Dr Douglas Morrison

This paper explores the use of assessment methods in law modules which explicitly value and encourage creativity and innovation. It does so in the context of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) and argues that the type of learning and teaching likely to be promoted by this “Super Exam” is the exact opposite of the deep learning and critical thinking that higher education should foster. The paper draws on some of the recommendations of the Legal Education and Training Review (LETR) and a service review evaluating the introduction of poster presentations as a replacement for a multiple-choice question (MCQ) test as an assessment method into the Medical Law module at Leeds Beckett University and highlights the value of encouraging creativity in order to foster a wide variety of valuable skills.

This article will evaluate whether a “duty of candour” on public employees including specifically health practitioners and police officers is an effective mechanism in terms for improving trust and openness. This is the context of the actions of the police in relation to the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 where 96 soccer fans died at the match due to ineffective policing. The formal identification of responsibility on the part of the police despite the attempt by the police to attribute blame elsewhere, was the starting point of a proposal for an explicit duty on officials in public bodies such as the police to tell the truth and be under a statutory “duty of candour.” The article provides an overview of the duty of candour, its subsequent development, legislatively and professionally in the context of the British health care system, where it currently exists, and the potential impact for the police. It is argued that engagement with the paradox between professional and organizational duty expressed through the language of culture and truth telling is necessary to reassert the importance of trust and integrity in a range of public bodies.

This paper draws on our continuing work on the neoliberal and marketised law school and seeks to understand how we might apply vulnerability theory to address some of the problems resulting from current higher education and law school contexts. After outlining our understanding of vulnerability theory and summarising what we believe are some of the ills of a neoliberal law school, this paper argues that vulnerability theory allows us to reframe our thinking about academic labour and law schools on a theoretical level. As such it is useful for a longer-term project which seeks to challenge existing structures. For more immediate concerns however, the paper suggests, vulnerability theory is less useful because it does not yet provide tools which can be easily operationalised to make a significant difference in our everyday academic lives.

How we interpret and understand the historical contexts of legal education has profoundly affected how we understand contemporary educational cultures and practices. This book, the result of a Modern Law Review seminar, both celebrates and critiques the lasting impact of Peter Birks’ influential edited collection, Pressing Problems in the Law: Volume 2: What is the Law School for? Published in 1996, his book addresses many critical issues that are hauntingly present in the 21st century, amongst them the impact of globalisation; technological disruption; and the tension inherent in law schools as they seek to balance the competing interest of teaching, research and administration. Yet Birks’ collection misses key issues, too. The role of wellbeing, of emotion or affect, the relation of legal education to education, the status of legal education in what, since his volume, have become the devolved jurisdictions of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland – these and others are absent from the research agenda of the book. 　 Today, legal educators face new challenges. We are still recovering from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on our universities. In 1996 Birks was keen to stress the importance of comparative research within Europe. Today, legal researchers are dismayed at the possibility of losing valuable EU research funding when the UK leaves the EU, and at the many other negative effects of Brexit on legal education. The proposed Solicitors Qualifying Examination takes legal education regulation and professional learning into uncharted waters. This book discusses these and related impacts on our legal educations. 　 As law schools approach an existential crossroads post-Covid-19, it seems timely to revisit Birks’ fundamental question: what are law schools for?

This thesis examines the Modern Slavery survivor pathway from intervention to recovery and assesses the support systems available to survivors throughout this process. It also explores links to other traumatic crimes and investigates how the role of “witness” in the criminal justice system impacts survivors’ experiences. The work showcases findings from interviews with frontline practitioners alongside analysis of Government publications and independent reports.  This research builds on existing literature and draws on a range of sources to develop a broad and detailed picture of the survivor support system in the UK. Against this backdrop, the thesis offers a unique perspective based on the experiences of frontline practitioners within the survivor support system and provides a holistic contribution to the current body of work in this field.  This thesis posits that the current Modern Slavery legal framework is failing survivors of this horrific crime. The UK Government is falling short of its commitment to protect and support survivors and much of the financial cost of support is subsidised through the voluntary sector’s own fundraising efforts. Combined with a greater Governmental focus on immigration enforcement, many survivors end up homeless or in immigration detention. Poor monitoring and communication practices mean that many survivor outcomes are not known at all.  The findings emphasise the importance of holistic care pathways with a consistent, benchmark standard of support across all services, including advocacy for each individual. The thesis further argues that the UK Government needs to extend its anti-slavery efforts towards long-term support and understanding of survivor needs, which should include a focus on survivor narratives and input. This would not only improve recovery outcomes but would advance the criminal justice process in this area through witness retention and stronger evidence.