DOCSLIB.ORG

Justice Wide Open’ Is the Third Set of Working Papers in a Series from the Centre for Law Justice and Journalism at City University London

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

0 &HQWUHIRU/DZ-XVWLFH DQG-RXUQDOLVP &/-- -867,&(:,'(23(1 :25.,1*3$3(56 (GLWRU-XGLWK7RZQHQG $XWKRUV(PLO\$OOERQ'DYLG%DQLVDU+HDWKHU%URRNH3URIHVVRU,DQ&UDP0LNH'RGG 'U'DYLG*ROGEHUJ1LFN+ROPHV'U/DZUHQFH0F1DPDUD/RUG1HXEHUJHU:LOOLDP3HUULQ *HRIIUH\5REHUWVRQ4&/XF\6HULHV+XJK7RPOLQVRQ4&3URIHVVRU+RZDUG7XPEHU $GDP:DJQHU Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ) The Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism is the first major interdisciplinary centre in the UK to develop a broad, yet focused, interface between law, justice and journalism in society. The centre aims to harness and maximise opportunities for research collaboration, knowledge transfer and teaching to become an international centre of excellence and brings together expertise in the disciplines of Law, Criminology and Journalism at City University London. CLJJ Working Papers: ‘Justice Wide Open’ is the third set of working papers in a series from the Centre for Law Justice and Journalism at City University London. This publication by leading lawyers, academics and journalists is part of the CLJJ’s new ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’ project, launched at an event at City University London on 29 February 2012. Leadership and Expertise: The Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ) is directed by three of City University London’s leading academics, as well as being supported by a number of specialists from the university. Professor Howard Tumber, CLJJ Director (Journalism) is Professor of Journalism and Communication within the Graduate School of Journalism, City University London, and has published widely in the field of the sociology of news and journalism. His recent research is concerned with the role of journalists and the reporting of international conflict throughout the world and across media channels. He is managing director of the CLJJ. Professor Lorna Woods, CLJJ Director (Law) is associate Dean of Research at The City Law School, City University London, and has research interests in broadcasting law and policy, regulation of the media and the related issues of freedom of expression and privacy. She is also known for her work in EU Law as well as the protection of human rights in Europe. Dr Chris Greer, CLJJ Director (Justice) has published widely in the areas of media criminology, victimology, and punishment and social control. His current research examines the shifting relations between the press, the criminal justice system, and news consumers at a time of media proliferation and market destabilisation. He is founding and current co-editor of the international journal, Crime, Media, Culture. Contents 3 JUSTICE WIDE OPEN These working papers mark the launch of the Centre of Law, Justice and Journalism’s new initiative, ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’, which aims to make recommendations for the way judicial information and legal data are communicated in the 21st century Contents Foreword Professor Howard Tumber 5 Introduction Judith Townend 7 The open justice principle A Great Tradition of Open Justice, Geoffrey Robertson QC 9 Open Justice Unbound? Lord Neuberger 13 Justice in a Cold Climate, Dr David Goldberg 29 The flow of legal knowledge Towards Legal Transparency, Hugh Tomlinson QC 35 The Free Legal Info Landscape, Emily Allbon 39 Accessible Law, Nick Holmes 49 Catching Up with the Transparency Revolution, David Banisar 57 Court reporting & the media Secret Justice, Heather Brooke 59 Open and Shut Justice, Mike Dodd 71 A Corrective to Bad Journalism, Adam Wagner 79 Court in the Net, William Perrin 89 Open justice: an academic perspective Twitt(er)ing Open Justice? Professor Ian Cram 93 Judicial Perspectives on Open Justice and Security, Dr Lawrence McNamara 101 ‘Secrecy’ in the Court of Protection, Lucy Series 111 Appendix ‘Justice Wide Open’ Speaker List, 29 February 2012 119 Resources / Contact 121 Howard Tumber 5 FOREWORD Professor Howard Tumber welcomes a much needed public dialogue on open justice in the digital era The justice system cannot remain alien to the rapid flows of information and collective sharing of resources through social media and other forms of new technology. The justice system must use digital technologies not to violate privacy rights, freedom of expression and other civil liberties, but to safeguard them. The publication of legal data is a requirement that cannot be deferred if citizens are to participate in democratic societies that are based upon public scrutiny and transparency of institutional practices. When the ethos of national security reigns over individual liberties and social justice, the need to research and advocate for an open justice system becomes a matter of urgency. ‘Justice Wide Open’ will hopefully contribute to this challenging enterprise. As the third publication in the Centre for Law Justice and Journalism working paper series, it marks the launch of our new research project: Open Justice in the Digital Era. The project aims to research into the best ways to make legal and judicial data more accessible by using new technologies, and to disseminate the information among policy-makers, lawyers, judges, and the general public. This edited collection compiles papers presented at the ‘Justice Wide Open’ conference on 29 February 2012 by leading lawyers, academics and journalists who share a similar concern: how to make judicial information more accessible in order to develop and monitor an open justice jury system. The event was organised by Judith Townend who has done an excellent job not only in organising the event but in editing this collection of working papers. Her own research on legal restraints on the interaction between media organisations and defamation and privacy laws has certainly informed the organisation of this important event and this much needed collective publication. These papers comprise a call for freedom of access to legal information and transparency of court proceedings. We need open courts which welcome the public and the press and inform citizens of how judges are enacting the liberal value of justice. Court reporting needs to take full advantage of new technologies and perform a scrutiny function engaging members of the public. How else can both justice and judges be judged? Openness lies at the very heart of justice. This edited collection therefore will be of great interest to those concerned with how best to serve the public interest, the role of journalism in reporting court cases, free access to legal information, the existing threats to the rule of law, and the ethics of the judicial information system. 6 Justice Wide Open Collaborative and interdisciplinary projects like ‘Justice Wide Open’ are the first step towards a much needed public dialogue on open justice. It is in this sense that we greatly welcome it. Professor Howard Tumber CLJJ Director (Journalism) Howard Tumber is Professor of Journalism and Communication within the Graduate School of Journalism, City University London and has published widely in the field of the sociology of news and journalism. Judith Townend 7 INTRODUCTION Judith Townend explains the origins and aims of the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism’s new open justice project ‘Justice must be seen to be done’ is the familiar dictum, summarising the principle of open courts, developed in English law since the mid-17th century. Despite this long- established tradition for open justice, the English courts have failed to fully utilise online technology for the dissemination of legal knowledge and communication of the courts – as yet. This new publication is a call to action and debate. The UK Supreme Court, which opened its doors to the public in 2009, leads the way in sharing court proceedings via the internet and television, but other courts in England and Wales lag behind. Publication of legal information has grown up in a piecemeal fashion in the digital era – part privatised, with few central guidelines. The so-called ‘super injunction’ furore in 2010-11 was partly fuelled by a lack of public data, something the Master of the Rolls is now seeking to remedy with new guidelines for its collection and publication. The Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism’s ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’ project was born out of numerous frustrated conversations with lawyers, journalists, academics, computer programmers and bloggers about accessing the courts in the 21st century. For many of them, ‘open justice’ is not their primary research or legal focus but absolutely intrinsic to their daily work and the wider public interest. The issues are extensive and diverse: the recommendations of the government’s ‘secret justice’ green paper, which would see more cases behind closed doors; the decline in local and national court reporting as a result of cuts in journalism; the courts’ barriers to entry due to ill-informed staff; and the difficulties in obtaining free legal information. The project launched with the ‘Justice Wide Open’ conference on 29 February 2012, at which journalists, lawyers and academics came together to ask how judicial information and courts data could be made more easily accessible and considered the legal and ethical implications of an increasingly open and digitised approach. The speakers1 explored the history and academic context of open justice, as well as the realities of modern court reporting. Additionally, we invited several other leading figures in the field to also contribute working papers to this subsequent publication. This collection of working papers will be made available online and also distributed in print to members of government, civil service, lawyers, journalists and academics. We hope it encourages the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Courts 1 Listed in Appendix, pg 119 8 Justice Wide Open and Tribunals Service to consider an increasingly open and free approach to the diffusion of legal knowledge in the 21st century. In the first section on the tradition and context of open justice, Geoffrey Robertson QC, our keynote speaker at the event, sets out the history of the principle and argues that the government’s Justice and Security Green Paper’s recommendations are simply not be compatible.
Recommended publications
  • Germany, International Justice and the 20Th Century

    Germany, International Justice and the 20Th Century

    Paul Betts Dept .of History University of Sussex NOT TO BE QUOTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR: DRAFT VERSION: THE FINAL DRAFT OF THIS ESSAY WILL APPEAR IN A SPECIAL ISSUE OF HISTORY AND MEMORY IN APRIL, 2005, ED. ALON CONFINO Germany, International Justice and the 20th Century The turning of the millennium has predictably spurred fresh interest in reinterpreting the 20th century as a whole. Recent years have witnessed a bountiful crop of academic surveys, mass market picture books and television programs devoted to recalling the deeds and misdeeds of the last one hundred years. It then comes as no surprise that Germany often figures prominently in these new accounts. If nothing else, its responsibility for World War I, World War II and the Holocaust assures its villainous presence in most every retrospective on offer. That Germany alone experienced all of the modern forms of government in one compressed century – from constitutional monarchy, democratic socialism, fascism, Western liberalism to Soviet-style communism -- has also made it a favorite object lesson about the so-called Age of Extremes. Moreover, the enduring international influence of Weimar culture, feminism and the women’s movement, social democracy, post-1945 economic recovery, West German liberalism, environmental politics and most recently pacifism have also occasioned serious reconsideration of the contemporary relevance of the 20th century German past. Little wonder that several commentators have gone so far as to christen the “short twentieth century” between 1914 and 1989 as really the “German century,” to the extent that German history is commonly held as emblematic of Europe’s 20th century more generally.1 Acknowledging Germany’s central role in 20th century life has hardly made things easy for historians, however.
  • The Media World After Wikileaks and News of the World Salle IV, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 16-17 February 2012

    The Media World After Wikileaks and News of the World Salle IV, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 16-17 February 2012

    The Media World after WikiLeaks and News of the World Salle IV, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris 16-17 February 2012 Organizers: World Press Freedom Committee, in cooperation with the UNESCO Communication & Information Sector. Co-sponsors: the World Association of Newspapers & News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), World Editors Forum and the International Press Institute. With the support of: JP-Politiken Publishing Group (Copenhagen, Denmark); Open Society Foundation’s Network Media Program (London, UK) and Nicholas B. Ottaway Foundation (New York, USA). Background With a stunning 2 billion persons estimated to be using the Internet and producing 156 million public blogs in 2011, there has been a surge of social networks, user-generated content and micro-blogging that has enabled all Internet users to become public communicators. Along with the spread of the Internet, WikiLeaks' release of a massive number of classified government documents and its initial collaboration with traditional news media has modified the media landscape and raised crucial questions for journalism. Following a conference organized by the World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC) and the World Association of Newspapers & News Publishers (WAN-IFRA) at UNESCO HQ on “New Media: The Press Freedom Dimension” in February 2007, there is a need to explore further the future of traditional media and professional journalism -with their established practices, traditions and standards- as challenged by emergence of new actors and approaches like WikiLeaks. Objectives The WikiLeaks episode raised
  • Revolutionary Tactics: Insights from Police and Justice Reform in Georgia

    Revolutionary Tactics: Insights from Police and Justice Reform in Georgia

    TRANSITIONS FORUM | CASE STUDY | JUNE 2014 Revolutionary Tactics: Insights from Police and Justice Reform in Georgia by Peter Pomerantsev with Geoffrey Robertson, Jovan Ratković and Anne Applebaum www.li.com www.prosperity.com ABOUT THE LEGATUM INSTITUTE Based in London, the Legatum Institute (LI) is an independent non-partisan public policy organisation whose research, publications, and programmes advance ideas and policies in support of free and prosperous societies around the world. LI’s signature annual publication is the Legatum Prosperity Index™, a unique global assessment of national prosperity based on both wealth and wellbeing. LI is the co-publisher of Democracy Lab, a journalistic joint-venture with Foreign Policy Magazine dedicated to covering political and economic transitions around the world. www.li.com www.prosperity.com http://democracylab.foreignpolicy.com TRANSITIONS FORUM CONTENTS Introduction 3 Background 4 Tactics for Revolutionary Change: Police Reform 6 Jovan Ratković: A Serbian Perspective on Georgia’s Police Reforms Justice: A Botched Reform? 10 Jovan Ratković: The Serbian Experience of Justice Reform Geoffrey Robertson: Judicial Reform The Downsides of Revolutionary Maximalism 13 1 Truth and Reconciliation Jovan Ratković: How Serbia Has Been Coming to Terms with the Past Geoffrey Robertson: Dealing with the Past 2 The Need to Foster an Opposition Jovan Ratković: The Serbian Experience of Fostering a Healthy Opposition Russia and the West: Geopolitical Direction and Domestic Reforms 18 What Georgia Means: for Ukraine and Beyond 20 References 21 About the Author and Contributors 24 About the Legatum Institute inside front cover Legatum Prosperity IndexTM Country Factsheet 2013 25 TRANSITIONS forum | 2 TRANSITIONS FORUM The reforms carried out in Georgia after the Rose Revolution of 2004 were Introduction among the most radical ever attempted in the post-Soviet world, and probably the most controversial.
  • Judges Keep out Off-The-Bench Influence on the Uk’S Anti- Terror Regime

    Judges Keep out Off-The-Bench Influence on the Uk’S Anti- Terror Regime

    DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE JUDGES KEEP OUT OFF-THE-BENCH INFLUENCE ON THE UK’S ANTI- TERROR REGIME ANISA KASSAMALI Judges Keep Out Off-the-bench Influence on the UK’s Anti- terror Regime Anisa Kassamali The Constitution Unit University College London October 2016 ISBN: 978-1-903903-75-9 Published by: The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy University College London 29-31 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU United Kingdom Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax: 020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ © The Constitution Unit, UCL 2016 This report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First published June 2016 Front cover image: © Anneka, used under licence from Shutterstock.com. Contents Executive summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 7 3. Extra-judicial statements on anti-terror policy ..................................................................................
  • Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial Geoffrey Robertson

    Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial Geoffrey Robertson

    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 38 Article 1 Issue 3 2005 Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial Geoffrey Robertson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robertson, Geoffrey (2005) "Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 38: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol38/iss3/1 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ending Impunity: How International Criminal Law Can Put Tyrants on Trial Geoffrey Robertson QCt Introduction ..................................................... 649 I. Sovereign Immunity: Before Nuremberg ................... 650 II. N urem berg ............................................... 654 III. After Nurem berg ......................................... 656 IV. The ICJ Decision in D.R.C. v. Belgium .................... 657 V. The Concurring Minority in D.R.C ........................ 661 VI. The Pinochet Precedent .................................. 662 VII. The Present Rule ......................................... 665 VIII. Curial Competence ....................................... 667 IX. The Iraqi Special Tribunal ................................ 668 C onclusion ...................................................... 670 Introduction How far has international law come, in what our forebears, back in 1649, called "the great business" of denying impunity to tyrants accused of mass murdering their own people? Slobodan Milogevit sits in a dock in The Hague; he has been strutting and fretting his time on this televised stage since his trial began-as long ago as February 2002.
  • Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 1 Morten Bergsmo, CHEAH Wui Ling and YI Ping (Editors)

    Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 1 Morten Bergsmo, CHEAH Wui Ling and YI Ping (Editors)

    Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 1 Morten Bergsmo, CHEAH Wui Ling and YI Ping (editors) E-Offprint: Geoffrey Robertson, “Foreword”, in Morten Bergsmo, CHEAH Wui Ling and YI Ping (editors), Historical Origins of International Criminal Law: Volume 1, FICHL Publication Series No. 20 (2014), Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, Brussels, ISBN 978-82-93081-11-1. First published on 12 December 2014. This publication and other TOAEP publications may be openly accessed and downloaded through the website www.fichl.org. This site uses Persistent URLs (PURL) for all publications it makes available. The URLs of these publications will not be changed. Printed copies may be ordered through online distributors such as www.amazon.co.uk. © Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher, 2014. All rights are reserved. FOREWORD BY GEOFFREY ROBERTSON QC It is a privilege to introduce this important anthology on historical origins of international criminal law, which honours the memory of Judge LI Haopei through the 2014 LI Haopei Seminar. A distinguished diplomat and professor of international law, he lent academic credibility to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia when, at the age of 87, he became a member of its first bench. His warning in that court’s first case, that judges should not stray beyond their competence as lawyers into political jungles where they were likely to get lost, laid down a challenge to his brethren that they must constantly keep in mind. His very presence, in those years, was a comforting signal that whatever China’s reluctance to approve humanitarian incursions on state sovereignty, it was nonetheless willing to abide by – and to participate in – the enforcement of a new international criminal law that had been too long absent from the world since it was apparently discovered at Nuremberg.
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

    Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)

    Monday Volume 644 2 July 2018 No. 163 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 2 July 2018 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT MEMBERS OF THE CABINET (FORMED BY THE RT HON. THERESA MAY, MP, JUNE 2017) PRIME MINISTER,FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND MINISTER FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE—The Rt Hon. Theresa May, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER AND MINISTER FOR THE CABINET OFFICE —The Rt Hon. David Lidington, MP CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT—The Rt Hon. Sajid Javid, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS—The Rt Hon. Boris Johnson, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION—The Rt Hon. David Davis, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE—The Rt Hon. Gavin Williamson, MP LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE—The Rt Hon. David Gauke, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE—The Rt Hon. Jeremy Hunt, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR BUSINESS,ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY—The Rt Hon. Greg Clark, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOUSING,COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—The Rt Hon. James Brokenshire, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE—The Rt Hon. Liam Fox, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EDUCATION—The Rt Hon. Damian Hinds, MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT,FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS—The Rt Hon.
  • 20150916 CV Adrian Fulford

    20150916 CV Adrian Fulford

    Fulford, Adrian United Kingdom nominee for election to the Advisory Committee on nominations of judges of the International Criminal Court. Curriculum Vitae Lord Justice Adrian Fulford QC Date of Birth: 8 January 1953 Nationality: British Professional Work: 2015 Deputy Senior Presiding Judge of England and Wales, soon to be Senior Presiding Judge for two years 2013 Presiding Judge for the South Eastern Circuit, England and Wales 2013 Judge of the Court of Appeal 2008 – 2012 President of the ICC Trial Division 2003 – 2012 Judge of the International Criminal Court 2002 – 2013 High Court Judge 1996 Recorder (judge in the Crown Court) 1994 Appointed Queen’s Counsel 1978 Called to the Bar (Middle Temple) Other Professional Experience: 1999 – 2001 Lecturer to the Bar and Judiciary (under the auspices of the Bar Council and the Judicial Studies Board) on The Human Rights Act 1998 1988 – 2002 Chairman Area Committee Legal Services Commission (for both the Board and the Commission) 1997 – 2000 Member of the Bar Professional Complaints and Conduct Committee 1997 – 1999 Elected by Criminal Bar Association as Committee Member (The Committee of the Criminal Bar Association is the forum where detailed consideration is given to all contemporary issues of principle concerning the criminal law. For example in 1998 the Committee published detailed responses to the Home Office Report on the Treatment of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. This response gave particular and detailed attention to the position of child witnesses and the victims of rape and kindred offences.) 1999 Committee Member of the Bar Council Race Relations Committee 1997 Chair of the Disciplinary Procedures for Bar Council 1994 – Lecturer in Advocacy, Middle Temple *** .
  • Newsletter [2018] No 10

    Newsletter [2018] No 10

    NEWSLETTER [2018] No. 10 The last month has been a very busy one for the Academy as will be clear from this Newsletter Meeting of the Board of Directors Tuesday 13 November The Board met on Tuesday 13 November and addressed many matters in a fairly long meeting. The Board had a larger than usual number of recommendations from the Membership From left: The Hon Kevin Lindgren AM QC, Mr Nopera Dennis-McCarthy, The Hon Justice Alan Robertson Committee for the issue of invitations to become Fellows of the Academy. Third and final Access to Justice event By now, several of the invitees have completed the held in Sydney on Tuesday 27 November paperwork and become Fellows as is indicated in 2018 the “New Fellows” section below. The series of three Access to Justice events held in The Board noted that several Fellows have still not Sydney this year culminated in one on Overcoming paid their renewal subscription of $400 for 2018- non-financial barriers to access to justice. 2019. Please accept this as a gentle reminder. The event was held in the Banco Court of the Presentation of AAL prize at Australia and Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Chair and New Zealand Law Honours Student panellists were: Conference 2018 Chair Each year the Academy presents a prize (a cheque Professor Simon Rice OAM, Professor of Law, for $1,000) to the Honours student who is judged to University of Sydney have made the best presentation on the subject of his or her Honours dissertation. Panel Members The event was held at UTS on Saturday 24 Ms Charlotte Steer, Lawyer, Seniors Rights November.
  • In Conversation with Jennifer Robinson

    In Conversation with Jennifer Robinson

    In conversation with Jennifer Robinson Her pro bono work spans multiple jurisdictions, she has high profile clients and has attracted pro bono awards. While in lockdown in Australia, I catch up – virtually – with International Human Rights Barrister, Jennifer Robinson Jennifer Robinson is no ordinary lawyer. She’s also no particularly around the right to self-determination. Late ordinary Australian. Jennifer, or Jen, grew up in Berry, 2019 Jen was awarded the International Pro Bono a small country town in New South Wales as the Barrister of the Year Award. “Wenda came with me to oldest of four kids (she’s now the oldest of six). the Awards ceremony. It was really amazing for the Lord She studied law at the Australian National University Chief Justice of England and Wales to be talking about in Canberra, winning the university medal, which my work in West Papua. It’s such a lovely led to her being awarded the prestigious Rhodes recognition of my work, but more importantly Benny scholarship to study at Oxford. Since then she’s been and for his cause,” she says. In the US Elle© Magazine in unstoppable, becoming an award-winning human January 2020, Wenda is quoted as saying, “There are rights lawyer, changing many lives and sacrificing many lawyers [in West Papua], but they feel Indonesia many hours to work pro bono in the public interest. [is too] powerful…But she constantly stands up for the rights of people; she’s really a courageous woman.” I love the fact that our conversation takes place while she walks on a South Coast beach near Berry.
  • The Impunity of Kings and Presidents

    The Impunity of Kings and Presidents

    Volume 4 | Issue 11 | Article ID 2263 | Nov 02, 2006 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus By What Power am I Called Hither? The Impunity of Kings and Presidents Geoffrey Robertson By What Power am I Called Hither? The Impunity of Kings and Presidents By Geoffrey Robertson The trial of Charles I in 1649 secured the historic gains of the English civil war – the supremacy of parliament, the independence of judges, individual freedom guaranteed by Magna Carta and the common law. From a modern perspective, it was the first war crimes trial of a head of state. The arguments in Westminster Hall resonate today in the courtrooms at the Hague and even in the Iraqi Special Tribunal – Saddam Hussein’s opening words to his judge were, in translation, a paraphrase of those of Charles I: “By what power am I called hither… I would know by what authority, lawful I mean….” Charles I Three centuries before the rulings against Pinochet and Milosevic, this was a compelling argument. Charles had the purest form of sovereign immunity: he was a sovereign, both by hereditary and (as many believed) by divine right. Judges had always said that the King, as the source of the law, could do no wrong (rex is lex is how they had put it, when deciding that Charles could impose a tax without Parliament’s approval). As for international law, the ink was hardly dry on its modern foundation, the Treaty of Westphalia (October 1648), which guaranteed 1 4 | 11 | 0 APJ | JF immunity to every prince, however Machiavellian.
  • The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange

    The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange

    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 37 Number 3 Article 7 Spring 2012 The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange Molly Thebes Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Molly Thebes, The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange, 37 N.C. J. INT'L L. 889 (2011). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol37/iss3/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This note is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol37/iss3/ 7 The Prospect of Extraditing Julian Assange Molly Thebes t I. Introduction .......................... ...... 889 II. Is Julian Assange a Journalist .......... ...... ......... 894 III. The Feasibility of Extraditing Journalists ....... ...... 898 A. Sweden ........................... ..... 899 B. Iceland.............903 1. Libel Tourism .................... ..... 904 2. Source Protection.. ................. ..... 906 3. Whistleblower Protections.....................907 4. International Effect of the Initiative ...... .... 908 5. Limitations of the Initiative .......... ...... 909 C. European Media Laws ................ ..... 911 IV. Conclusion............... ................. 913 I. Introduction The legal battle over the custody of Julian Assange has been well publicized in the media, with both Sweden and the United States vying for authority over the WikiLeaks founder and ex- computer hacker.' While the United States is seeking jurisdiction over Assange for his well-documented involvement in the unauthorized acquisition and dissemination of a quarter of a million diplomatic cables2 and tens of thousands of wartime tB.A.