The 10 men had been accused of violent disorder in the context of a conflict between local Asian men and street-fighting fascists which took place outside the William Fry public house on Wellgate in Rotherham.  The fascists were in Rotherham on the day of a neo-Nazi Britain First demonstration in Rotherham town centre, the 14th such demonstration in as many months.  It took place a few days after the brutal racist murder of an elderly local man, and was part of a campaign of racist abuse which members of the local community who gave evidence at the trial said had created a "siege mentality".  On the afternoon of 5 September 2015, police directed hundreds of people who had attended a peaceful counter-demonstration past the William Fry public house, where officers knew that fascists had gathered that day.  The members of the counter-demonstration were faced with racist abuse, and bottles, bricks and pint glasses being thrown at them by the fascists.  No police were present at the scene and they were forced to defend themselves and their community.

At trial, senior police officers involved in the case were subject to detailed cross-examination by counsel relating to their complete failure to plan for the end of the counter-demonstration and to ensure that the local people were able to leave the area safe from attack by fascists.  Officers gave flatly contradictory accounts of what they knew, with the Silver Commander Chief Inspector Richard Butterworth denying any knowledge of the location of the fascists, or of the reputation of the William Fry for being a haunt for local football hooligans.  These were facts which his subordinates admitted awareness of, and in some cases claimed to have informed him about.

The acquittal of all 10 defendants is a vindication of the Rotherham 12 defence campaign.  Two other defendants had previously pleaded guilty and may now seek to re-open their pleas.

The post No Pasaran! Defendants cleared in Rotherham 12 trial appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

Despite policy of the UK Government asserting to the contrary, the Upper Tribunal has established that there has been no significant change in the human rights situation in Eritrea, that it remains a grave concern and that the Eritrean Government continues to subject its people to indefinite military/national service which is often characterized by severely abusive treatment and torture.

In a detailed determination that includes a review of an extensive body of country material, the Upper Tribunal concludes that there is evidence that conditions in Eritrean national service are generally abusive and that the Eritrean Government continues to subject those who have left the country illegally and deserted or evaded national service to persecution and ill-treatment.

The Tribunal importantly expanded upon earlier country guidance to establish that the requirement to undertake military national service including in civilian roles in Eritrea, amounts to forced labour contrary to Article 4(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Tribunal further concluded that Eritrean nationals are not able to avoid persecution by paying a “diaspora tax” to the Eritrean authorities nor by signing a letter of regret for any acts of betrayal to the state.

This is an important determination in securing protection for Eritreans and reconfirms that the large majority will face persecution in the event of return.

The determination is available here.

The post New Eritrean Country Guidance: Antonia Benfield Appears for Appellants appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

On Tuesday, as a result of addressing meetings intending to encourage support for ISIL/Daesh, a jury convicted a number of Muslim men of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.  Andrew Jefferies QC, who represented the first defendant, explored two important issues during the course of the trial.  Firstly, evidence given during the trial highlighted the rise of Islamophobia (as opposed to anti-ISIL/Daesh feelings) which arguably has a significant effect upon young Muslims considering their position in the world[ii].  Secondly, evidence heard during the trial concerned the concept of “an” Islamic State compared to the proscribed organisation known as “Islamic State”[iii].  A greater understanding and consideration of these two issues is essential.

R v Alamgir and others, Central Criminal Court

[i] http://www.luton-dunstable.co.uk/luton-extremists-facing-jail-after-encouraging-young-children-to-support-isis/story-29627861-detail/story.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/701375/ISIS-supporters-Omar-Bakri-beach

[ii] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37098643

[iii] http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-11/cameron-apologises-for-sulaiman-ghani-is-misunderstanding/

The post “Islamic State” Convictions and Confusion appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

Group photo of the Hillsborough legal teams

Michael Mansfield QC. with Baroness Doreen Lawrence

The post Mansfield Chambers recognised at the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year Awards 2016 appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

Chambers requires at least one third six pupil to take on an excess of work in immigration law. Work in criminal law may also be available by mutual agreement. Third six pupils are encouraged to bring in their own work and to build relationships with Chambers’ instructing solicitors. Previous experience in immigration law is essential.

Third six pupils should expect to be in the tribunal regularly, and to undertake written work for solicitors and devilling for Members of Chambers.

The majority of our work is publicly funded, but the erosion of legal aid, particularly in immigration law, means that a considerable amount of privately funded work is also available.

Remuneration

Third six pupils will be expected to receive fees from their own cases. In the event that their fees (excluding expenses and VAT) received drop below £1,000 in any month they will be topped up to £1,000 by Chambers. Third six pupils do not pay rent to Chambers.

If necessary Chambers can advance travel costs on hearings outside of Zone 1-6.

Third six pupils will never be requested to carry out work as a favour, on legal aid applications without remuneration, or devilling for a Member without remuneration.

Application Process

Applications will be considered on a rolling basis and vacancies will be filled as the opportunity arises.

Applications for third six pupillages shall be by way of a CV and a covering letter. The covering letter should be word processed, no more than 2 pages A4, at least 12 point Times New Roman or Arial, with page margins of at least 2.5cm (although reasonable adjustments may, by agreement, be made for disabled applicants) explaining why the applicant is suitable for third six pupillage at Mansfield Chambers. It should be submitted to [email protected].

Shortlisted candidates will be invited to interview. Interviews will take place in Chambers, with 2-3 Members interviewing, plus the equality and diversity officer in attendance. All candidates will be made aware of the results as soon as possible after the conclusion of the interviews.

Reasonable Adjustments

Please contact [email protected] if you require reasonable adjustments to be made to the application process, by reason of disability or any other protected characteristic.  Mansfield Chambers is committed to equality of outcome and operates a non-discriminatory recruitment process.

The post Third Six Vacancies appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

Michael Mansfield QC

June 18th 2016

Really sorry I can't be standing before you speaking these words myself. I had intended to be with you as I have many times before, right from the original acquittals.  Unfortunately I tripped over a kerbstone ( probably as a result of post Hillsborough ecstasy) and broke my left hip. The one I lead with in court ! I have only just been discharged from hospital and I can't manage too much for the moment.  At last , at long last, the tide is turning. Although the points now being made on a daily basis, in the media and elsewhere, have been made repeatedly since 1984, the full significance and magnitude of what happened at Orgreave, has only just penetrated public consciousness with the devastating findings of the jury in the Hillsborough Inquests.

Those findings unwrapped and unravelled systemic failings in a police force that by 1989 had become arrogant and unaccountable. To explain such a situation you need only go back 5 years to 1984. There was a clear political imperative to undermine the power and influence of the Unions especially the NUM and to hone new tools for the maintenance of public order, akin to militaristic manoeuvres. The whole operation was imbued with a sense of carte blanche and impunity. The police were not being used as an independent buffer, but as a blatant political arm of the state. As a result it is hardly surprising that despite the criminal trials exposing proven unlawful acts of excessive force in the field, proven fabrication and perjury off the field, not a single officer has ever been disciplined let alone prosecuted.  Worse still, this stance has been bolstered by certain organs of the press and by high ranking politicians at the time from both the main parties.

No wonder in 1989 at Hillsborough members of that same force felt free to blame the Liverpool supporters, to lie about what happened outside the ground, to lie about the opening of the gates, to manipulate witness statements. The force had become a law unto itself. In a ground breaking speech to the Police Federation Conference on the 17th May this year, the Home Secretary plainly recognised how far reaching the Hillsborough jury findings and determinations are. It is not, she urges, just a matter of jeopardising the relationship between the police and the public but a matter which calls into question ......'our very model of policing'. Spot on.

We say that once you put Hillsborough together with Orgreave the gravity and urgency of the task becomes clear and not just in South Yorkshire ( nb the ramifications of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Leveson and now Pitchford ) It is time for comprehensive reconfiguration of police accountability,primarily democratic, and the reinstatement of the rule of law.

Theresa May went on to emphasise how there could not be anyone at the conference who did not recognise the enormity of the verdicts, but (most importantly, especially for Orgreave )her further words are absolutely crucial - ' Because historical inquiries are not archaeological excavations. They are not purely exercises in truth and reconciliation. They do not just pursue resolution, they are about ENSURING JUSTICE IS DONE ( my emphasis ) Justice : it's what you deal in. It's your business. And you the police are the custodians.WE MUST NEVER ( my emphasis again ) UNDERESTIMATE HOW THE POISON OF DECADES OLD MISDEEDS SEEPS DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS AND IS JUST AS TOXIC TODAY AS IT WAS THEN. THATS WHY DIFFICULT TRUTHS, HOWEVER UNPALATABLE THEY MAY BE MUST BE CONFRONTED HEAD ON.

And let's not forget, when we look at Hillsborough,the principal obstacle to the pursuit of justice has not been the passage of time. The problem has been that due process was obstructed and the police, the custodians of justice failed to put justice first. '

A more eloquent and trenchant rationale for a public judicial inquiry which embraces Orgreave is difficult to conceive. The Home Secretary has displayed enormous courage and perception in the face of palpable hostility. There is now only one step left ...to follow the logic of her argument and examine the bigger questions about the model of policing we need and implement a judicial Inquiry. These were not questions answered by the Hillsborough jury but rather necessarily raised by their excoriating narrative on police failings.

Were this to happen quickly it could run in tandem with Pitchford ( undercover policing) which is yet to hold substantive hearings and the long awaited and promised Leveson 2 into police media and political collusion. To repeat the Home Secretary's own words Ensure justice is done and stem the flow of toxic misdeeds which have seeped down through the years.

We expect nothing less.

The post Text of Michael Mansfield’s Message of Support to Orgreave Rally appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

Shared parental leave, equal pay, anti-discrimination laws, special funding for women-led projects and protection against harassment and human trafficking: it's all enshrined in EU law

The European Union referendum has finally arrived. While the majority of voters are ready to cast their vote, many voters are still undecided on whether to vote leave or remain. According to a ComRes poll last month, one in five women voters are undecided, in contrast to 14 per cent of male voters.

Women have largely been underrepresented in Brexit debates. Research by Loughborough University published on 23rd May found that just16 per cent of TV appearances on EU issues had been by women. Harriet Harman MP, Labour’s long time champion for women’s rights, also has had enough. She complained to media watchdog Ofcom on 24th May calling for action from the regulator to ensure gender balance during the debate.

Another bone of contention is the content of debates. Brexit debates have focused on a narrow range of issues to the exclusion of subjects that disproportionately impact on women’s lives, such as maternity leave, gender-based violence, and gender parity in male-dominated professions. And yet, the European Union has been influential in changing women’s position in society. It has encouraged the UK to take great strides towards achieving gender equality.

Here are six reasons why women should vote to remain:

EU Funding for gender equality

As a progressive body the European Union seeks to achieve gender equality across European Member States and this is a key objective of the European Commission. Along with several other sources of EU funding, the European Commission’s Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality: 2016-2019 allocated EU funding of €6.17 billion between 2014-2020 to achieve gender equality targets and objectives - these include reducing the gender pay gap, and promoting equality between women and men in business decision-making.

Equal treatment and anti-discrimination

Equal treatment is a founding principle of the European Union. Equal pay has been enshrined in Treaties since 1957, before the Equal Pay Act 1970 ever came into force in the UK. The EU Equal Treatment Directive made it illegal to discriminate against women in the labour market, education and training and Member States have a duty to pay women the same wages as men for work of equal value.

Maternity and parental leave

Maternity leave is enshrined in EU law. It guarantees women the right to at least 14 weeks' maternity leave and protection from maternity-related discrimination. Self-employed women in the EU are entitled to social protection, including maternity leave. The EU also recognises parental leave rights which gives each working parent the right to at least four months' leave after the birth or adoption of a child. At least one of the four months cannot be transferred to the other parent – meaning it will be lost if not taken – offering incentives to the father to take leave.

Violence against women

Violence against women is widespread in the UK, and the rest of Europe. On average police receive an emergency call relating to domestic abuse every 30 seconds in the UK. To prevent violence against women, the EU introduced a Victim's Directive guaranteeing specialist support and protection from repeat victimisation for women; the Equal Treatment Directive sets high standards on preventing and prohibiting sexual harassment; the European Protection Order and mutual recognition in civil matters mean women are protected from perpetrators when they travel anywhere in the EU; and the Anti-trafficking Directive creates a comprehensive framework for prevention, victim support and police cooperation on trafficking (80 per cent of victims are women). Earlier this year Mary Honeyball MEP authored a European Parliament report which raised a number of concerns over the treatment of women refugees entering European Union countries. Her recommendations about how to best support and protect these women were raised with the European Commission who were asked to take swift action.

Gender parity in decision-making

The European Commission is vocal in highlighting the need for gender parity, which is high on its political agenda. The Commission has been strong on collecting data and analysing trends. There are 8 per cent more women MEPs than MPs. 37 per cent of MEPs are women in the European Parliament, compared with only 29 per cent of women MPs in the British Parliament.

Women’s economic independence

A number of EU initiatives have been set up strengthen women's entrepreneurship, including funding for specific programmes, and measures to encourage women’s take-up of STEM and research, through the Horizon2020 Agenda. Cohesion funds like the European Social Fund make funding available for projects which get women into the labour market, reduce the gender employment gap, and alleviate poverty.

The European Union like most institutions isn’t perfect, but the work to improve the lives of British citizens is most effective if led from inside the EU. Voting to remain in the European Union ensures women receive far greater support and protection.

We will continue to highlight the disparities women face on a daily basis: the disparities in pay, the (lack of) support for the family, and helping victims of gender-based violence including trafficking and Female Genital Mutilation to ensure they can live lives free from violence and intimidation.

We are more powerful, and able to achieve far more significant change, leading European legislation for the benefit of millions of women

The post Six big reasons for women to vote Remain in the EU referendum appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

The case considers whether there has been any change in the categories of risk for Eritreans since MO was promulgated in 2011, as well as considering the controversial Danish Fact-finding mission and the recent fact-finding mission of the UK Government, conducted in February 2016.

The UNHCR acting as intervener, provided a crucial contribution, particularly in relation to the UN Commission of Inquiry reports of 2015 and 2016, the latter of which concluded that crimes against humanity have been committed by the Eritrean government since 1991.

The Tribunal has given no indication as to when the determination will be promulgated.

The post Antonia Benfield in the Upper Tribunal on Eritrean Country Guidance Case appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

Please give now at https://chuffed.org/project/legalcentrelesbos

The post Legal Centre Lesbos appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.

The following article was originally published in Socialist Lawyer 73, and is reproduced with thanks to the Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers.

The narrative surrounding the planned referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union rarely considers the impact of Brexit on individuals rather than on society as a whole.  The campaign literature of both the “leave” and “remain” camps focuses on economic and security arguments almost to the exclusion of all others.  Even socialist campaigns to leave the EU frame the debate as one of principle. They attempt to transcend the racist narrative that dominates the leave campaign, turning the referendum into a vote on the EU’s entrenched neoliberalist agenda and crippling austerity programmes.  What is missed by such a broad-brush approach is the impact of Brexit on individual lives, caused by the massive legal changes that would inevitably follow.

The first and most obvious consequence of Brexit would be an end to the four freedoms at the heart of the Treaties: free movement of goods; free movement of services; free movement of capital; and free movement for workers.  As socialists, the first three of these freedoms may not overly concern us. However, the end of free movement of workers will have a dramatic impact on workers’ lives.  Given that the agenda of those who have secured this referendum is by and large to limit immigration to the UK from the EU, there is no reason to believe that free movement of workers between the UK and the EU would continue after Brexit.

The removal of free movement of workers will cause genuine harm to those who wish to move between the UK and the remainder of the EU.  British workers will no longer be able to seek a better life in another EU country should they so wish, unless they satisfy the immigration rules of that country. Moreover, EU workers would have to satisfy the increasingly strict UK Immigration Rules, a virtual impossibility for vast numbers of potential migrants.

Potentially the most important consequence of this for individuals’ lives is that families will inevitably be divided.  EU citizens (other than Irish citizens, to whom a different regime is likely to continue to apply) in becoming subject to British immigration control in the same way as non-EU citizens, would have no automatic right to family reunification.  Family reunification for non-EU citizens wishing to join a British citizen-partner currently requires the applicant to satisfy a host of suitability and eligibility requirements,[1] including earning a minimum of £18,600 per year (plus £3,800 for the first child and £2,400 for each child thereafter),[2] or to show that there are “insurmountable obstacles” to continuing family life outside the UK.[3]  This test is obviously intended to have a disproportionately negative impact on those who are worse off economically, whilst having a limited impact on those who are well off.  (Indeed, the capitalist class can simply buy their way out of the rules that apply to the rest of us.)  Similarly restrictive rules also apply to those wishing to care for dependent adult relatives.  Of course, similar provisions may be applied by EU states to British workers who wish to move abroad.  The impact of this would be truly tragic, with untold numbers of ordinary people’s lives ruined.

What is often assumed by those on the left campaigning to leave the EU is that some legacy provision will be negotiated allowing those who have already migrated to remain in the state to which they have moved (whether British citizens in the rest of the EU, or EU citizens in Britain).  However, there is no reason to believe this will be the case.  The premise of the leave campaign (including, regrettably, the chauvinistic approach taken by some on the left) has been to preserve British jobs for British workers.  No amount of wishful thinking on the part of those who campaign from a socialist standpoint to leave the EU will change this fact: the mainstream leave campaign want rid of foreigners from the UK’s society and its economy.  Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which deals with withdrawal from the EU, does not provide for any legacy provision to protect those EU citizens who already live in the UK.  There is no reason to believe that the Conservative government, with its right wing in the ascendancy following victory in the referendum, would care to create legacy rights for EU workers in the UK.  To campaign as a socialist for the UK to leave the EU is therefore to gamble with the lives of 2 million EU workers in the UK – and 2 million UK workers in the rest of the EU.  This gamble may be a high price to pay for the perceived benefits of leaving.  It is also a gamble that the millions of working class people affected and who risk being deported from their adopted homelands are unlikely to want to be taken

EU citizens are not the only people who would be affected by Brexit.  Third country nationals would also be impacted by the consequent legal changes. An area which affects third country nationals is the question of what happens to individuals who have no status in this country but who are the parents of EU or British citizen children.  Without EU membership the UK government would be free to remove such individuals from the country.  However, EU citizenship rights of children create a right for many such primary carers to remain in the UK.  These so-called “Zambrano carers”[4] are very often single mothers left in the UK to care for young children of EU citizen fathers.  With this status their presence in the UK is lawful due to a derived right of residence. Without Zambrano status they would all too often be left destitute as they would be forbidden from accessing benefits or housing services. The impact of this status on individuals’ lives is profound, providing them with stability and the ability to raise their children in the country they have chosen to make home.

A group in an even more precarious position than Zambrano carers are those who come to the UK from third countries seeking protection.  The EU has been rightly derided for its treatment of asylum seekers and refugees under the Dublin III system.[5]  The system effectively requires an asylum claim to be made in the first EU state in which an asylum seeker arrives, and permits Member States to return asylum seekers within the EU to the Member State of entry (very often Greece, Hungary, Italy, or Spain).  A number of notable exceptions to this principle apply, most importantly in the cases of minors, and some organisations have had a degree of success in using the Dublin III procedure to force the UK government to accept child asylum seekers into the UK.  Nonetheless, the system itself is imperfect and often brutal in its impact on asylum seekers.

However, what the EU does offer (which the UK outside the EU likely would not) is Humanitarian Protection.  Gaining refugee status under the Refugee Convention requires a person to demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear of persecution because of their “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.[6]  This excludes those who are fleeing indiscriminate violence.  Such individuals are not, in law, refugees, no matter how serious the harm is that could be caused to them.  However, the EU requires member states to offer Humanitarian Protection to individuals who, on their return to their country of origin, would face a serious and individual threat to their life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence.[7]  Given the government’s callous disregard for the rights of migrants, and its incessant xenophobic rhetoric, it is difficult to see Humanitarian Protection surviving Brexit.  This puts on the line the lives of a great number of people fleeing violence in conflict zones such as Syria and Somalia.

Thanks to the provisions of the “social chapter”, many areas of UK law which appear disconnected from the immigration field are also currently underpinned by EU law provisions.  Employment law is one of these fields.  The TUC’s analysis makes clear that EU membership provides clear benefits to British workers’ rights:

“The gains UK workers achieve as a result of our membership of the EU include improved access to paid annual holidays, improved health and safety provision, rights to unpaid parental leave, rights to time off work for urgent family reasons, equal treatment rights for part-time, fixed-term and agency workers, rights for outsourced workers, information and consultation and significant health and safety protection.”[8]

In 2012 the Coalition government pushed through provisions creating “employee shareholders” with the intention of creating a new category of worker with essentially no employment rights.  The scheme met with only limited success, in part because many of the most important employment rights were written into EU law and so could not be derogated from.  The present government, now unconstrained by the Liberal Democrats, would be only too happy to strip these rights not just from “employee shareholders”, but from every worker in the country.  In the face of a trade union movement so weak that the Trade Union Act 2016 could be passed in a form that places massive restrictions on the right to strike, there is no reason to believe that the right wing of the Conservative Party, triumphant after a referendum victory, would not take their assault on workers further, overriding all the rights EU legislation presently defends.

EU legislation protects rights in unexpected places as well, which are also liable to come under attack in the event of the UK leaving the EU.  One such example is the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings,[9] which protects a right which has come under particular threat in the context of government outsourcing.  Indeed, without the presence of this Directive there would be nothing to stop the government from allowing interpreters into the criminal courts who have no formal interpreting qualifications.  The consequences of this could be disastrous.

The areas of life affected by EU law are, by now, too numerous to name.  Different lawyers will be aware of the different impacts of the EU on their areas of specialism.  Of course, EU law is not universally positive for British workers.  The EU is fundamentally a capitalist project, limited in its excesses by a historically strong Europe-wide trade union movement which has extracted from it concessions.  Socialists accept that many EU laws directly harm the working class.  However, the nation state is also fundamentally a capitalist project, and many domestic British laws also harm the working class.  There is nothing special in this regard about the EU.  To call for an end to the EU without also calling for an end to the British state is to be blind to the interplay between capital and state power.  When this is understood it should be apparent that Brexit will not act as a break on neoliberalism; the effect will only be that a different section of the capitalist class, oriented away from trade with Europe, will move into the ascendancy, continuing the neoliberal project on a domestic level, but without the working class of Britain having the protections won from the European project.  We will still be fighting the capitalist class.  But the workers of Europe will be further from our side in that struggle.

As socialists we must also be internationalists, opposing the existence of borders between states, accepting that these exist not for the benefit of the working class, but for the benefit of the capitalist class.  Setting up new borders will not bring an end to late capitalism, or to the deregulatory project of the capitalist class.  In the British context, it will make exploitation of the working class easier.  There is no option on the ballot in this referendum for a socialist Europe, or for a socialist Britain.  It is therefore essential that we educate ourselves, and non-lawyers, about what exactly we are voting for.

Stephen Knight is a barrister at Mansfield Chambers practising in crime and immigration law, and is Secretary of the Haldane Society.

[1] Immigration Rules Appendix FM EC-P.1.1.

[2] Immigration Rules Appendix FM E-ECP.3.1.

[3] Immigration Rules Appendix FM EX.1(b).

[4] Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEm) Case C-34/09.

[5] Established under Regulation 604/2013 and its predecessors.

[6] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Article I(A)(2) read with the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees Article I.

[7] Directive 2004/83/EC Article 15(c) (the Qualification Directive).

[8] TUC, UK employment rights and the EU: Assessment of the impact of membership of the European Union on employment rights in the UK, 2016, p 17 available at https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/UK%20employment%20rights%20and%20the%20EU.pdf

[9] Directive 2010/64/EU.

The post Stephen Knight on The Unintended Consequences of the Leftist Case for Brexit appeared first on Mansfield Chambers.