Author: Alexandros Antoniou

Celebrating the Very Best of Essex Research: Research and Impact Awards 2024

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Image via Flickr

On 22 May 2024, the University of Essex showcased its top-tier research achievements at the Celebrating Excellence in Research and Impact Awards ceremony on our Colchester campus. The event honoured individuals and projects that have significantly enhanced lives worldwide through Essex’s ground-breaking work.

In a spectacular ceremony, several prestigious awards were bestowed upon research pioneers, transformative projects, and innovative technical teams. Notably, the Essex Law School secured an impressive four awards across distinct categories, underscoring our commitment to excellence in diverse fields:

Professor Lorna Woods won the award for Best Research Impact in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities for her work on online safety.

The award for Outstanding Mid-Career Researcher went to Dr Matthew Gillett for his research on the use of international criminal law to protect vulnerable groups as well as the environment from grave harms.

Dr Nikhil Gokani, who influenced the approach WHO and civil society have taken on effective laws for food and alcohol labelling, won the award for Best Research Impact by an Early Career Researcher.

Professor Yseult Marique won an award for her piece in The Conversation titled: One in five councils at risk of ‘bankruptcy’ – what happens after local authorities run out of money.

The Essex Law School has previously scooped The Conversation award thrice, in 2020, 2021 and 2023!

Essex Law School colleagues celebrating excellence at the 2024 Research & Impact Awards Ceremony

While not all of our colleagues secured awards, their brilliance shone through nominations in key categories.

Among them, Dr Koldo Casla, Dr Erin Pobjie, Dr Matthew Gillett, and Dr Sabina Garahan jointly received a nomination for Best Research Impact.

Dr Nikos Vogiatzis was nominated in the Outstanding Mid-Career Researcher category (Faculty of Arts and Humanities) for his exceptional work on European law and the award of a Senior Humboldt Fellowship at the University of Cologne.

Dr Elena Sherstoboeva was also a runner-up for the Research Visibility Champion award for her diligence in running research visibility training for our School.

And, last but not least, Melissa King, from our professional services team, was nominated for the Outstanding Research Support award.

Professor Stavroula Karapapa, Faculty Dean Research (Arts & Humanities), at the 2024 Awards Ceremony

Professor Carla Ferstman, Director of Impact at Essex Law School, commented:

“There is so much dynamism and creativity coming from our research community at ELS who are pursuing impactful research that is making a real difference in the world. Congratulations to Lorna Woods and Nikhil Gokani on this important recognition of their work and to our fabulous runners-up: Koldo, Erin, Matthew and Sabina – for highlighting the incredibly impactful work of the Human Rights Clinic.”

Snapping success at the 2024 Excellence in Research and Impact Awards

A full list of this year’s winners will be available here. 

The awards are open to all academics, researchers, and doctoral students each year and signal the University’s commitment to world-class research that makes a difference.

Congratulations to everyone involved!

We are taking a short summer break

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Image from Unsplash

As of Tuesday 1 August 2023, the Essex Law Research Blog will be on a short hiatus.

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

We send all our readers our best wishes for a refreshing summer!

The ELS Research Visibility Team

We are Taking a Short Break

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment

Photo by Alisa Anton

Christmas is just around the corner. With all the hustle and bustle of academic life, we all need a little time off to refresh, recover and reflect. So as of next week (Monday 20 Dec. 2021), we’ll be on a short hiatus.

We hope that you can look back on a positive year with us. In 2021, we had 77 posts and thousands of visitors from 106 countries around the world. The ELR Blog will be back in January 2022 with more research news from our School.

We wish you and your family all the warmth this holiday season has to offer. We hope you have a wonderful Christmas and a New Year filled with peace and joy!

The Research Visibility Team

We are Taking a Short Break

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Photo by freestocks, Unsplash

Christmas is just around the corner. With all the hustle and bustle of the academic life, we all need a little time off to refresh, recover and reflect. So as of next week (Monday 21 Dec. 2020), we’ll be on a short hiatus.

We hope that you can look back on a generally positive year with us. In 2020, we had 89 posts (up from 29 in 2019) on a very wide variety of topics by authors from all areas of law. Also, we have more than doubled our views (moving from 3,326 in 2019 to 7,440 in 2020). More than half of these are from the UK, with the USA, Canada, Germany, France and China making up the rest of the top five.

The Essex Law Research blog will be back in early January with more research news from our School. However you celebrate at this time of the year, we hope you enjoy a wonderful holiday season!

With our best wishes

The Research Visibility Team

Christian TV Network sanctioned by Ofcom for broadcasting “potentially harmful statements” about Coronavirus

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Photo by Scheier .hr

Dr. Alexandros Antoniou, Lecturer in Media Law, University of Essex

On 18 May 2020, the UK communications regulator Ofcom ruled that Loveworld Limited, which broadcasts the religious television service Loveworld, breached its Broadcasting Code after a news programme and a live sermon featured potentially harmful claims about the causes of and treatments for COVID-19.

The Ofcom investigation found that a report on Loveworld News, a programme featuring news from studios around the world, included a number of uncorroborated claims that the source of the risk to health was the effect of 5G Wi-Fi networks rather than the viral transmission of COVID-19. The report also contained several assertions that there was a “global cover-up” about the cause of the pandemic. Another report during the programme “repeatedly and unequivocally” presented the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a “cure” for the virus without clearly recognising that this was a clinically unproven claim about the effectiveness of the drug for coronavirus treatment and without acknowledging the drug’s potentially serious side effects.

In relation to both reports, the regulator found that Loveworld Limited had not preserved “due accuracy” (in breach of Rule 5.1 of the Code) and had failed to adequately protect viewers from potential harm (in breach of Rule 2.1) by presenting content of this nature as unequivocal facts rather than views placed in an appropriate context. Ofcom underlined that it did not seek to curb the broadcaster’s ability to present programmes covering current affairs from a religious perspective, but it did not consider that the religious nature of the channel justified a departure from the established application of these rules.

In addition, a sermon broadcast on Your Loveworld was also found to have included “unchallenged and unevidenced” claims casting doubt on the necessity and effectiveness of the social distancing policies adopted by governments (including the United Kingdom) as well as assertions questioning the motives behind official health advice in relation to the coronavirus and 5G technology. In particular, Pastor Chris Oyakhilome (the founder and president of the megachurch Christian denomination known as Christ Embassy) preached that the lockdown measures, the roll-out of 5G and potential future vaccines were part of a plan to reach “the final union between man and machines” because “Satan wants to create a new man”. Ofcom considered that these statements risked “undermining viewers’ confidence in the motives of public authorities and leading them to disregard current and future advice (including on any future vaccine) intended to protect public health.” An exacerbating factor in this case was that these views were set out – without challenge – by a person who was portrayed to viewers as a figure of knowledge and particular authority.

The regulator held that the sermon broadcast provided “a platform for uncontextualized views” that had the potential to cause significant harm to viewers (in breach of Rule 2.1) and that Loveworld Limited had not taken any measures to provide its audience with adequate protection from such material, for example, by challenging the conspiracy theory or including the views of others and making it clear that other explanations could exist.

Ofcom recognised the Licensee’s right to hold and broadcast controversial views which diverge from, or challenge, official authorities on public health information. However, the inclusion of unsubstantiated assertions in both programmes had not been sufficiently contextualised and risked undermining viewers’ trust in official public health advice, with potentially serious consequences for their own and others’ health. In light of the serious failings in these cases, Ofcom directed Loveworld Limited to broadcast summaries of its decisions and will consider imposing further sanctions.

This article was first published in IRIS Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.

Sexual Misconduct Claims against Conservative MP: What Stops the Media from Naming Rape Suspects?

/ Alexandros Antoniou / 1 Comment
Photo by Joe

Dr. Alexandros Antoniou, Lecturer in Media Law, University of Essex

The allegations of sexual misconduct against an unnamed Conservative MP have received significant media coverage lately. The Sunday Times reported that the ex-minister was taken into custody on Saturday 1 August 2020 after a former parliamentary employee accused them of rape, sexual assault and coercive control. The MP has not been named publicly so far. But what stops the media from naming rape suspects? There are several aspects of media law which are relevant to this case.

To start with, the Tory MP remains anonymous partly because of recent developments in the law of privacy. Cliff Richard’s legal action against the BBC in 2018 established that suspects of law enforcement investigations enjoy ‘a reasonable expectation of privacy’ up to the point of charge. This general principle was endorsed by the Court of Appeal in the subsequent case of ZXC v Bloomberg LP in May 2020. Giving lead judgment in this case, Lord Justice Simon stated:

[…] those who have simply come under suspicion by an organ of the state have, in general, a reasonable and objectively founded expectation of privacy in relation to that fact and an expressed basis for that suspicion. The suspicion may ultimately be shown to be well-founded or ill-founded, but until that point the law should recognise the human characteristic to assume the worst (that there is no smoke without fire); and to overlook the fundamental legal principle that those who are accused of an offence are deemed to be innocent until they are proven guilty.

[para. 82]

This does not necessarily mean that the media cannot report on criminal investigations. Such investigations can only lawfully be reported where there are countervailing public interest grounds to outweigh the suspect’s privacy interests and justify disclosure of their name (e.g. where the individual under investigation is a political figure). Different media organisations’ approach to this balancing exercise may, however, vary; hence, some media outlets may decide to name the suspect more quickly than others.

Furthermore, an alleged victim of a sexual offence enjoys an automatic right to lifelong anonymity under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and should not be identified in a written publication available to the public or a relevant programme for reception in England and Wales. The anonymity applies from the time an allegation is made by the alleged victim or anyone else. Section 5 of the 1992 Act makes it an offence to breach these provisions. The individual concerned may waive their right to anonymity if specific requirements are fulfilled and a court can lift the anonymity in certain circumstances, but this happens only rarely. One practical implication of these statutory provisions is that the media must be mindful of the potential for ‘jigsaw’ identification, i.e. piecing together different bits of information that create a more complete picture of an individual whose identity should be concealed. This means that the media must limit the publication of any matter ‘likely to lead’ to the complainant’s identification and as a result, care is needed with detail.

There could also be libel risks if, prior to any charge, a suggestion is published that an identified suspect may be guilty of a crime. A media report which includes the suspect’s name may allow that individual to successfully sue the publisher for defamation if the investigation does not lead to a prosecution. The media can safely publish the name of a person under investigation if the name is officially supplied by a spokesperson for a governmental agency, e.g. the police. This is because the report will be protected by the defence of qualified privilege in defamation law. It is anticipated that most media outlets will wait until the individual concerned has been named by the police. Finally, the publication of details which turn out to be incorrect could result in a conviction for contempt of court if a judge thinks that the material published created ‘a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment’ to the legal proceedings.

Protecting Vulnerable Adults from Abuse: New Publication

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Photo by Külli Kittus

Dr. Jaime Lindsey, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex

Dr. Jaime Lindsey recently published an article in Child and Family Law Quarterly (Volume 32, Issue 2, pp. 157-176), titled ‘Protecting vulnerable adults from abuse: under-protection and over-protection in adult safeguarding and mental capacity law’.

The article concerns the intersection between adult safeguarding and mental capacity law; an area which raises a number of difficult issues for lawyers, policy makers and health and social care professionals when thinking about the extent to which the civil law ought to be used to respond to abuse of adults with impaired mental capacity.

The article draws on original empirical data to show that adults vulnerable to abuse are left under-protected in some cases and over-protected in others. In particular, it argues that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has become a tool for protecting vulnerable adults from abuse. Moreover, this is done in ways that restrict and control the vulnerable victim, rather than targeting the perpetrator.

Learning from developments in the domestic abuse sphere, including the Domestic Abuse Bill currently going through Parliament, Dr. Lindsey argues that safeguarding adults law should instead focus on perpetrators of abuse by developing a Safeguarding Adults Protection Order (SAPO), instead of resorting to mental capacity law in these challenging cases.

The article is available on LexisLibrary and a copy can be requested via the University’s Research Repository here.

National Courts and the Enforcement of EU Law: The Pivotal Role of National Courts in the EU Legal Order

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Image by David Mark

Prof. Theodore Konstadinides, Professor of Law, University of Essex and Dr. Anastasia Karatzia, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex

Prof. Theodore Konstadinides and Dr. Anastasia Karatzia acted as the UK national rapporteurs for the Fédération Internationale Pour Le Droit Européen (FIDE) Congress 2020, one of the most significant conferences on EU law which brings together academics, advocates, judges and representatives from the EU institutions.

The Congress is an occasion to exchange views and expertise on EU law. Prof. Konstadinides and Dr. Karatzia were selected as the national rapporteurs for one of the three topics of the conference: National Courts and the Enforcement of EU Law: The Pivotal Role of National Courts in the EU Legal Order.

In their report, the authors explore pertinent questions about the interaction between UK national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning issues such as the preliminary reference procedure, the principle of supremacy, presumption of mutual trust, and the judicial independence of national courts and tribunals.

The Congress Publications, which include Prof. Konstadinides’ and Dr. Karatzia’s report, were published in July 2020 and are available digitally as Open Access resource here.

New Socio-Legal Research on Harmful Gender Stereotypes in Advertising

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Photo by Joshua Earle

Dr. Alexandros Antoniou and Dr. Dimitris Akrivos, Lecturers in Media Law, University of Essex

A year after the introduction of the UK Advertising Standards Authority’s (ASA) new rule on gender stereotyping, a new study evaluates the regulator’s approach to depictions of harmful gender stereotypes in advertisements.

Dr Alexandros Antoniou and Dr Dimitris Akrivos from the School of Law are the authors of ‘Gender portrayals in advertising: stereotypes, inclusive marketing and regulation’. Their study, which was recently published in the Journal of Media Law, a leading journal in the field, offers an in-depth socio-legal analysis of the ASA’s modern practice which systematises for the first time the regulator’s rulings in the field of gender stereotyping.

For a long time, academic research has highlighted the impact gender stereotypical advertising images can have on people’s aspirations, professional performance and mental well-being. In response to long-standing concerns around the matter, the ASA introduced in June 2019 a new advertising rule and guidance into its harm and offensiveness framework. The new rule, which came into effect on 14 June 2019, states: ‘Advertisements must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence’. Academic discussion has not until now queried whether the actions taken by the ASA constitute a satisfactory response to the problem.

Dr. Antoniou and Dr. Akrivos had previously analysed on the International Forum for Responsible Media Blog the first ads to be banned under the new ASA gender-stereotyping rules, including the Volkswagen’s ad, which promoted the manufacturer’s eGolf model and the TV commercial promoting the Philadelphia cream cheese.

Their new article brings a new perspective in the ASA’s approach by paying close attention to the complex structure of gender stereotypes and the interaction between their multiple components. More specifically, Dr Antoniou and Dr Akrivos’ research looks at how the ASA has dealt with different forms of gender stereotyping, including sexualisation and objectification; body image; gender roles, behaviours and characteristics; and the ridiculing of those who do not conform to gender norms.

The authors argue that, although the ASA’s new rule and guidelines constitute a step in the right direction, they represent a missed opportunity to take bolder action against ads that objectify or inappropriately sexualise individuals. Dr Antoniou and Dr Akrivos stated: “the new ASA guiding principles need to be revisited in order to go beyond the traditional male/female binary”. They recommend that the new guidance on gender representation in marketing communications needs to reflect the multi-faceted nature and fluidity of modern gender identities. “We propose the introduction of a new concept requiring advertisers to give ‘due weight and consideration’ to the diversity of modern masculinities and femininities”.

The University of Essex’s press release on the study can be found here. The research also featured in an article on the global marketing magazine Campaign and a piece on the LGBTQ magazine GScene.

A Failure of Proportion: Non-Consensual Adoption in England and Wales

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Photo by Nikola Saliba

Dr Samantha Davey, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex

Dr Samantha Davey has recently published a book with Hart, entitled ‘A Failure of Proportion: Non-Consensual Adoption in England and Wales’. This book is the result of PhD research which was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. It explored the topic of adoption – specifically the issue of adoption without parental consent.

The central question Samantha sets out to address in her book, is as follows: in what circumstances is it proportionate to remove children from their parents into care and place them for adoption?

In England and Wales, and most other jurisdictions, adoptions are final and irrevocable. Adoption, in these circumstances, is non-consensual, signals not only the end of the legal relationship between children and parents but the end of familial relationships. Once an adoption is finalised, it is very rare for it to be revoked and unusual for direct contact to take place between children and their parents.

Dr Davey’s book explores an area of law which has sparked considerable debate amongst academics, practitioners and the judiciary nationally and internationally. The emphasis of her book is on the circumstances in which non-consensual adoption may be regarded as a proportionate measure and when less severe forms of intervention, such as long-term foster care or kinship care, may also meet children’s needs while providing protection to children’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

S Davey, A Failure of Proportion (Hart 2020)

The book builds on existing literature on adoption law but takes the discussion in new directions, placing an emphasis on the need to closely scrutinise children’s and parents’ rights at all stages of the adoption process. A unique feature of this book is its emphasis on routinely incorporating key provisions from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into analysis when determining whether an adoption order is a proportionate measure.