Impact

Police and Crime Commissioners: A Dislocated Expectation?

/ essexlawresearch / 1 Comment
Image by James Eades

New research, based on exclusive interviews with high-ranking figures from across UK policing – including Chief Constables, PCCs, one of the most senior persons in policing and one of the persons involved with introducing PCCs – suggests a postcode lottery in police accountability. The calibre of individual PCCs is seen as the key factor in ensuring adequate oversight, with stark differences exposed between forces.

Dr. Simon Cooper, from the Essex Law School, gained unprecedented access to key figures from all sides, on the condition of their anonymity.

Dr. Cooper’s findings, which were published in Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice and subsequently cited in the House of Commons Police and Crime Commissioners 2021 Report as well as House of Lords 2022 Report Police and Crime Commissioners: Powers and Functions, support the argument that the current system can work.

However, Dr. Cooper identifies a “significant anomaly”, with accountability dependent on the relative strengths of PCCs and Chief Constables and the relationship between the two. Success, in this respect, can be seen to “hinge on luck”.

Dr. Cooper said:

“These findings suggest a significant variation in how police accountability is administered around the country. While one Chief Constable described being regularly ‘grilled’ by their PCC, some Commissioners are seen as ill-equipped, ill-prepared and potentially ego-driven. The importance placed by the system on these single individuals suggests there is a real possibility that some Chief Constables are being held to account more effectively than others.”

One Chief Constable, identified as Chief Constable D, outlined the issues that exist when dealing with their elected PCC, contrasting it with the previous ‘tripartite’ structure, where Chief Constables would report to the Home Secretary and their local Police Authority:

“…there is a significant risk that the relationship (between PCC and CC) either becomes excessively hostile, excessively friendly or… there isn’t the balance, additional questioning or informing of the debate that a wider group would give. (…) Because of poor safeguards and governance arrangements it too quickly descends into personalities and subjectivity in which accountability becomes likeability, becomes re-electability. Accountability becomes all of those things it shouldn’t.”

Another Chief Constable, Chief Constable C, underlined the importance of the PCC-Chief Constable relationship, noting the impact of individual experience and characters:

“I have seen evidence of PCCs who are ill-equipped and ill-prepared and actually don’t have the skills to understand big organisations making sweeping statements and making assumptions about individuals without any basis whatsoever. I have also seen Chief Constables that do not want to adapt to a new way of working and will be very obstructive towards PCCs.”

Summarising the impact on oversight, Police and Crime Commissioner D asked:

“The question is can a PCC be played by a Chief Constable? They clearly could be and some I suspect are. I am quite sure that there are some Chief Constables who just pay lip service to their PCC.”

The current system was seen by some as placing an impractical burden on one individual. The lack of a ‘pool of different views’ limits opportunities for the PCC to moderate their thoughts and has the potential to leave the PCC either exposed or guided by advice from others, with no formal oversight role. PCC A commented:

“Presumably if it’s something they (the PCC) didn’t know a lot about they talk to a lot of people about it but you don’t see any of those conversations played out.”

In reality, one senior figure, Person Z, was left questioning the original design of the PCC system:

“For one person, even though they are elected, to replace the wisdom and contribution of 19 [Police Authority members] is a tall ask. There’s only one person [the PCC] providing scrutiny [of Chief Constables] and that’s a heavy responsibility, so in terms of scrutiny of course it’s a lot less. Palpably has it worked? No… I suspect PCCs might, in hindsight, be regarded as a blunder.”

Dr. Cooper’s findings suggest a need for the Home Secretary to review the Policing Protocol and for an Accountability Code of Practice to be issued. He said:

“This research encourages the Home Secretary to exercise their power and urgently review The Policing Protocol Order. In its current form, the PPO is overly broad, presumption-based, loosely-worded and generic, with a resulting impact on accountability.”

Dr. Cooper’s research is published at a time of a continuing debate on police accountability. The Police Foundation found a “crisis of confidence”, recommending “root and branch reform”, and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services recommended a “profound and far-reaching police reform” and there have been calls for a Royal Commission.

Dr. Cooper’s research also found that in some instances the PCC model is viewed favourably when contrasted with its forerunner, with the previous bureaucracy and resulting backlog replaced by a “single point of decision-making” and a greater “visibility” of the decision-making process at a local level.

Other interviewees, however, suggested such appearances could be deceptive. PCC E commented:

“We have gained in terms of visibility but lost in terms of detailed scrutiny that the Police Authority was capable of.”

Dr. Simon Cooper’s article titled ‘Police and Crime Commissioners: A Dislocated Expectation?’ was published in Vol. 15, Issue 3 of Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice and can be accessed via the publisher’s website here. The House of Commons report on PCCs, citing Dr. Cooper’s research (pp. 10-11), can be read here. The House of Lords report also citing his research (para. 1.3) can be read here.

This ELR post was updated on 10 November 2022 to reflect recent developments in the impact of Dr. Cooper’s research.

University of Essex 2021 Research and Impact awards

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
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!

Impact on Victims’ Law Policy Paper

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Photo by Edward Howell

In a report published in November 2020 (Constitutional Powers of the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales), co-written by the Essex Law School’s Professor Maurice Sunkin together with Professor Pam Cox and Dr Ruth Lamont, these experts argued that the role of the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales – set up in 2004 to promote the interests of the victims of crime – needs to be strengthened if it is to be effective.

This report has been influential in recent developments in this area. In particular, a new paper (titled Victims Law Policy Paper: The Victims’ Commissioner’s proposals for a Victims Law) by the current Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, appears to have been closely informed by eight of the recommendations made by Sunkin, Cox and Lamont.

These included Recommendation 2 to develop a set of core statutory rights, with a statutory duty on those  agencies listed in the Victims’ Code to ensure all their policies and practice are compliant; and Recommendation 25 to establish a single cross-criminal justice system complaints body for all victim complaints in respect of non-compliance with the Victims’ Code, which is responsible for the oversight of the handling and response to the complaint.

It is great to see how the November 2020 report has produced some very concrete impact and helped develop thinking around what The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales wants to see from a Victims Law.

COVID-19 Research on Vulnerable Communities Proves Influential

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Photo by Kate Trifo

A publication featuring rapid responses to the impact of COVID-19 from a range of Essex experts has been recognised as influential by a panel providing evidence to government.

COVID-19, Law and Human Rights: Essex Dialogues, a 32-chapter collection featuring contributions from the School of Law, Human Rights Centre and School of Health and Social Care, has been cited in a new summary of research on the impact of COVID-19.

The summary, Rebuilding a Resilient Britain: Vulnerable Communities, looks at the relevant expert evidence in 11 Areas of Research Interest (ARIs), selected by Chief Scientific Advisors within the Government Office of Science.

The contributions of Essex experts are noted under two ARIs: “the role of local authorities in protecting vulnerable populations”; and “analysis of whether, where and how states or non-state actors use the disruption caused by the crisis to curtail minority rights or promote ideologies”.

Dr Carla Ferstman, who co-edited the Essex collection, said: “The goal of the publication was to bring together the widest possible array of scholars to think through the multiple, intersecting impacts of COVID-19, and to help frame the global research agenda. The interest in COVID-19, Law and Human Rights: Essex Dialogues has exceeded our initial expectations. It has fostered interdisciplinary research and has led to important new collaborations within academia and in numerous policy domains.”

COVID-19, Law and Human Rights: Essex Dialogues has been downloaded over 2,700 times since its publication in July 2020, making it the most downloaded single publication in this period on the University’s Research Repository. The individual chapters from the publication have resulted in an additional 5,500 downloads.

ARIs were developed as a result of the Nurse Review of Research Councils, which called on government departments to communicate clearly where their research objectives lie. The ARIs are an annually-updated list of priority research questions, chosen from a list of topics identified by government departments, which in turn invite academics to engage with government departments to inform policy making.

The report was produced by the Vulnerable Communities Working Group, which comprises 26 members including academics, civil servants, funders and civil society groups.

The foreword to their report notes: “Working across government and drawing from the extensive expertise of our academic community will be essential in the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, to rebuild a resilient Britain.”

This post originally appeared on the University of Essex news webpage and is reprocuded here with permission and thanks.

Report Proposes New Legal Powers for the Victims’ Commissioner

/ essexlawresearch / 1 Comment
Photo by Eric Ward

The role of the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales – set up in 2004 to promote the interests of the victims of crime – needs to be strengthened if it is to be effective, argues a report co-written by the Essex Law School’s Professor Maurice Sunkin together with Professor Pam Cox and Dr Ruth Lamont.

As it stands, the Victims’ Commissioner, currently Dame Vera Baird, lacks the necessary powers to carry out her statutory obligations to make sure the Victims’ Code (which sets out the standards victims can expect from the criminal justice system) is followed.

The report identifies significant gaps in the current powers of the Victims’ Commissioner compared to others such as the Children’s Commissioner for England and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Dame Vera Baird says it is her intention to make the Victims’ Code work properly for all victims, but she is currently unable to properly scrutinise victims’ rights and entitlements or to effectively hold criminal justice agencies to account.

The report states that “Currently the commissioner has no legal power to ensure that [victims’] rights are protected and that duties are performed. Since no other body has this power, this leaves an important enforcement gap.”

“This gap creates ambiguity and uncertainty. If victims’ rights are important, why is it that they cannot be enforced? If agencies have duties, why is it that they cannot be compelled to perform these duties? If rights cannot be enforced, how can victims be confident that their rights really do matter?”

The report proposes new powers which would compel criminal justice agencies to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner and take action where needed. The commissioner would also have a “last resort” power to bring legal action on behalf of a group of victims or to test the law “in the public interest” – if the courts found in favour of the commissioner, victims could be entitled to compensation.

There is growing consensus across the political spectrum that victims’ rights need to be enshrined in law and the Government has pledged to introduce a ‘Victims’ Law’ which will enshrine these rights. The report argues that such rights need to be enforceable and monitored.

The Oxford Statement on International Law Protections Against Foreign Electoral Interference through Digital Means

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Photo by Joshua Sortino

Dr. Antonio Coco, Lecturer in Law at the University of Essex, has co-drafted The Oxford Statement on International Law Protections Against Foreign Electoral Interference through Digital Means, which has been signed by 139 international lawyers so far.

The Statement is the third in a series — informally known as the “Oxford Process” — aiming to clarify the rules of international law applicable to cyber operations which threaten areas of pressing global concern.

The first Statement (May 2020) concerned the protection of the healthcare sector. The second Statement (July 2020) focused on the protection of vaccine research. The third and most recent one (October 2020) tackles foreign electoral interference, and can be read at EJIL:Talk!, Opinio Juris and JustSecurity.

Internet Safety Expert Recognised with OBE

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment
Photo by Rami Al-zayat

An Essex legal expert has been recognised in the Queen’s Birthday Honours for her work on internet safety.

Professor Lorna Woods, from our School of Law, has been working since 2017 with William Perrin of the Carnegie UK Trust to develop a workable solution to ‘online harms’, a term that covers a range of internet safety issues. Professor Woods and Mr Perrin are to both receive OBEs.

Professor Woods said: “I am delighted, if a little surprised, by this honour. I’d like to thank Will, of course, but also Maeve Welsh and everyone at the Carnegie UK Trust – without their support, we would not have been able to develop our approach further or undertake the vital, ongoing engagement with those working in this area.

“Recent events have raised new concerns about the role of social media. The need for a statutory duty of care, overseen by an independent regulator, is not going away. In fact, it is more urgent than ever. We look forward to publication of the promised Online Harms Bill, and its consideration in this parliament.”

In October 2017, Professor Woods and Mr Perrin sat down to review the just-published Green Paper on Internet Safety Strategy.

Near-daily stories of bullying, self-harm and extremism had created a febrile debate. The challenge? To reset the online world and reduce the risk of harm.

The pair agreed the government response was inadequate. Drawing on their experience of the sector, they consulted with a range of actors, researched models already in use and started to write.

Across seven co-authored blogs, completed between February and May 2018 (and subsequently collected into a report, with funding from The Carnegie UK Trust), they sought to shift the debate from ”publishing” and the removal of specific content, to harm prevention, developing a detailed plan involving a statutory duty of care, overseen by an independent regulator.

The duty of care approach re-casts social media as a series of “public or quasi-public spaces”.  In creating these spaces, the providers’ goal must be not maximising profit, or engagement, but user safety. The more vulnerable an audience, the greater the responsibility.

At a time of significant public concern, their research has been a game-changer, offering a workable solution, inspiring a national newspaper campaign, rallying civil society groups and influencing lawmakers, at home and abroad.

In December 2019, they published their own draft Online Harm Reduction Bill, to maintain momentum. The draft bill was endorsed by organisations including the NSPCC, 5Rights Foundation, The Institute for Strategic Dialogue and the Royal Society of Public Health.

In January 2020, the authors and the Carnegie UK Trust also supported Lord McNally in the preparation of a short paving Bill to require Ofcom to prepare for the introduction of an Online Harms Reduction Regulator. The paving Bill was introduced into the Lords on 14 January 2020 and is currently awaiting a second reading.

Four Essex graduates have also been recognised in this year’s Queen’s Birthday Honours:

  • Dr Philip Orumwense (MA Political Behaviour, 1991) will receive a CBE for public service. Philip was Commercial Director of IT at Highways England and is recognisesd for his work across the public sector.
  • Sir David Attenborough (Honorary Graduate), has received a GCMC for his services to broadcasting and conservation.
  • Miss Carrie Anne Philbin (BA History, 2002) has received an MBE for services to education, championing diversity and inclusion in computing.
  • Ms Clare Woodman (BA Government & Sociology, 1989) has received a CBE for services to finance in her role as Head of EMEA and CEO of Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC.

This story originally appeared on the University of Essex news webpage and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.

University of Essex Academics Respond to the European Commission Consultation on Digital Cultural Heritage

/ essexlawresearch / 1 Comment
Photo by Roman Kraft

Professor Stavroula Karapapa, University of Essex, School of Law

Digitisation has enabled access to and availability of cultural heritage to an extent previously unknown and, in addition, it has enhanced preservation and modern research opportunities, e.g. through text mining and data analytics. The availability of and access to cultural materials in digital form can provide significant support to conservation, renovation, research, study and promotion of cultural assets and, in this regard, digital cultural heritage can serve as a resource for education, enjoyment or re-use, including use towards the development of new knowledge. The need for digital transformation has been revealed and become as relevant as ever as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite its benefits, the digitisation of cultural heritage challenges traditional legal norms, such as copyright law.

Colleagues from the School of Law, in collaboration with staff from the University’s Library Services and University Archives, have contributed to a consultation of the European Commission on Digital Cultural Heritage.

In their position paper, they recommend that digitisation should enable preservation of cultural artefacts, including world heritage properties, access to the public, and accessibility by people with special needs and educational institutions.

They also recommend that law and policy should offer further support to cultural institutions towards developing digitisation initiatives (e.g. the legislative framework on orphan works should be revisited in terms of its breadth and parameters of application).

They warn against the creation of digital monopolies (e.g. public domain material should remain in the public domain after digitisation) and urge for the development of legal provisions ensuring the security of computer infrastructure both to safeguard digital culture and avoid the spread of misinformation.

Click below to download a copy of the position paper:

uoe-position-paper-digital-cultural-heritageDownload

Essex Expertise Informs Facial Recognition Decision

/ essexlawresearch / Leave a comment

The expertise and leading-edge research of three Essex academics has informed a landmark judgment on police use of facial recognition.

On Tuesday 11 August, the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in a case brought by civil liberties campaigner Ed Bridges and the campaigning organisation Liberty, challenging a previous decision in favour of South Wales Police.

Mr Bridges, who lives in Cardiff, argued that it was possible South Wales Police had captured an image of his face on two occasions, as a result of facial recognition technology being deployed.

He brought a claim for judicial review, arguing that South Wales Police’s approach to deployment was incompatible with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, data protection legislation, and the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Professor Pete Fussey, from the Department of Sociology and Professor Lorna Woods and Dr Daragh Murray, both from the School of Law, contributed to a ‘Friends of the Court’ submission by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner to the Bridges appeal.

In addition, an annex, detailing Professor Fussey and Dr Murray’s findings in relation to the Metropolitan Police Service, was attached to the Surveillance Camera Commissioner’s submission.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Bridges appeal on four of its five grounds.

Commenting on the judgment, Professor Pete Fussey said: “The Court’s findings in relation to the use of live facial recognition technology by South Wales Police are consistent with our findings regarding the Metropolitan Police Service, in particular that such deployments are not ‘in accordance with the law’, and that too much discretion is given to police in determining who should be placed on a watchlist. The Court of Appeal was entirely correct in concluding that facial recognition cannot be considered as equivalent to the use of CCTV. The use of advanced surveillance technologies like live facial recognition demands proper consideration and full parliamentary scrutiny.”

Dr Daragh Murray said: “The use of advanced surveillance technologies, like live facial recognition, represent a step change in police capability, with potentially significant consequences for the functioning of our democracy, in terms of how individuals develop and interact and how challenges to, or protests against, government policy evolve. The Court of Appeal’s findings today regarding South Wales Police are consistent with many of our own conclusions regarding the Metropolitan Police Service. This is an important decision, particularly the conclusion that deployments were not ‘in accordance with the law’. However, many issues remain to be addressed, including the broader societal impact of facial recognition. What is abundantly clear is that all police forces should pay greater attention to human rights law considerations before deciding to deploy new surveillance technologies.”

Professor Lorna Woods said: “The judgment in ruling that the police use of Automated Facial Recognition as it stands is unlawful is welcome, but it also highlights the problems arising from a system where new surveillance technologies can be deployed based on very general common law powers without adequate safeguards. New legislation on this topic is required, to address not only the proposed use of facial recognition technology, but police use of Artificial Intelligence generally.”

Professor Lorna Woods is Professor of Internet Law. She has extensive experience in the field of media policy and communications regulation, including social media and the Internet and developed, with Will Perrin, a social media duty of care, which has had significant influence on the direction on the UK Online Harms debate. Professor Woods is an established member of a broader network of advisors who support the Surveillance Camera Commissioner in his role.

Professor Pete Fussey and Dr Daragh Murray are co-authors of the independent report into the London Metropolitan Police Service’s trial of live facial recognition technology, published by the ERSC Human Rights, Big Data and Technology Project in July 2019. It remains the only fully independently-funded report into police use of live facial recognition technology in the UK.

South Wales Police said it would not be appealing the Court of Appeal judgment.

This story originally appeared on the University of Essex website and is reproduced on our blog with permission and thanks.

Essex Lawyer Plays Part in Landmark Legal Judgment in Latin America

/ Alexandros Antoniou / Leave a comment
Photo by Jose Pablo Garcia

An Essex lawyer has helped win a landmark judgment at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supporting the human rights of LGBTI people across the continent.

Trigger warning: this report contains a description of sexual violence.

Professor Clara Sandoval, from the School of Law and Human Rights Centre, has been litigating for over ten years on behalf of Azul Rojas Marín, a transgender woman, who was beaten, stripped naked and subjected to torture and rape by Peruvian police in February 2008.

Rojas Marín (who at that time self-identified as a gay man and now self-identifies as a woman) was arrested arbitrarily. Throughout the process, the police officers made derogatory remarks about her sexual orientation.

On 6 April, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), the ultimate authority on human rights in the Americas, found Peru responsible for torture and sexual violence against an LGBTI person. It is the first time in its history that the IACtHR has considered a case of discriminatory torture.

The Court found Peru responsible for the violation of a range of rights in relation to Rojas Marín, in breach of its obligations to respect and ensure those rights without discrimination. Peru was also found responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity of Rojas Marín’s mother, who died in 2017. 

On learning of the ruling, Azul Rojas Marín said:

I am very grateful to all the people who have made this possible. I have no words to describe how I feel. I thank God above all. After all that I have been through, finally a court believes me. I only wish I could have been able to share this joy with my mother, who was always alongside me in my efforts to report the crime and find justice.

In its ruling, the IACtHR determined that the State of Peru did not act with due diligence in its investigation of the sexual torture of Rojas Marín and its violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. The Court found that the process was riddled with discriminatory stereotypes and the Peruvian authorities should have investigated whether there were reasonable indications that the violence had been motivated by discrimination.

The Court ordered Peru to adopt a series of measures to redress the damage to Azul Rojas Marín and prevent these crimes from being repeated. They reaffirmed that a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression are categories protected by the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights.

Professor Sandoval, whose recent work includes focusing on reparations for gender-based violence, said:

This is a landmark judgment where the Court develops, for the first time, the concept of torture as a result of discrimination because of sexual orientation, and where the tribunal tries to address some of the structural causes of these violations, including discrimination, by ordering Peru to implement significant reparation measures to prevent recurrence of the violations. This judgment paves the way in fundamental ways for the future protection of members of the LGBTI community in the Americas and around the world.

Rojas Marín brought her case before the Inter-American System of Human Rights with the legal assistance of the Center for the Promotion and Defense of Sexual and Reproductive Rights (Promsex), the National Coordinator of Human Rights (CNDDHH) and REDRESS, an international organisation that fights against torture. Professor Sandoval has been part of the REDRESS team litigating the case.

Jorge Bracamonte, Executive Secretary of the CNDDHH, said:

This ruling represents a historic opportunity for the Peruvian State to eradicate systematic violence against LGTBI people from its institutional practices and is a precedent of great importance for the protection of LGTBI people throughout the region.

This post first appeared on the website of the University of Essex and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.