Log in
By exploring the social and economic effects of cuts in funding for legal aid, this research directly influenced legislation aimed at preserving legal aid for welfare benefit appeals. This was a major victory for campaigners who cited the research to lobby against cuts proposed by the 2011 Legal Aid Bill. The research informed a proposed House of Lords amendment to the Bill. Although the amendment was turned back by the House of Commons, welfare benefit appeals on points of law were discussed during the second reading and retained within the scope of legal aid funding.
This case-study is based on research conducted by Professor Francis at Keele University which provides insights into three crucial aspects of social mobility and access to the legal professions: legal executives, part-time law students, and legal work experience. This work has made a significant contribution to practitioner debate, practitioner practice and policy change. Key impacts of this research have been the promotion of debates within the legal profession around diversity which has led both to a much wider professional and government awareness of these issues in the UK, and the development of policies and schemes to address such issues.
The pedagogic research undertaken by the School of Law has produced an ambitious and innovative model of clinical legal education: the in-house live client model, which offers a university-based free legal service offering full representation to private clients and NGOs in the form of the Student Law Office. The Student Law Office integrates supervised legal service in the law curriculum, thereby delivering free access to justice to the wider community whilst benefiting the learning environment. Impact is three-fold:
Professor Hodgson's empirical criminal justice research has resulted in the creation of new professional standards encouraging proactive defence lawyering and quality assessment requirements for the legal profession in England and Wales. A model of more effective defence rights, underpinned by empirical research in English, Welsh and French criminal justice, has also influenced recent developments in Scotland and in EU criminal justice; has been relied upon in extradition proceedings in the UK and Canada; and, through a study at the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), has improved legal representation of those seeking to have their cases reviewed for appeal, as well as the Commission's ability to work with defence lawyers.
Whether assisted dying should be legalised is often treated as an ethical question transcending national boundaries and legal systems. Work in this field is dominated by partisan exhortation by proponents or opponents of legalisation. Professor Lewis's comparative research on legal change on assisted dying highlights the central importance of the choice of legal route in shaping regulatory regimes, evaluates the impact of legalisation on non-voluntary euthanasia (the `slippery slope' argument) and assesses the effectiveness of regulation in permissive jurisdictions. Her critique of the unsatisfactory legal position in the UK coupled with expert interventions, have shaped and informed policy debate, and directly influenced the campaign to legalise assisted suicide and ongoing judicial challenges to the current position. Elsewhere, her work has directly contributed to legal change in Canada and a Bill in Australia.
Paths to Justice is a landmark body of survey research that has provided critical data on the public experience of the justice system and transformed understanding of and government policy on the legal needs of citizens. Its impact has been both national and international, and it has led to:
The underpinning research arose from an ESRC-funded project on the "Optimal Design of Decision and Enforcement Procedures for Competition Policy" by Professor David Ulph (St Andrews) and Professor Yannis Katsoulacos (AUEB). This influenced the penalty policies of competition authorities in two countries: the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in the UK and the Autorite de la Concurrence (AdC) in France. For OFT it contributed to the formulation of revised penalty guidelines, specifically a proposed increase in baseline penalty from 10% to 30%. For AdC it impacted on the formulation of the first penalty guidelines they published. Thus our research had impact on the only two major Competition Authorities in the world who revised penalty policy in last 5 years.
Bangor Law School's research into the work of the Administrative Court and the regional market for legal services in public law has challenged the orthodox view that public law is the preserve of London. It has; 1. Provided evidence that regional Administrative Courts are at least equal to the Royal Courts of Justice in terms of their service to users. 2. Influenced the National Assembly for Wales in assessing the case for establishing a separate legal jurisdiction. 3. Influenced solicitors' instruction patterns in the English regions and Wales, leading to the direction of more work to regional courts and more local solicitors instructing local counsel. 4. Informed national debate about the constitutional role of judicial review. 5. Influenced the Administrative Court/ Public Law Project in developing training opportunities outside London.
Professor Maurice Sunkin's research on judicial review (JR) has established a comprehensive independent evidence base on the use, impact and operation of JR in England and Wales. This research has been used to inform policy debate, in some instances influencing policy decisions. The research was seminal to 2009 reforms enabling regional access to JR and has influenced the work of the English Law Commission, the Review of Civil Courts in Scotland and Lord Justice Jackson's report on Costs in Civil Litigation. Most recently it has informed multiple responses to the UK Government's proposals to reform JR and legal aid, and influenced the Ministry of Justice's report on those responses.
The capacity of national and international criminal justice institutions to investigate and prosecute the most serious international crimes has been significantly strengthened as a result of Professor Bekou's research. They gain, through `legal tools', universal access to legal information and to analytical legal frameworks which facilitate the efficient and effective administration of international criminal justice. By offering access to knowledge, skills and expertise, the International Criminal Court as well as States, e.g. the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Sierra Leone are empowered to overcome the key challenges restricting their ability and capacity to pursue justice for atrocities.