Prof Jackie Hodgson and Asher Flynn from Monash have a new edited collection on 'Access to Justice and Legal Aid: Comparative Perspectives on Unmet Legal Need' published by Hart.

This book considers how access to justice is affected by restrictions to legal aid budgets and increasingly prescriptive service guidelines.

As common law jurisdictions, England and Wales, and Australia, share similar ideals, policies and practices, but they differ in aspects of their legal and political culture, in the nature of the communities they serve and in their approaches to providing access to justice. These jurisdictions thus provide us with different perspectives on what constitutes justice and how we might seek to overcome the burgeoning crisis in unmet legal need.

The book fills an important gap in existing scholarship as the first to bring together new empirical and theoretical knowledge examining different responses to legal aid crises both in the domestic and comparative contexts, across criminal, civil and family law. It achieves this by examining the broader social, political, legal, health and welfare impacts of legal aid cuts and prescriptive service guidelines. Across both jurisdictions, this work suggests that it is the most vulnerable groups who lose out in the way that law is now done in the 21st century.

The book is essential reading for all those interested in access to justice and legal aid.

Prof Vanessa Munro's forthcoming publication on sexual offences law and policy in Social and Legal Studies is now available to read online at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0964663916682584

Although the consent threshold remains fundamental to the demarcation of acceptable from unacceptable forms of behaviour within contemporary sexual offences law and policy, there has clearly been a shift in recent years in England and Wales towards more ‘contextual’ understandings and interpretations thereof. In many respects, this is a welcome development, which has the potential to at least partially redress the problematic assumption of a disembodied, individualistic and self-determining chooser, which critics maintain has underpinned many conventional (liberal) accounts of autonomy. At the same time, however, there are risks associated with this turn to context that require vigilance. More specifically, this shift has opened the door to greater reliance upon the often closely associated concepts of vulnerability and exploitation. In this article, I will argue that, while these concepts can be valuable in highlighting and challenging the constraining conditions under which (sexual) choices may be made, they can also be deployed in the service of moral and political interventions that entrench precariousness in the name of protection and/or increase surveillance in pursuit of responsibilization. To assess their impact, therefore, it is necessary to explore the concrete implications of this turn for those most immediately involved. In the following discussion, I will do so first by highlighting some of its perhaps unintended, but certainly undesirable, effects in the specific contexts of sexual assault and sex work policy. Having done so, I will move on to explore what we might learn more broadly from this experience about the benefits, blind spots and backfire in using vulnerability as a lens and lever for the pursuit of social justice.

CJC member Prof Vanessa Munro has been invited by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) to take part in an expert panel to discuss the issue of gender discrimination under the criminal law. The Expert Meeting on 'Discriminatory Use of Criminal Law from a Human Rights Perspective in Matters Related to Sexual Conduct and Sexuality' runs from 29-31st March at the UNHCR in Geneva and brings together experts from around the world - many of them from the third sector, but also academics from a range of disciplines. Vanessa will be leading discussion in a panel on 'Criminal Law, Human Rights, Feminism and the State'.

CJC Director Jackie Hodgson will give a talk on 'Protecting Suspects in Europe: Towards Universal Norms' at the Edinburgh Centre for Legal Theory on 22 March. Details of the talk can be found here: http://www.centreforlegaltheory.ed.ac.uk/events/events/edinburgh_centre_for_legal_theory/tbc_-_prof._jackie_hodgson_university_of_warwick

This paper discusses domestic and European legal frameworks governing custodial legal advice and the challenges in ensuring that legal assistance for suspects held in police custody across different jurisdictions is effective in practice. Beginning with an appreciation of the significance of police detention and interrogation for the investigation, prosecution and disposition of criminal cases, the paper goes on to analyse the features of criminal justice present across a variety of procedural models, which either promote or prevent legal assistance as a due process right. The paper draws on recent comparative empirical research that includes France, England and Wales, Scotland and the Netherlands, as well as Jackie's earlier work on defence lawyers in England and Wales and in France.

Jackie Hodgson, CJC Director, and CJC members Divya Sukumar and Sharda Ramdewor will take part in the Ninth Conference on the Future of Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems. The theme of this year's conference is: 'Rights and Remedies in Criminal Procedure: Examining the Nature of the Relationship'. The Conference cycle on the Future of Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems is a collaboration between the University of Warwick (UK), the University of North Carolina (USA), the University of Bologna-Ravenna (Italy) and the University of Basel (Switzerland).

Sharda and Divya will both present their research during the pre-conference for young scholars. Sharda will talk about 'Using Body Worn Video as evidence to combat disproportionate stop and searches/frisks' and Divya will present a paper entitled ' Strategic Disclosure of Evidence in Police Interviews: Implications for Suspects and their Lawyers'.

Jackie will act as a moderator for the pre-conference for young scholars and take part in the main conference. She will sit on a panel on 'Comparative Approaches to Rights and Remedies in a Time of Austerity'. In this panel, the different approaches of adversarial and inquisitorial procedural traditions to the guaranteeing of rights, and how the rise of managerialism and reduced budgets has impacted these guarantees in theory and in practice will be considered.

A. Rights are protected in different ways. In a party-based adversarial procedural model, (positive) fair trial rights are an integral part of equality of arms for the defense. Inquisitorially rooted models have relied historically on the more neutral ideology of judicial officers responsible for investigation and prosecution, and this has created tensions with the recent strengthening of positive rights through EU directives (such as those implementing the so-called roadmap) and ECtHR decisions such as Salduz v Turkey. Some jurisdictions, such as France, regard the imposition of the right to counsel at the first stages of the investigation as rooted in the Anglo-Saxon tradition and so inappropriate for French criminal justice.

B. The constant push for cheaper and speedier processes of criminal justice undercuts the protection of rights in both procedural models – from the resourcing of legal aid; to the time available to prepare the defense; to the ability of public prosecutors to oversee case preparation and the disposal of cases through alternatives to trial.