“Following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the early fifth century, groups from northwest Europe made their way to British shores. Germanic peoples settled in what is now England between the fifth and seventh centuries AD.
The traditions around death and burial they brought with them provide us with a snapshot of the lives and deaths of people in these communities. Burials can also offer information about a frequently overlooked group: children.”
Read Associate Professor Kirsty Squires‘ article ‘What archaeology can tell us about the lives of children in England 1,500 years ago’- on The Conversationhere.
A tenant in County Down, Northern Ireland has been harassed by her landlord to such an extent that criminal proceedings were brought.
Zyndzie Akimodo rented a property from Matthew Betty in Bangor, County Down.
On 24 February, Betty, 41, pleaded guilty to harassment under the 1978 NI Rent Order and was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years.
Ms Akimodo said on one occasion men, allegedly posing as paramilitaries, were sent to the house to intimidate her and her daughter. Whilst it could not be proved that Mr Batty was directly involved it was found that he facilitated the visit.
On another occasion a representative from NI Water turned up at the property to disconnect the water supply. He told Ms Akimodo that the landlord told him that the property was vacant.
Ms Akimodo said “Our homes are meant to be a safe and secure place and because of the actions of the landlord, she had no peace at home.”
In England it is illegal for your landlord to harass you or try to force you out of a property without using the proper procedures. You could claim damages through the courts if they try and do so.
What constitutes as harassment?
This can be anything a landlord does or fails to do that would make you feel unsafe in the property or forces you to leave. This can include stopping services like electricity, refusing to carry out repairs, anti-social behaviour by a landlord’s agent or the landlord directly.
Your landlord also cannot evict you without a court order and he/ she would be guilty of illegal eviction if they did so. Even if your landlord’s property is repossessed by their mortgage lender, the lender must give you notice so you can find other accommodation.
What can I do?
If you think you’re being harassed or threatened with illegal eviction, or the property you rent is being repossessed, talk to your local council. It may have someone specialising in tenant harassment issues.
Local councils can also start legal proceedings if they think there’s enough evidence of harassment or illegal eviction.
When claiming for unfair dismissal, a claim must be brought in the Employment Tribunal within 3 months of the date of dismissal. If the claim is made after this, then the Employment tribunal wont hear the claim and the chances of the employee receiving any compensation is very low. The fact that the employee did not know about this time limit will not be any defence.
This happened to Miss S Dillon who was a solicitor claiming unfair dismissal against the Crown Prosecution Service. She applied five months after the date of the dismissal but was told her claim was too late. The law on unfair dismissal comes from section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Miss Dillon’s argument for the late claim was that it was not reasonably practicable for her to present her claim any sooner and she also thought that she had 3 years to bring the claim which is the limitation period for personal injury.
The judge dismissed her application as he stated given her experience and contacts as a solicitor, she should have checked the time limit. Judge Woffenden decided that Dillon was not trying to avoid litigation by looking into different remedies but had just not even considered going to court. The facts were that she had brought her claim too late and that it was dismissed.
It is important that in unfair dismissal claims, the judge uses and applies employment law correctly so that neither the employee nor employer are wrongfully accused. A lot of the information on unfair dismissal and grievance process can be found on the ACAS website.
Here at SULAC we can advise on all aspects of employment law. If you would like an appointment please telephone 01782 294800 or email Sulac@staffs.ac.uk
Currently in order for a couple to get a divorce, they must prove that their marriage has irretrievably broken down. To do this they must prove one of the following five facts: adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, two years separation (with consent) or five years separation (without consent). These grounds (particularly adultery and unreasonable behaviour) have often created further conflict between the parties and damaged children by undermining the relationship further after the divorce.
Aidan Jones, OBE, has noted that the process for divorce is damaging to a child’s welfare and makes it harder for the couple to create good relationships as co-parents due to the element of having to show that the relationship has irretrievably broken down.
The UK Government has since proposed reforms to the process on how to prove that the marriage has broken down by keeping the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage as the only ground without the need to prove the other facts. Hopefully, by not having to prove the reason for the irretrievable breakdown, the adversarial aspect of the process can be significantly reduced. Other reforms include creating a joint application for divorce, removing the ability for a party to reject the divorce, and putting in a time frame of 6 months from the first to the final stage of divorce to avoid dragging it out.
Divorce can be a very damaging and distressing thing to go through for both the couple and any family involved and so it is important that the process is as easy and smooth as it can be. This is why it is important that the government are making these changes. These changes are due to come into force later this year.
Here at SULAC we can advise on divorce, financial affairs and children applications. If you would like an appointment please call 01782 294800 or email sulac@staffs.ac.uk
In December 2021, house prices reached an average of £253,822 according to Nationwide. A standard sized house has increased in value by around £23,902 since January 2021. This is the largest increase of house prices since 2006.
Despite this, it has been predicted that the market will slow over 2022 due to the stamp duty holiday ending and because of the Covid-19 variants
Nationwide’s chief economist Robert Gardner said
“The Omicron variant could reinforce the slowdown if it leads to a weaker labour market,”
The Covid-19 pandemic has changed how people live which has impacted the housing market. It has influenced buyers to substitute their homes in large cities, to live in suburban and rural areas. London has appeared to be the prime city affected by this.
The increase in interest rates will also affect the housing market.
The Bank of England increased their borrowing interest rates from 0.1% to 0.25% at the beginning of December 2021, in an effort to tackle the rise of inflation. The consequence of this meant less people can join the property ladder. The correlation of increased interest rates, and people being prevented from work due to the pandemic, will mean that people may be discouraged from buying homes. House prices have also risen yet the growth of income has slowed.
The data statistics below represent the average increase of house prices across the UK, this was collated from 1973-December 2021.
Northern Ireland: Up 12.1% to £167,479
South West: Up 11.5% to £294,845
Outer South East: Up 11.3% to £329,869
North West: Up 11.2% to £196,806
Yorkshire and Humberside: Up 10.8% to £190,855
East Anglia: Up 10.4% to £268,146
East Midlands: Up 10.4% to £221,813
Scotland: Up 10.1% to £172,605
West Midlands: Up 9.4% to £227,031
Outer metropolitan area of London: Up 8.8% to £410,992
North: Up 7.7% to £148,105
London: Up 4.2% to £507,230
Here at SULAC we can help with any property related issues. If you would like an appointment please call 01782 294800 or email SULAC@staffs.ac.uk
On Human Rights Day (10th of December), Aidan Flynn, Senior Lecturer in Law, recollects the famous ‘Belmarsh case’ on the twentieth anniversary of the detentions that led to the case.
Following the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in the USA in September 2001, the UK Parliament swiftly passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. In exercise of his power under section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998, David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, made the Human Rights Act 1998 (Designated Derogation) Order 2001. The derogation related to article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5 of the Convention is concerned with the “right to liberty and security of person.”
The appellants in the ‘Belmarsh case’ were certified by the Home Secretary under section 21 of the 2001 Act. This led to their detention under section 23 of the Act. Eight of the nine appellants were detained on the 19th of December 2001. They were held in high security conditions at Belmarsh prison. They challenged the lawfulness of their detention, and the case reached the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, which was the highest court in the land until replaced in 2009 by the Supreme Court of the UK.
Giving the leading judgment, Lord Bingham described the circumstances in which the appellants found themselves in December 2001, “the appellants share certain common characteristics which are central to their appeals. All are foreign (non-UK) nationals. None has been the subject of any criminal charge. In none of their cases is a criminal trial in prospect”
In the Appellate Committee, the case was heard by a panel of nine Law Lords rather than the usual panel size of five. It had to decide two main issues. Firstly, were the conditions for derogating from Article 5 met. Secondly, if they were met and the Derogation Order was lawful, were the provisions of the 2001 Act relating to powers of indefinite executive detention without trial “strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.” These words are from Article 15 (‘Derogation in time of emergency’) of the Convention, paragraph one of which reads as follows “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”
On the first issue the Appellate Committee decided that the question involved a political judgment with which it should not interfere. Lord Bingham said “I would accept that great weight should be given to the judgment of the Home Secretary, his colleagues and Parliament on this question, because they were called on to exercise a pre-eminently political judgment.” However, Lord Hoffmann dissented, taking the view that the events of ‘9/11’ did not constitute a public emergency threatening the life of the British nation. He commented that “whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda.”
On the second issue, the decision of the Appellate Committee has been summarised by Lord Bingham in his well-known book ‘The Rule of Law.’ The provisions of the 2001 Act were “incompatible with the UK’s obligations under the Convention ………… the measure did not rationally address the threat to security, was not a proportionate response, was not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation and unjustifiably discriminated against foreign nationals on grounds of their nationality.” The 2001 Act was discriminatory because it differentiated between non-UK citizens and UK citizens. UK citizens could not be detained in the same way under the terms of the Act. This was one of the strong arguments advanced by the appellants which led the Appellate Committee to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Committee issued a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act. Section 23 of the 2001 Act was incompatible with Articles 5 and 14 (‘Prohibition of discrimination’) of the European Convention.
In his recently published book, Sir Jack Beatson identifies the ‘Belmarsh case’ and Ghaidan, from the same year, as examples of the principle of non-discrimination. This principle is a requirement of the European Convention on Human Rights. Most provisions of the Convention were given effect in UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 which came into force on the 2nd of October 2000.
Dr Luke Telford has co-writen a journal article called “Closing the door on protection? Exploring the impact of lockdown upon children and young people’s services in the UK”, with D. Briggs, A. Ellis, A. Lloyd, and J. Kotzé. The article was published in the YVJ special issue, Critical youth voices on the Covid 19 pandemic: International perspectives and can be found here.
According to the Guardian, domestic abuse has caused nearly 1 in 6 new homelessness cases, from April to June of 2021.
Data from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities further suggests that even as the overall amount of homeless people is decreasing, the amount of domestic abuse cases are only going up. According to research, in 2021, out of approximately 34,830 households that were considered homeless, about 5,590 of them were caused by domestic abuse.
Representatives from Women’s Aid believe that it is absolutely unfair for victims to have to make the choice between living with an abuser or facing homelessness. Further research by Women’s Aid in 2020, reported that most women living with an abuser, had said that the abuse had gotten worse during the pandemic. According to estimations, it would take an annual investment of at least £409m, in order to support victims and organise domestic abuse services across the country.
A spokesperson from the Local Government Association stated that the recent domestic abuse bill was more focused on accommodation, rather than any community-based support services. These support services are vital as victims need more support than just accommodation. They would need accepting communities, valuable job opportunities, and safe places to grow from.
A change in the new domestic abuse bill could allow victims to leave their homes, while also having a reliable place to go to, without the risk of domestic abuse.
It is no secret that homeless people have had to suffer over the years, due to poor weather conditions or ineffective government policies, or even a lack of support from local authorities and organizations. With the COVID-19 pandemic only increasing domestic abuse cases, homeless people and domestic abuse victims need support now, more than ever.
Staffordshire University Legal Advice Clinic (SULAC) provides free legal advice on matters regarding domestic abuse, or housing issues. We are working remotely during the pandemic and interviews are conducted via Microsoft Teams. If you would like to make an appointment, please call us at 01782 294800 or email us at SULAC@staffs.ac.uk
The Fawcett Society is the UK’s leading membership charity campaigning for gender equality and women’s rights at work, at home and in public life. They are asking employers to stop asking prospective employees about their salary history.
The Fawcett Society stated that asking about previous pay in interviews can contribute to keeping women on lower wages.
They presented a survey of 2,200 working adults and found 47% of people had been asked about past salaries. Also, 61% of women said the questions asked had an effected their confidence to negotiate better pay.
Jemima Olchawski, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society told the BBC that unless more is done, the gender pay gap will not be closed until at least 2050.
The survey of the Fawcett Society also found that 77% of people felt their salaries should reflect the value of the quality of work they do. The reality is that 58% of women and 54% of men felt salary history questions meant they were offered a lower wage than they might otherwise have been paid.
Only a quarter of people that have participated in the survey felt that pay should be based on past salaries, in contrast to 80% of respondents who felt that their pay should be based on their ability to carry out their job role regarding skills and responsibilities.
The campaign group found 77% of people felt their salaries should reflect the quality of the work they do.
The Fawcett Society stressed that more needed to be done by both the government and employers to tackle issues like discrimination within the workplace.
The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the grounds of the following:
Age,
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage or civil partnership,
Pregnancy and maternity,
Race,
Religion/belief,
Gender,
Sexual orientation
Here at SULAC we offer free advice on all matters relating to employment and discrimination. If you would like an appointment please call 01782 294458 or email SULAC@staffs.ac.uk
