Faculty of Law general media

Speaker: Dr Maitena Arakistain Arriola (Assistant Professor in Civil Law, University of the Basque Country; Visiting Fellow CFL; Bye Fellow, Robinson College)Can the pro-contact culture that prevails in the justice system in child arrangement cases be changed through legislative reform? This is exactly what the Spanish legislator tried to do in 2021 when he amended the Civil Code to introduce a no-contact rule in cases of gendered-based violence. Now the presumption is that there will be no contact unless proven to be in the child’s best interests. Has it worked? The number of cases where unsafe contact is still awarded by the courts suggests that it has not, or, at least, not yet. In this seminar we will look at the position under Spanish Law and we will examine some of the arguments used to avoid the new no-contact rule.For more information about the Faculty Family Law Centre (CFL), see:https://www.family.law.cam.ac.uk/

Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) is an exciting new social network of alumnae at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, which features a diverse range of women from all sectors. CWIL was officially launched on 27 September with an event to mark the centenary of the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, when women were finally allowed to practise. The aim of the event, which coincided with the Cambridge Alumni Festival, was to celebrate the contribution of Law alumnae into legal practice and to the wider world. The Faculty also hosted an exhibition of the much heralded First 100 Years Project (https://first100years.org.uk/). The event was divided into three parts: The first was a panel focusing on issues facing women in practice. Second there was a panel which was oriented around women who have had an impact on the world outside practice, such as in the field of public policy. Finally, there was a discussion with UK Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale and Lady Arden. Equality and diversity were key discussion themes throughout. For more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cwil, or get in touch with the Faculty Development Officer Clare Gordon ([email protected]). This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) is an exciting new social network of alumnae at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, which features a diverse range of women from all sectors. CWIL was officially launched on 27 September with an event to mark the centenary of the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, when women were finally allowed to practise. The aim of the event, which coincided with the Cambridge Alumni Festival, was to celebrate the contribution of Law alumnae into legal practice and to the wider world. The Faculty also hosted an exhibition of the much heralded First 100 Years Project (https://first100years.org.uk/). The event was divided into three parts: The first was a panel focusing on issues facing women in practice. Second there was a panel which was oriented around women who have had an impact on the world outside practice, such as in the field of public policy. Finally, there was a discussion with UK Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale and Lady Arden. Equality and diversity were key discussion themes throughout. This video is the second Panel, introduced by Professor Catherine Barnard and moderated by Nicola Padfield (Master of Fitzwilliam College): Panel 2: Women in the wider world: - Clare Algar - Director of Global Operations at Amnesty International. - Sally Boyle - International Head of Human Capital Management for Goldman Sachs and a member of the European Management Committee. - Lucy Frazer Q.C., M.P. - M.P. for South-East Cambridgeshire. - Katerina Gould - Founder and principal coach at Thinking Potential which she established in 2005, following a career in corporate management and entrepreneurship. Co-founder of Women Returners. - Busola Johnson - Specialist Prosecutor, Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division at Crown Prosecution Service. - Gill Phillips - Director of editorial legal services at Guardian News and Media. - Isabella Sankey – Director of Detention Action, previously at Liberty and Reprieve. For more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cwil, or get in touch with the Faculty Development Officer Clare Gordon ([email protected]). This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) is an exciting new social network of alumnae at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, which features a diverse range of women from all sectors. CWIL was officially launched on 27 September with an event to mark the centenary of the passing of the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919, when women were finally allowed to practise. The aim of the event, which coincided with the Cambridge Alumni Festival, was to celebrate the contribution of Law alumnae into legal practice and to the wider world. The Faculty also hosted an exhibition of the much heralded First 100 Years Project (https://first100years.org.uk/). The event was divided into three parts: The first was a panel focusing on issues facing women in practice. Second there was a panel which was oriented around women who have had an impact on the world outside practice, such as in the field of public policy. Finally, there was a discussion with UK Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale and Lady Arden. Equality and diversity were key discussion themes throughout. This video is the first Panel, introduced by Professor Brian Cheffins (Chair of the Faculty) and Dana Denis-Smith (creator of First 100 Years Project) and moderated by Pippa Rogerson (Master of Gonville & Caius College): Panel 1: Women in Practice: - Caoilfhionn Gallagher Q.C. – Barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, specialising in human rights and civil liberties. - Shauna Gillan – Part time Immigration Judge and barrister at 1 Pump Court, specialising in refugee/immigration, human rights and public law. - Jessica Gladstone – Partner at Clifford Chance, and also Co-founding director and trustee of Advocates for International Development (A4ID); and Chair of the Board of Rule of Law Expertise UK (ROLE UK). - Priya Lele – Legal Process Design Lead, UK, US & EMEA at Herbert Smith Freehills, and co-founder of ‘She Breaks The Law’. - Sara Luder – Partner and Head of Tax at Slaughter and May. - Elaine Penrose – Partner at Hogan Lovells in Litigation, Arbitration, and Employment Group. - Amanda Pinto Q.C. – Vice-Chair of the Bar; specialist in corporate crime, money laundering, corruption, art crime and business wrong-doing at the Chambers of Andrew Mitchell QC, 33 Chancery Lane. For more information and to sign up to the CWIL mailing list to receive information about future news and events, see https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/cwil, or get in touch with the Faculty Development Officer Clare Gordon ([email protected]). This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

In this lecture, Professor John Spencer (President of the European Criminal Law Association/University of Cambridge) presents a round up of the current situation in European Criminal Law and the potential impacts of Brexit. The accompanying slides for this event are available at: http://www.eucriminallaw.com/storage/spencer_annual_roundup_2019.pptx The European Criminal Law Association (ECLA UK) (formerly the Association to Combat Fraud in Europe (ACFE)) is an unincorporated association of practitioners, academics and others interested in the emerging body of European Criminal law. It has been associated since 1980, and continues to study, discuss and provide information on the development of the criminal law in Europe by means of seminars, publications and the ECLA website at: http://www.eucriminallaw.com

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

The Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge explores the common myths of #Brexit. In this exclusive podcast three academics from the Centre for European Legal Studies, University of Cambridge, give their verdicts on twelve common myths about the UK’s #Brexit from the EU. We speak to Professor Catherine Barnard, Professor of European Union Law and a Senior Fellow in the UK in a Changing Europe Programme; Dr Markus Gehring, University Lecturer in Law at the Law Faculty and former Deputy Director of the Centre for European Legal Studies and a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law; Professor John Bell, Professor of Law, University of Cambridge. In this two part #Brexitmyths documentary we ask them to tell you what is true and what isn’t when #Brexit is being discussed. First we speak to Professor Barnard and Dr Gehring and then Professor Bell to sum up his #Brexit myths at the end of each part. Below we give the questions we put to them and the approximate time codes for their answers so that if you want to dip into parts of this discussion it is easy for you to do so. We hope you enjoy the listen and learn much from it. Producer: Boni Sones OBE #Brexit Myths Part One • 0.00 The Withdrawal Agreement itself – it’s a bad deal? • 7.15 The EU got everything it wanted from the UK and took us for a ride? • 11.15 The NI backstop will keep the UK in a customs union indefinitely? • 14.49 May’s deal or No-Deal are the only two options? • 19.30 Trading on WTO terms will be good for the UK as we do more trade outside the EU than in it? • 23.43 The Political Agreement leading to a trade deal is too vague? #Brexit Myths Part Two • 0.00 We have 2 years to negotiate a trade deal when everything else will stay the same? • 5.15 The economy will dip but can make up ground later? • 12.00 By leaving the EU migration into the UK will reduce significantly? • 14.45 A Canada plus or EEA option will be able to deliver the government’s objectives? • 18.25 We have to reach a deal by 29th March 2019 or “crash out” of the EU and go it alone? • 19.45 We can’t revoke Article 50?

On 27 November 2018 Clare College, Cambridge, hosted Visiting Clare Fellow Mr Shanin Specter (1983) who delivered a lecture entitled "From Clarence Thomas to Brett Kavanaugh: The selection and politics of nominees to the US Supreme Court". Mr Specter has taught at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, UC Hastings College of the Law, UC Berkley School of Law and Stanford Law School. He is a founding Partner of the US firm Kilne & Specter. For any more information about the event, contact [email protected] This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On 16 November 2018 the SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) and the CBR, the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, held a conference at Peterhouse College in Cambridge on Brexit with the aim of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion amongst academics and further research on the implications of the UK leaving the EU for public policy. While politicians in Westminster were arguing about the merits of Theresa May, the Prime Minister’s draft Withdrawal Agreement simultaneously delegates to the conference gave their verdict on it. They had actually read the 585 pages of what has been termed the “divorce” bill and the accompanying shorter seven page political agreement which paves the way for our future trade deals. Meanwhile some politicians were admittedly having difficulty getting to grips with it.In this special 57 minute audio podcast three of the Conference guest speakers give their views on the Withdrawal Agreement.All three took issue with the views expressed in the mainstream media that the Agreement was a dogs’ breakfast. They argue that it is a very well-crafted and thought through legal document and that the EU and UK negotiating teams’ have shown considerable skill in drafting it.Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge said that both the EU and UK negotiators need to be congratulated on it. But he expressed concerns about Citizens rights.Deakin key quote: “It is a very soft form of Brexit in which we continue to abide by many standards in terms of labour law and the environment and many people like that. But people who supported Brexit wanted to use it as an opportunity to deregulate these standards, they would be unhappy. People who are concerned about citizens’ rights will also be unhappy, because it has some protections for EU citizens here and those UK citizens living in mainland Europe, but it doesn’t go far enough in many respects, it doesn’t give UK citizens living in mainland Europe the right to live and work outside the EU host state they have been living within. We’re under protecting EU Citizens abroad.”Deakin gives a powerful summary of how he thinks the Agreement will play out for the UK in the longer term in terms of the devolved assemblies, and its economic impact.“Brexit here as elsewhere puts enormous pressure on our existing constitutional arrangements and begins to call into question the legitimacy of the way in which Brexit has been conducted because significant voices such as the devolved administrations would argue they have been left out.“It is legally impressive to have produced a text of this nature so quickly. People drafting it on both the EU and British side deserve to be congratulated. We do need law to play a role here. Without the enormous effort to put into legal terms this big political shift we would be facing a much more chaotic and difficult situation. The deal that has been offered by the EU is infinitely preferable to no-deal; no-deal will not just put at risk our economy but many aspects of social provision including things as basic as the free circulation of medicines and the free circulation of some goods and no-deal could easily lead to food shortages and the mothballing of other aspects of our industrial capacity.“But on the down side it doesn’t sufficiently protect the rights of UK citizens living on the mainland and our environmental and labour rights because the non-regression clause only applies up to the end of the transition period. It could have provided for a more dynamic forward looking alignment of UK law with those standards. The customs territory has been designed as a function of the need to avoid a hard border in NI and this is understandable but it underplays the degree to which we need a customs union within the EU.”He went on to say that the Agreement was a compromise: “It’s the compromise and that was unavoidable with Brexit. Both sides have compromised I think. It is infinitely better than no-deal.”Catherine Barnard, Professor of EU Law at the University of Cambridge and a Senior Fellow of UK in a Changing Europe says it is a “huge and impressive” piece of government legislation. She then goes on to list her top five countdown of the key points within it: The provisions on direct effect and supremacy; Citizens rights; the transition; the role of the court of justice; the institutional provisions.Barnard key quote: “Anyone who tells you they have got their heads round it already is just making it up. This is a huge piece of work and actually a very impressive piece of work. From a legal perspective you look at this text and you think Wow, some really impressive minds have been applied to this. It is quite difficult to read because there are lots of cross references to provisions in the main body of the text to the annex to the protocols, which means there are things in there that we haven’t spotted yet. Some very good people have been working on it. ”Alison Young, the Sir David Williams Professor of Public Law at University of Cambridge looks at the constitutional implications of the deal.Alison key quote: “It’s right to say we don’t have a unified constitution so you couldn’t find it in a law library. What we have instead is a combination of legal rules and political practices, conventions and case law and all of those work together to tell us what the UK constitution says in certain areas.”She explained that the devolved administrations have not been happy with the Brexit negotiations: “In terms of Brexit because our membership with the EU is a reserved matter, it belongs to the UK, it has meant Westminster has been the main body to carry out the negotiations. There have been meetings with the devolved bodies, of Scotland, Wales and NI. There have been debates in the devolved administrations on Brexit and documents published but it is fair to say these have not always been fully taken on board in Westminster.”So called Henry VIII powers which allow ministers to change existing legislation without putting it to full parliament scrutiny via secondary legislation are also giving rise to concerns she said: “I understand the concerns about the Henry III clauses. It can be very hard to delineate between a tiny technical change that you think is constitutionally OK for the UK executive to make for example taking away the word “commission” and replacing it with the word “minister”. Most of those measures are taken by negative resolutions and they go through unless someone says no thank you and they are then voted in. It is estimated there are 1,000 or so measures that have to come through quite quickly and there is concern about whether or not there is sufficient democratic scrutiny over these policy choices that will have wide ramifications going forward. Even with a committee there to try and rescue these some may fall through the gaps. There may not be enough time to scrutinise these and as a constitutional lawyer this is very concerning. “Young said written constitutions came about after a specific constitutional moment such as regime change and chaotic moments in a countries political history such as the break-up of the former Soviet Union.She continued: “In some senses Brexit has shown up the strength of the UK constitution because it has allowed us to think through flexibly without pushing to a complete crisis. But on the other hand it has pointed to a huge weakness. That there is an uncertainty and that it is decided purely by power rather than also by the interaction of constitutional principles. There is this huge lack of clarity and things need to be done very quickly. There are dangers in this. Maybe now we should say is this our constitutional moment and after Brexit we should sit down and think with some clarity of how to go forward. We could have a constitution convention process involving the people. “

Simon Deakin, Director of the Centre for Business Research and Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge, tells the Cambridge Public Policy SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) why Brexit isn’t the cure for Britain’s broken economic model. On 16 November 2018 the SRI and the CBR, the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, are holding a conference in Cambridge on Brexit with the aim of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion amongst academics and further research on the implications of the UK leaving the EU for public policy.This is the third of a series of podcasts which the Public Policy SRI has commissioned with key speakers involved in the Cambridge event.In this audio podcast Professor Deakin explains that Britain’s low-wage, low productivity economy is the result of forty years of neoliberal economic policies. While some on the Left think that Brexit will allow a reset of British economic policy, Deakin explains why this view is implausible. Even a benign or ‘soft’ Brexit will cause a shock to Britain’s trading relations that will have long-lasting consequences. If there is a hard, no-deal Brexit, the effect will be akin to ‘shock therapy’ of the kind inflicted by neoliberal policy makers on the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

This Young Practitioners’ Event was organized in association with the ICC Young Arbitrators Forum (YAF) on 17 March 2017, and preceded the main conference. This event was aimed at encouraging young practitioners to exchange professional experience and create a network that strengthens relationships within the young arbitration community. The panel discussion was on: Clash Between the Common Law and Civil Law Approach in International Arbitration1. Moderator: Ania Farren / Partner Berwin Leighton Paisner2. Role of the Counsel: Timothy Foden / Of Counsel Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan3. Discovery & Document Productions: Saadia Bhatty / Associate Clyde & Co4. Differences in Advocacy & Pleading: Alexis Martinez / Partner Squire Patton Boggs5. The Inter-relationship Between the Courts and Arbitration: Ruth Byrne / Partner King & Spalding

Dr Lorand Bartels, a Reader in International Law at the University of Cambridge, teaches WTO & EU law, tells the Cambridge Public Policy SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) what he thinks the UK’s prospects are of getting proper trade deals with other countries post Brexit.

Catherine Barnard, Professor of EU Law at the University of Cambridge and a Senior Fellow of UK in a Changing Europe tells the Cambridge Public Policy SRI (Strategic Research Initiative) what she thinks of the UK government’s Chequers Deal.The SRI and the CBR, the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge, are holding a conference in November on Brexit with the aim of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion amongst academics and further research on the implications of the UK leaving the EU for public policy.This is the first of a series of podcasts the SRI Public Policy has commissioned with key speakers involved in the Cambridge event.

On 16th May 2012, the Hughes Hall Hat Club at the University of Cambridge held a special public seminar which comprised a panel discussion based on the central topic of "The Politics of Constitution-Making after the Arab Spring”. The panel addressed whether re-constitutionalisation in the post-authoritarian era can embody the aspirations of the popular uprisings that swept across many parts of the Middle East and North Africa and the ways in which ongoing debates around constitutionalisation indicate that the Arab Spring is far from over. Among the topics highlighted was the discernible pertinence of the idea of constitutional change in the aftermath of the unprecedented political transitions. Presentations focused specifically on the limited extent to which constitutions have mattered in the past, focusing particularly on the eastern Arab world, the historical mismatch between the textual content of constitutions and how governments have actually behaved in practice—and to what extent that has changed over the last few years since the uprisings. Specific case studies examined the implications of the centralized planning system in Egypt, the obstacles to reform and the challenges presented to decentralization and regional planning initiatives currently underway; the referendum and recent constitutional reforms in Morocco; and recent debates in Bahrain. The speakers were Dr. Glen Rangwala, University Lecturer, Department of Politics and International Studies and a Fellow of Trinity College; Professor John Loughlin, Affiliated Lecturer, Department of Politics and International Studies and a Fellow of St Edmund’s College; Professor Marc Weller, the Director of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law in the Faculty of Law; and Mr. Mohammad Ahnouch, business professional specializing on the MENA region, founding member of MarocObs, an association of Young Moroccans promoting free speech, monitoring and commenting political events in the Moroccan scene. Dr. John Barker, Chairman of the UK Foreign Compensation Commission, a Fellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law and a Law Fellow of Hughes Hall chaired the panel. Mr. Abduljalil Khalil, a leading figure in Bahrain's largest opposition party, Al Wefaq, contributed to the discussion.

On Monday 5 September in the Moot Court Room of the Faculty of Law, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson delivered a talk entitled 'Legal Aid and the Costs Review Reforms'. In it, he considered Government proposals to reduce public financial support for civil proceedings through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, implementing some of Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations in his Civil Litigation Costs Review. Following the talk, there was discussion by academics and practitioners.

In 'An A-Z of Brexit', various members of the Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), discuss Brexit issues. Over two episodes, the speakers lead listeners through the twenty six letters of the alphabet to help impart a greater understanding of what Brexit means for the United Kingdom. These recordings feature Catherine Barnard, Albertina Albors-Llorens, Markus Gehring, John Bell, Julie Smith, and Sophie Turenne, and were produced by Boni Sones. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/brexit/an-a-z-of-brexit

In 'An A-Z of Brexit', various members of the Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS), discuss Brexit issues. Over two episodes, the speakers lead listeners through the twenty six letters of the alphabet to help impart a greater understanding of what Brexit means for the United Kingdom. These recordings feature Catherine Barnard, Albertina Albors-Llorens, Markus Gehring, John Bell, Julie Smith, and Sophie Turenne, and were produced by Boni Sones. For more information see: https://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/brexit/an-a-z-of-brexit

This is the second talk of the Cambridge Society for Law and Governance in the New Economy. Aurelio Gurrea Martínez and Nydia Remolina León talk on the topic 'Initial Coin Offerings: Regulatory Challenges and Risks'. Aurelio Gurrea Martínez is a Corporate Governance and Teaching Fellow in Capital Markets and Financial Regulation at Harvard Law School, Founder and Executive Director of the Ibero-American Institute for Law and Finance, and Lecturer in Business Law and Director of International Programs at the Centro de Estudios Garrigues. He studied law and business (LLB, BA, PhD) in Spain, where he is also a qualified auditor. He received a Master of Science in Law and Finance from the University of Oxford and a Master of the Science of Law from Stanford University. Aurelio has been an advisor to the Spanish Ministry of Justice and a national expert for the assessment of the Spanish insolvency and secured transaction regime conducted by the International Monetary Fund. Aurelio has been a visiting researcher at various institutions, including Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School, Yale Law School, and the Max Planck Institute, and he is an instructor for the Global Certificate Program for Securities Regulators organised by Harvard Law School and the International Organization of Securities Commissions. He is founding partner at Dictum, a business law firm with offices in Spain and Hong Kong. In 2016, he was named Rising Star of Corporate Governance by the Millstein Center for Global Markets and Corporate Ownership at Columbia Law School. Nydia Remolina León is a Lecturer in Financial Regulation at the University of Los Andes and Senior Advisor for Innovation, Regulation and Digital Transformation at Bancolombia, one of the largest financial groups in Latin America. She holds a Master of the Science of Law (focusing on capital markets, corporate finance, and financial innovation) from Stanford University, and a Law degree and a Master’s in Capital Markets from Javeriana University. She has acted as a senior consultant to the OECD, and she practiced at Sullivan & Cromwell (New York Office) specialising in financial regulation, M&A, and Fintech. She is a Research Associate at the Ibero-American Institute for Law and Finance and a Member of the International Advisory Board of the Foundation for Financial Innovation and the Digital Economy. Nydia has delivered lectures at numerous institutions in the United States, Asia, Europe, and Latin America, and she has been invited to speak about Fintech and Regtech at various international organisations, including the International Monetary Fund and the International Organization of Securities Commissions. Jenifer Varzaly and Pablo M. Baquero are Co-convenors of Law and Governance in the New Economy.

The Cambridge University Human Rights Law Society invited Polly Glynn of Deighton Pierce Glynn to speak about the practice of Human Rights law on the 23rd of April at the Faculty of Law. About Polly Glynn Polly Glynn is a public law and human rights specialist with a particular interest in social welfare law. She has conducted judicial review claims in the High Court and on appeal to the Court of Appeal, and has brought cases before the European Court of Human Rights. She has a broad range of public law expertise. Her current caseload includes a challenge to a high profile motorway build, and a number of cases for destitute migrants challenging the level of support provided under community care legislation. She has extensive experience of discrimination law, acting in the ECHR on a number of successful claims arising out of the discriminatory effect of the UK’s rules on widows’ benefits and tax allowances, and in relation to eligibility for housing. She also acts in relation to Equality Act damages particularly in a housing context. Polly Glynn is recommended for public and administrative law and for civil liberties and human rights in the Chambers 2015 directory, which quotes clients saying she is “very supportive in a way that complements our own expertise, and working together with her is a pleasure.” And that “she’s very diligent, and she provides impartial advice which is really helpful in coming to a decision.” She is also recognised as a leading individual in the Legal 500 directory for her work in Civil Liberties and Human Rights where she is described as “an expert in the field of civil liberties and human rights”. Polly Glynn is also expert in housing cases, particularly in relation to public law issues and discrimination. She has a special interest in challenging decisions affecting vulnerable clients including those who lack mental capacity. She is recommended as a leading individual in social housing law in the Legal 500 directory, which reports that she is ‘bright and experienced’.

Steven M. Wise is founder and president of the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). He has taught animal rights law at Harvard Law School, Vermont Law School, John Marshall Law School, Lewis & Clark Law School, and Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine and is the author of numerous books and articles. He has practiced animal protection law for 30 years throughout the US and his work on the legal personhood of chimpanzees and elephants has been featured in the New York Times, CNN, BBC, and The Guardian, among others, as well as in the HBO documentary movie Unlocking the Cage. Steven gave this lecture at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, on 5 April 2018. This talk was part of the “Talking Animals, Law & Philosophy” series. For more information on the talk series, visit: http://www.talkinganimals.co.uk This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, spoke at Clare College on the evening of 12 March 2018 on the subject of 'Judicial Impartiality: Essential or Impossible?'. Lord Neuberger examined this from the perspective of both court and arbitral adjudication. Having graduated as a scientist and spent three years as an investment banker, David Neuberger became a barrister in 1975, and in 1987 was appointed Queen’s Counsel. In 1996, he was appointed a High Court Judge, in the Chancery Division. In 2004, he was promoted to the Court of Appeal, and in 2007 he became a Law Lord. In 2009, he was appointed Master of the Rolls. In 2012, he became the President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, from which he retired in September 2017. Since 2010, Lord Neuberger has been a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal; in January 2018, he became a Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court. Lord Neuberger practises as an arbitrator from One Essex Court in the Temple, London (chambers of Lord Grabiner QC). Lord Neuberger is an honorary Fellow of the Royal Society, and an honorary member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Sir Rupert Jackson, a Lord Justice of Appeal, and Hon Fellow of Jesus College, spoke on the topic 'Was it All Worth It?' at Clare College, Cambridge, on 5 March 2018. During the last ten years Sir Rupert has been the main influence on the reform of civil justice in England and Wales. His official reports have been aimed at promoting access to justice at proportionate cost. His 2009 recommendations were implemented in 2013. His recent proposals are under consideration.

This is the inaugural talk of the Cambridge Society for Law and Governance in the New Economy. Professor Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell presents her paper 'A Comparative Analysis of Crowdfunding Rules in the EU and U.S.' Teresa Rodríguez de las Heras Ballell is Associate Professor of Commercial Law at University Carlos III of Madrid, Spain. She is a Visiting Fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford University and has been a Transatlantic Technology Law Fellow at Stanford Law School since 2015. She has also held visiting teaching and research positions at Columbia Law School, the University of Washington, and the University of Tokyo. Her main research interests are digital law (crowdfunding, shared economy, electronic platforms, digital intermediaries), international business transactions and secured transactions and corporate finance. Jenifer Varzaly and Pablo M. Baquero are Co-convenors of Law and Governance in the New Economy.

The inaugural Peterhouse Law Lecture was delivered on 20 October 2017 by Professor Michael Dougan (m. 1993), Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law, University of Liverpool.For further information, contact Holly Ashcroft ([email protected]).

Dr Paul Daly speaks to Dr Janina Boughey of Monash University, author of "Human Rights and Judicial Review in Australia and Canada: The Newest Despotism?".

On 8th September 2017, the British Law Centre held its 25th Anniversary Conference at the Faculty of Law. The first plenary session was chaired by Lord Robert Carnwath, and introduced by Professor Kenneth Armstrong. In the keynote address, UK Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston spoke on the topic "More important than Brexit? The EU and the Refugee Crisis."For more information see: https://www.britishlawcentre.co.uk/blc-25th-anniversary-conference/

A talk given by Dr Paul Daly to a group of clerks and judges at the Federal Court of Canada

A lecture given at the Cambridge Sixth Form Law Conference in March 2017 by Professor Mark Elliott. The lecture offers a brief introduction to UK Constitutional Law, using the 'Black Spider Memos' case — concerning freedom of information requests in relation to correspondence between Prince Charles and Government Ministers — to illustrate some fundamental points about the UK constitution and about Constitutional Law as a subject. The lecture focusses on the UK Supreme Court's decision in the case, and on the reliance placed by the Justices on two fundamental constitutional principles: the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.

Professor Stephane Beaulac (University of Montreal) and Dr Frédéric Bérard (University of Montreal). Professor Beaulac is an alumnus of Darwin College (PhD) and is an expert on public international law and constitutional law. He has recently produced a monograph on the Scottish independence referendum. Dr Bérard is co-director of the National Observatory on Language Rights and a lecturer at the Faculty of Law at the Université de Montréal. The title is: “Remedial Secession and the 1998 Quebec Secession Reference Case: Did the Supreme Court of Canada Get it Wrong?”

The BBC Radio 4 Law in Action special edition entitled 'Brexit in the High Court' broadcast on 8 November 2016 featuring Professor Catherine Barnard and Professor Mark Elliott discussing the result of the High Court decision on the implementation of Article 50. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b081lkmf Provided courtesy of the BBC.

Professor Richard K. Sherwin, Wallace Stevens Professor of Law, Dean for Faculty Scholarship, Director, The Visual Persuasion Project, New York Law School, spoke about 'Visual Literacy for Lawyers: How Visual Evidence and Visual Storytelling Are Changing the Practice of Law in the Digital Age' on 26 April 2016 as a guest of the Fitzwilliam College Law Society. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The BBC Radio 4 Law in Action special edition entitled 'Brexit: The Legal Minefield' broadcast on 28 June 2016 featuring Professor Catherine Barnard and Professor Mark Elliott discussing the outcome of the EU Referendum, and the possible outcomes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07kdsdl Provided courtesy of the BBC.

Simon Deakin is a Professor of Law. He specializes in labour law, private law, company law and EU law. His research is concerned, more generally, with the relationship between law and the social sciences, and he contributes regularly to the fields of law and economics, law and development, and empirical legal studies. He is Director of the Centre for Business Research (http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/), co-Chair of the Public Policy SRI and a Fellow of Peterhouse. His books include Tort Law (7th. ed. with Basil Markesinis and Angus Johnston, 2012), Labour Law (6th. ed. 2012, with Gillian S. Morris), The Law of the Labour Market: Industrialization, Employment, and Legal Evolution (2005, with Frank Wilkinson), and Hedge Fund Activism in Japan: The Limits of Shareholder Primacy (2012, with John Buchanan and Dominic Chai). He is editor in chief of the Industrial Law Journal and a member of the editorial board of the Cambridge Journal of Economics.

Ruth Armstrong hosted the second seminar in the ‘Subversive Good’ CRASSH series on Tuesday 27 October. Speakers: Dr Caroline Lanskey (Criminology), Ms Bethany Schmidt (Criminology) and Rev Paul Tyler (Chaplain of HMP Frankland) Hannah Arendt, in Eichmann, Jerusalem wrote that ‘the essence of totalitarian government, and perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy, is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of individuals, and thus to dehumanize them’. In this panel, the speakers will discuss how social spaces and institutions, such as prisons and schools, emerge as political bureaucracies with the potential for dehumanizing and disenfranchising key stakeholders, leading to ‘civic death’. Are there alternatives to such bureaucratized approaches that lead to civic and participatory engagement that humanises the political subject? For more information on the whole series please visit: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/the-subversive-good This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Panel 2: The Private Life; The State and Public SphereChair: Nora Ni Loideain (University of Cambridge)David Vincent (Open University): "Privacy and the crisis of the liberal State"Karlin Lillington (Irish Times): "Privacy & page one; the challenge of engaging readers ... and editors"Simon Rice (Information Commissioner's Office)

Keynote address: "Why Privacy?"Chair: John Naughton (University of Cambridge)Keynote speaker: Christena Nippert-Eng (Indiana University)

This was an event in the ‘Subversive Good’ CRASSH series held on Tuesday 1 March 2016. Speakers: - Dr Michelle Ellefson (Psychology and Education) - Dr Tatiana Thieme (Human Geography) - Dr Ben Crewe (Criminology) This seminar will consider how we create ‘spaces’ of physical, social and cognitive transformation. What are the contexts where transformations might be embedded? How might physical, social and cogntive spaces related to each other? Tatiana Thieme (Human Geography) will consider the role of human spaces, especially urban ones where there is a high level of poverty. Michelle Ellefson (Education, Cognitive Psychology) will consider the role of specific aspects of cognition, especially those where the environment impacts their cognitive and neuro-cognitive development. Ben Crewe (Criminology) will consider the role of the physical, psychological and social with reference to his research on how people cope with the impacts of long-term imprisonment. For more information on the whole series please visit: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/the-subversive-good This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The segment of the BBC Radio Scotland John Beattie programme broadcast on 22 February 2016 featuring Professor Catherine Barnard discussing how British citizens have been affected by being part of the EU. The complete programme and further information is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b070d4wd Provided courtesy of the BBC.

The segment of the BBC Radio 4 PM programme broadcast on 26 February 2016 featuring Professor Catherine Barnard discussing the prospects for the Schengen Area in the context of the current migrant crisis and the British referendum on the EU. The complete programme and further information is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071fnwd Provided courtesy of the BBC.

The segment of the BBC Radio 4 World at One programme broadcast on 29 February 2016 featuring Professor Catherine Barnard discussing the possibility of Great Britain invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The complete programme and further information is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b071skpk Provided courtesy of the BBC.

The segment of the BBC World at One programme broadcast on 20 February 2016 featuring Professor Catherine Barnard discussing the EU Settlement Deal, and the announcement of the 'Brexit' UK referendum on EU membership. Programme information is available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0732184 Provided courtesy of the BBC.

Legal Harms & the New Politics of Resistance: Examining the Juridification of Social (in)justice, Legitimacy, Violence and Extremism Extremism and surveillance are top of the global political agenda. How do state responses to harm shape contemporary culture, and relate to interpersonal violence and resistance? To help us ponder these questions, in a series of four presentations, Eva Nanopoulos (Law) and Loraine Gelsthorpe (Criminology), problematise the ways in which the legal system can both cause and prevent 'harm'. Ryan Williams (Divinity) draws on his analysis of prisoner heirarchies in high security prisons in England to discuss how faith is used as a route to resistance, and Amy Nivette (Sociology) reflects on the relationship between state legitimacy and interpersonal violence. - Dr Eva Nanopoulos (Law): 'The Prevent Strategy' - Dr Ryan Williams (Divinity): 'Islamic Piety and the Subversive Good in Maximum Security Prisons' - Professor Loraine Gelsthorpe (Criminology): 'Imprisonment of Women' - Dr Amy Nivette (Criminology): 'Legal Harms, Delegitimization, and Violence' The presentations are followed by a group discussion with the speakers. Part of The Subversive Good Disrupting Power, Transcending Inequalities Research Group Seminar Series at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities. For more information see: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/the-subversive-good

Mrs Nicky Padfield, University of Cambridge: Darwin College Lecture Series The criminal justice process has often been compared to a ‘game’: the ‘games’ lawyers play, for example, or the various ‘games’ played by prisoners or prison psychologists. It is always other people who are playing games…. This lecture will explore current trial processes and sentencing processes in England and Wales by comparing them to traditional games: in what sense is a trial like a game of ‘blind man’s buff’? why does progressing through the prison system feel to many prisoners like a game of ‘snakes and ladders’? Of course, none of these processes really feel like a game to the principal players. But the analogies can throw fresh light on how we should evaluate the effectiveness of our criminal justice system.Biography: Nicola Padfield is Master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, and a Reader in Criminal and Penal Justice at the Law Faculty, University of Cambridge, where she has worked for more than 20 years. She has a broad research lens, engaged in both ‘hard’ law and in socio-legal-criminological research. She is a leading European expert on sentencing law, including the law and practice of release from (and recall to) prison. A barrister by training, she has published widely on many aspects of criminal law, sentencing and criminal justice. She sat as a Recorder (part-time judge) in the Crown Court 2002-2014 and is a Bencher of the Middle Temple.

Catherine Barnard, Kenneth Armstrong, Julie Smith, Albertina Albors-Llorens and Markus Gehring share their ‘hot off the press’ reactions to the proposed new settlement of the United Kingdom within the EU (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/02/02-letter-tusk-proposal-new-settlement-uk/), followed by discussion. - Professor Kenneth Armstrong: 'Baskets 1 and 2: competitiveness and governance'; - Dr Julie Smith: 'Basket 3: sovereignty'; - Professor Catherine Barnard: 'Basket 4: social benefits and free movement'; - Dr Markus Gehring: 'What’s difficult about the baskets for other Member States?'; - Dr Albertina Albors-Llorens: 'If the proposals are adopted how enforceable would they be anyway?' For more information, see the following on Twitter: @UKandEU @eumigrantworker @EULegalStudies #UKEUdeal This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

The UNFCCC negotiations in Paris in December last year resulted in the new Paris Agreement on Climate Change. But what does the Agreement actually say and what does it mean for our future? Co-Chairs: Dr Markus Gehring and Professor Joanna Depledge Guest Speaker: Dr Marie-Claire Cordonier Hosted by the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law, the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, the Cambridge Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance and the Department of Politics and International Studies. Guest Speaker Dr Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger outlines key elements of the new Paris Agreement, exploring the emerging international context and key legal challenges for implementing "climate justice" for more sustainable development that guides and is guided by international law in a post-Paris carbon-constrained world. Dr Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger, DPhil (Oxon) MEM (Yale) BCL and LLB (McGill), BA Hons, Senior Director, Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL); Chair, Climate Law and Governance Consortium at UNFCCC CoP21 in Paris; author/editor of 18 books and over 80 papers on climate change, sustainable development law and policy, and co-editor of Implementing Sustainable Development Treaties Series (CUP). Serves as Affiliated Fellow, Lauterpacht Centre for International Law (LCIL) and Fellow, Centre for Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Governance (C-EENRG) at the University of Cambridge; Senior Research Associate, Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); Senior Legal Expert, Sustainable Development, International Development Law Organization (IDLO) & Advisor to the United Nations Environment Programme. See: https://www.facebook.com/events/1730695987167422/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Alison Liebling (Criminology): 'Towards a person centred social science' Judith Gardom (Education/Criminology): ''The subversive good' - person-centred social science and the politics of recognition' Riffing off a video of Joelle Taylor’s ‘The last poet standing’, this session will explore what (often) unarticulated assumptions do social scientists make about personhood in how they design and explore their research questions? Drawing on her work on Trust, Risk and Faith in High Security prisons, Alison Liebling (Criminology) will lead us in conversation about how visions of human nature shape our theories of individual identity and potential, social action and institutions. Judith Gardom (Education/Criminology) will draw on her work about forms of recognition and its importance in educational settings. She will consider when the personal becomes political, and how this might influence methodology. For more information on the whole series please visit: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/the-subversive-good This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Amy Ludlow and Ruth Armstrong hosted the second seminar in the ‘Subversive Good’ CRASSH series on Tuesday 27 October. Speakers: Jacob Dunne (undergraduate criminologist, Nottingham Trent University), Ruth Armstrong (Criminology) and Amy Ludlow (Law). Paolo Friere said: ‘Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.’ Contributors will engage with the constraints, realities and potential of education as the practice of freedom. Jacob Dunne (undergraduate criminologist Nottingham Trent) will draw on his own experiences and struggles in gaining access to higher education after serving a prison sentence and Ruth Armstrong (Criminology) and Amy Ludlow (Law) will draw on their experiences of teaching masters level criminology to a class of prisoners and Cambridge post-grads. For more information on the whole series please visit: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/the-subversive-good This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

This was the third seminar in the ‘Subversive Good’ CRASSH series on Tuesday 10 November 2015. Speakers: Baz Dreisinger (Prison to College Pipeline, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY), Karen Graham (Educational Sociology) and Ingrid Obsuth (Criminology) How are security discourses shaping schools as spaces of learning and education as the ‘practice of freedom’? What are the impacts of securitisation upon social justice and inclusion? What if our prisons became hotbeds of learning and connection? Our dialogue will be led by Baz Dreisinger (founder and Academic Director of John Jay’s groundbreaking Prison-to-College Pipeline programme in New York), Ingrid Obsuth, (an expert in the socio-emotional, cognitive and biological aspects of the development and progression of delinquent and aggressive behaviour in young people) and Karen Graham (whose research focusses on the correspondence between experiences in school and in prison). For more information on the whole series please visit: http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/programmes/the-subversive-good This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

A lunchtime workshop of the ‘Technology and Democracy’ projectIn a landmark judgment on October 7 the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Safe Harbour framework governing the transfer of EU citizens’ personal data to the US does not comply with the requirements of EU Data Protection law in light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and is therefore invalid under EU law.The Safe Harbour framework stemmed from a decision of the European Commission in 2000 (2000/520/EC) that the US afforded an adequate level of protection of personal data transferred to the US from the EU. This decision was made long before the EU Charter became part of EU law and more than a decade prior to the Edward Snowden revelations.The ECJ’s judgment thus invalidates arrangements that for 15 years have allowed Internet companies to transfer the personal data of European users to server farms in the US and elsewhere. It has very wide-ranging implications — not just for data-protection law, but also for the economics of Internet companies and for international relations. This workshop will discuss some of those implications.Panel: David Runciman (chair), John Naughton, Ross Anderson, Nora Ni Loideain

On 15 July 2015 the Faculty hosted a workshop in partnership with Clifford Chance. The event was an opportunity for the Faculty of Law to share with Clifford Chance some examples of recent research. Three short presentations were made: - Hayk Kupelyants: 'The Role of English Courts in Scrutinising sovereign Debt Restructurings'; - Dr Albertina Albors-Llorens: 'The consumer in EU Competition Law'; - Dr Michael Waibel: 'International Financial Control in Greece: Then and Now';