison.
The report also includes proposals for a number of legal, policy, and practical measures required to bring current practices in line with requirements arising out of international and domestic law.
Audience at the launch event
For more details of the research and report, you can find the press release here and the full report here.
Professor Maurice Sunkin discussed the new relationship between the Crown and the Government
The eagerly awaited concluding part of the series The Crown is set to arrive on 14 December 2023. Professor Maurice Sunkin recently engaged in an interview with Italy’s esteemed public national broadcaster RAI, delving into the intricacies raised by this acclaimed historical drama.
The show, a fictional portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II’s journey intertwined with the pivotal political events of her reign, prompted probing questions regarding public law. During the interview, Professor Sunkin provided insightful perspectives on topics such as the Crown’s impartiality and legitimacy. A noteworthy excerpt from his interview is highlighted below:
What will the reign of King Charles III be like?
His mother was very widely respected and admired and even loved by many. In part because she presented the image of a kindly grandmother. In part, because she had served the country for so long. In part, because people recognised the troubles that she must have confronted. And in part, possibly in large, part because she generally kept herself aloof and apart. She had a deep respect for the sanctity of the institution that she represented. For the most part she kept the Crown away from the trials and tribulations of daily life and politics. This has always been very important.
Charles III is a rather different person – his personal life has been much more public. He is known to have views on matters of public discussion, and has been willing to have his views expressed. In these senses he is much more likely to make the Crown a more engaged institution. But this carries risks. The Crown’s standing depends largely on its symbolic and institutional status as above and beyond politics and normal life. There are real risks that this status could be challenged if the King becomes more active and open to personal criticism.
So there’s a very fine balance – between modernising the Crown and shaking off the dust of previous periods while retaining the symbolic status of the Crown as an institution above and beyond day to day life and politics. We’ll have to see how well that balance is achieved.
How can he maintain his commitment to the environment while preserving impartiality as head of State?
This is one of the challenges that he and his advisers are no doubt thinking about very carefully. One the one hand he will not want to get too closely involved in political disputation or in direct campaigning. On the other he will be concerned to ensure that the Crown is seen to be aware of, and concerned, about the need for environmental protection. If he does too much he will damage the Crown by dividing opinion. If he does too little he will damage the Crown by presenting it as unaware, uncaring and out of touch.
The key will be in his and his family’s own actions. How he is seen to be managing his estates. How he is seen to be conducting his own affairs. Careful attention to matters such as travel. Sensitive organisation of the Crown’s affairs. Supporting environmentally friendly charitable activities
Considering the majority of the population declares themselves as non-Christian (Census 2021), what legitimises the role of bishops in the House of Lords and a King as both head of Anglican Church and State?
This is an important and big question. The King is the head of the Church of England. The Bishops are in the House of Lords because of the standing of the Church of England. Some will see these as out dated relics that no longer fit with a modern liberal pluralist democratic society. In these respects they represent the archaic character of the Crown itself – but they add an increasingly challenging dimension as the UK becomes more diverse and less religious.
When the King is crowned it will be a heavily religious ceremony rooted in Christian Anglicanism. It will be interesting to see if there is anything in the ceremony to reflect a non Anglican view of the world. Either way it will be interesting to see how people react. There can be little doubt that Charles III is alive to these issues and will do everything he can to strengthen links with non-Anglicans.
Could the reform of the House of Lords, a Labour proposal, change the institutional structure of the State?
Like the Crown, the House of Lords is a feature of the UK’s constitutional system that is not obviously democratic. But reform has been on the agenda for years and little has been achieved. Whether reform will alter the structure of the state depends of course on the nature of the reform. In my view a second chamber is valuable not least because it diffuses the power of the executive in the HC. But it’s clearly no longer appropriate to have a second chamber with no political legitimacy. So, a way needs to be found to provide political legitimacy without simply duplicating the power relationships in the HC. If this can be done it will significantly strengthen the work of Parliament.
Is it time for the UK to have a written Constitution?
This is a good exam question for first year law students. The UK constitution is a complete mystery to most people –even to those of us who haves studied or work with it for years. Every time public issues arise – such as around the power of the executive in relation to Brexit or its ability to prorogue Parliament – or about the powers of the executive to send troops abroad – we realise how little we understand about some of the basics of our constitution.
So, one of the key benefits of attempting to write down our constitution down is educational we would learn more about it. Key issues – such as around matters that we’ve been talking about – would be more widely discussed including in schools.
Setting things in written would also add clarity. If the key institutions and their powers and responsibilities were set out in a single clear document this would have tremendous value and add clarity and help most of us understand the system – it would in sense be a great boost to our democratic culture and to the rule of law.
That’s not to say that everything could be written down. We shouldn’t assume that setting out the basics would resolve all the problems or tensions. The system would still have to operate and practice and culture would still evolve. But we would have a clearer written starting point would be a great help. I’m a great enthusiast for trying to present the nature of our system as clearly as possible and at the moment too much power is in the hands of those on the inside who have the ability to determine what the constitution requires.
Human Rights is a good example. The Human Rights Act 1998 which incorporated the Convention Rights made these rights much clearer and accessible. Now there are threats to repeal the Act and replace it with more amorphous principles. Such a reform will not add clarity but will make the system less clear and possibly open the UK to greater scrutiny from the ECtHR.
Assisted death remains a complex and polarising issue. On one hand, proponents highlight the need to preserve dignity in dying calling for a more compassionate response to the law. Opponents object, emphasising concerns about diminishing the sanctity of human life, the risks of introducing a slippery slope, and highlighting negative impacts on the doctor-patient relationship. The debate around assisted death is staggering which begs the question: what more could be said of the problem of assisted death that has not been said 100 times over?
For Dr Rees Johnson, there is an important underlying context that is essential to future reform attempts. Dr. Johnson is a Lecturer at the Essex Law School. His research interests include end-of-life matters and the racial/cultural contexts of end-of-life care. He teaches Medical Law and Property Law. Rees recently concluded his PhD: Situating Medical Power within the Modern (Legal) History of Assisted Death: 1936 – Present.
The Research Visibility Team interviewed Dr. Rees Johnson to find out more about his thesis and research.
In layman’s terms, what is the problem your research aims to fix and how would you describe your contribution to your subject area?
My PhD was borne out of frustration. The frustration I had was with the state of the academic debate and how I felt the way the problem of assisted death was being debated. After conducting an extensive literature review, I felt that the conventional framing of assisted death as a legal and/or ethical problem created a cyclical effect. Ethical and legal discourses have been deployed to advocate reform; and yet the same ethical and legal discourses have been inverted to argue the opposite. Rinse and repeat for nearly 100 years.
Considering this circular argumentation, how could the law progress when it is hindered by uncertainty and indeterminacy? What is the function of this uncertainty and indeterminacy? Who stands to benefit from this uncertainty and indeterminacy? What strategies have been deployed to preserve this uncertainty and indeterminacy? These were some of the questions I felt needed answering.
By adopting a critical historical analysis inspired by Michel Foucault, I examined the legal history of assisted death to determine whether something else was going on beneath the conventional framing.
I came to realise that the legal developments of assisted death have been constrained by an underlying tension: the tension between preserving medical power and authority on the one hand; and subverting it on the other.
My PhD therefore mapped out the ways this tension has played out. Using a historical frame, it charted the interest-driven strategies, interpretive struggles, and discursive practices of institutional actors (judges, lawyers, academics, medical professionals etc.) as well as the impact of these on the legal development of assisted death.
If your thesis was a front-page story in a newspaper, what would be the headline?
Facing the Challenge of Medical Power: A Call for Assisted Dying Law Reform
What inspired you to delve into the intersection of law, ethics, and power dynamics within the context of assisted death?
My background is in environmental law, having done Law with Environmental Science LLB at Northumbria University in 2014 and an LLM in Sustainable Development and Environmental Regulation at Newcastle University in 2016. I wrote my LLM dissertation on the legal rights of nature and the need for a pragmatic middle-ground.
During the LLM, I was introduced to the work of Michel Foucault when I studied ‘Critical Geopolitics’ in the Politics Department at Newcastle University, following a three-month trip to Israel in 2015. This introduction changed my worldview about pretty much everything – especially the law, and the way law supports and fosters power relations to the detriment of those at the margins.
After the LLM, I received a £30,000 funding package from Newcastle University to develop a SmartBot that could write a will for the purpose of estate planning. It was here that I became interested in death and dying. This seems like an unusual trajectory, but the PhD is simply a meeting of these two worlds.
Your thesis employs a critical historiographical method inspired by Michel Foucault. What key insights does this approach offer that traditional legal and ethical frameworks might overlook?
I think adopting a method of legal analysis that moves away from concentrating on formal modes or structures of power and authority is important. Foucault teaches us to consider the underlying, subtle ways in which power is exercised that are not immediately obvious, such as through discursive practices like medicalisation and expertise. In parliamentary debates or case law on assisted dying, it is difficult to unsee how politicians and judges help to legitimise and uphold these techniques.
The methodological approach was also helpful in that it allowed for the explication of power relations inherent in the development of legal knowledge and how this unfolds over time. Legal knowledge is not neutral but historically contingent and situationally negotiated through a constellation of power relations. This helps us to adopt a more critical approach to the development of legal knowledge and legal ideas.
Your thesis suggests the need to draw a line as a matter of policy to avoid conferring too much power and authority to the medical profession in the context of assisted death. Could you elaborate on potential alternative approaches or policies that could genuinely empower patients while ensuring a balance between autonomy and medical authority? What considerations should future proposals take into account?
In my PhD, I argue that the reason the law has not changed is that current and historic proposals would undermine the status quo of medical power and authority.
The issue the medical profession has had with reforming the law is that reformers have proposed bringing in third parties, such as referees/judges, into proceedings. As long as these safeguards remain, the dominant medical culture will remain opposed where external involvement risks undermining its professional autonomy. These are too explicit terms, however. Often you will hear about the need to preserve the doctor-patient relationship which seems noble. However, the foundation of this power relationship is trust; and trust is essential to maintaining the professional autonomy of the medical profession. It is from this autonomy that the profession derives its power and authority.
To circumvent this, I drew upon the work of Suzanne Ost and Margaret Brazier to propose de-medicalising assisted death to enable people to have an assisted death beyond the grip of medical power and authority. I see no reason why assisted death needs to be within the domain of medical practice. There are important policy/social reasons why we might not want to extend the power of the profession to encompass power and authority over death itself. For that reason, I would reject the need to strike a balance between patient autonomy and medical authority.
Reflecting on your research journey, what challenges did you encounter in examining the historical contingency and power relations surrounding assisted death?
The project was a huge undertaking. The debate in Britain is nearly a century old. There have been a lot of shifts in the debate, its discourses, and the range of institutional actors that have emerged within the debate at different historical points. Trying to capture this in 80,000 words meant I had to be very selective. A lot of my ‘darlings’ had to be killed, and so learning to let certain ideas or contexts go was difficult.
The biggest hurdle was attempting to incorporate Foucauldian philosophy into an ethico-legal analysis of assisted dying. I faced difficulties trying to convince others of the value or utility of my theoretical and methodological choices especially those who have fed into the conventional frame.
My critical approach is not traditional within the bioethical intellectual space. Whilst others were saying assisted death is a legal problem, or an ethical problem, I was arguing that the frameworks of law and ethics occlude an underlying context –– that assisted death is better problematised as a problem of ideology, of power.
The preservation of medical power and authority is the root of the failure of past reform attempts. In knowing this, future reform attempts can concentrate their efforts on new points of resistance that can overcome the constraining effects of medical power and authority.
Now that you submitted your thesis, how do you plan to move forward in terms of your research?
Having examined the ways in which medical power and authority have shaped legal developments of assisted death, I am now keen to examine the other aspect of the power relationship: the patient.
I am interested in those patients who are more susceptible to the effects and constraints of medical power and authority.
Currently, I am exploring the racial and cultural contexts of assisted dying reform and how changes in the law might impact people of colour and, importantly, what we ought to do about this.
If you are an aspiring legal scholar seeking advanced training in law within a dynamic research environment that encourages innovation and interdisciplinary exploration, the SENSS Doctoral Training Partnership at Essex Law School could be your gateway to an exciting academic journey.
What is SENSS?
The South and East Network for Social Sciences (SENSS), an ESRC-funded Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP), is dedicated to fostering innovative and inclusive social science research training and collaboration. Among the eight distinguished institutions comprising SENSS, the University of Essex plays a pivotal role as the coordinating institution.
SENSS provides fully-funded doctoral studentships, mentorship from global experts, personalised research methods training, and diverse placements as part of its Doctoral Training Partnership. These opportunities empower researchers to extend their social scientific skills beyond academia.
Here at the Essex Law School and Human Rights Centre, aspiring PhD students can apply for SENSS studentships, unlocking comprehensive support and collaborative excellence in their academic journey.
Why choose the Essex Law School?
Choosing where to pursue your doctoral training is a significant decision. At the Essex Law School, we have meticulously crafted an environment that champions excellence and fuels innovation. Here is why you should join us:
We are a research powerhouse. Our Law School has been ranked 3rd in the UK for research power in law according to the Times Higher Education research power measure (REF2021). Law at Essex is also ranked 47th in the THE World University Rankings, which show the strongest universities across the globe for key subjects (and 9th for UK Universities). This speaks volumes about the calibre of research conducted within our School. Our academic staff collaborates globally, working with the United Nations, the European Union, governments, and non-governmental organisations.
We believe in the power of interdisciplinary research. Our dynamic research clusters foster collaboration across diverse backgrounds, creating a vibrant intellectual space for innovative and stimulating legal exploration.
With expertise spanning diverse legal disciplines, our academics are the driving force behind the Law School’s excellence. Our faculty boasts exceptional scholars, providing intellectual leadership in key areas, including Human Rights Law, led by Dr. Andrew Fagan who is Director of the Human Rights Centre; International & Comparative Law led by Professor Yseult Marique, an associate member of the International Academy of Comparative Law; Private and Business Law, led by Professor Christopher Willett who also spearheads the Law, Business and Technology Interdisciplinary Hub; as well as Public Law & Sociolegal Studies, led by Professor Theodore Konstadinides, who is also a founder member of the Constitutional and Administrative Justice Initiative (CAJI).
Our academic leads are ready to guide you and link you with the ideal academic mentors.
Our research student community is central to our success. These talented individuals explore a broad range of exciting topics under expert supervision, forming a vibrant tapestry of ideas.
Image via Shutterstock
Our Essex Law Research Blog features Vanessa Topp, a SENSS-funded doctoral candidate at the Essex Law School & Human Rights Centre, who offers below her insights into the application process and provides valuable advice for prospective candidates.
Can you share your experience with the application process for the SENSS Doctoral Training Partnership and highlight how the partnership’s collaborative approach influenced your decision to apply?
“I applied for the student-led studentship with SENSS, and throughout the application process, I received invaluable support from my supervisors and my department which allowed me to refine and greatly improve my proposal.”
“While the multiple rounds of review and steps involved in the application process initially felt somewhat intimidating and fast-paced, the ability to receive and implement feedback from several different perspectives was ultimately crucial to building a successful application.”
“There are several reasons why I was particularly drawn to SENSS. I am particularly excited to be a part of the SENSS network because it allows me to collaborate with academics from other institutions that are part of the DTP working on research relevant to my own and I look forward to participating in cross-institutional knowledge sharing.”
“I also appreciate the opportunities provided through SENSS to conduct fieldwork in collaboration with external partner organisations or to potentially participate in an overseas institutional visit at another university which I feel will lead to more meaningful and impactful research.”
Reflecting on your successful application, what tips or insights would you offer to prospective candidates aiming to secure SENSS funding and maximise the opportunities offered by this collaborative platform of universities?
“Start the process as early as possible so you can revise your application several times and be open to taking on board feedback, while also remembering that ultimately it is your project, and you have to be happy with the proposal you design.”
“The SENSS application contains a lot of different elements – not just the proposal – so make sure to take your time with these as well. The space to write your proposal in the application form is quite compact, so these other parts of the application form can provide an important opportunity to provide more information that you could not include in the proposal for space limitations; about your project, who you are as a candidate, and how you are the best fit to your project.”
“SENSS is a collaborative network, so it is also important to look into what this means and to highlight what aspects you would like to participate in and what your contributions will be.”
Where can you find out more?
Explore the opportunities offered by the SENSS scholarships at the Essex Law School on our informative webpages. Discover eligibility criteria, application processes, and the outstanding benefits that await you by accessing the downloadable documents provided below.
For inquiries about legal research and the SENSS scheme, please contact Dr. Anil Yilmaz Vastardis, our Postgraduate Research Director.
Specific questions about academic disciplines? Reach out directly to our dedicated Academic Leads (mentioned above) who can put you in touch with suitable supervisors.
Embark on your journey to become a world-leading scholar in law. Do not miss the chance to join SENSS at the Essex Law School, where innovation, excellence, and transformation define the doctoral experience.
Essex Law Research Blog 