Habs Law Magazine Issue 3

Contents 1

Editor’s note

Law Committee

2

Introduction to Habs Law Committee 2021-22

Law Committee

3

Jury Bias: Identifying its prevalence and significance in discriminatory verdicts

5

Case study: The Devil Made Me Do It

Nikisha Patel

7

Should mentally ill individuals who commit crimes be referred to psychiatric treatment or should they be punished?

Katie Dabari

8

George Floyd – The legal story

10 Historically Influencial Lawyer: Thrugood Marshall

11 Food Fight: Colin v Cuthbert

Andie Anacreonte

Aadam Hashmi

Tom Oakland

Rian Shah

13 Law-related books, TV shows and movies

Nikisha Patel

14 Caster Semenya’s ongoing legal battle to compete

Maya Brockie

17 National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc.

Aarav Rajput

18 The complex relationship between law and morality

20 Should the UK government be allowed to suspend international and local travel during the Covid-19 crisis temporarily?

23 Interview with an ex-solicitor: Lomax Ward

Claudia Caisley

Suren Ramanakumar

Aaron Rashid

EDITOR’S NOTE Dear Reader, Welcome back to this year’s third and final edition of the Habs Law Magazine!

In this edition, we have a variety of articles written by you and your classmates, as well as this year’s law committee members, and we are so excited to share them with you. We hope you find an article that appeals to you.

Perhaps the ‘Food Fight’ article about the battle between Colin the Caterpillar and Cuthbert may interest you, or maybe the one about comic publication for the comic lovers? A law case that shocked media around the world? Or maybe something closer to home about the government’s approach to the Covid-19 lockdown system? These are just some of the many intriguing articles, so revisit the contents page to find an article that interests you! We also have an interview with an ex-solicitor from a Magic Circle firm, giving you an insight into why he chose to leave corporate law and what he is doing now. We know the long-awaited summer holiday is coming up, so we have included a list of law related books/tv shows/movies to keep you entertained during the holidays!

After a long year, the time has come to hand the magazine over to the new committee. After careful thought and consideration, we are confident that the new committee members will continue to grow and evolve this magazine in exciting ways. Next year’s editors and committee members have been announced on the next page.

We would like to thank our committee for all their hard work this year despite the challenges presented to us throughout the pandemic and lockdown. Finally, we would like to thank the readers – the magazine would not be what it is without our readers and writers, and we hope you continue to follow the magazine next year!

Nikisha Patel

Editor

Aaron Rashid

Editor

And the Law Committee: Aadam Hashmi Akash Patel Tom Oakland

1

Announcing…

Habs Law Committee 2021-22 The Editors: Isobel Wright

James Wellings

I’m Izzy Wright and I’m going to be studying Spanish, French and History for A Levels next year. I’m proud to be next year’s editor of the Habs Law Magazine and look forward to exploring legal topics in a thoughtprovoking and engaging way.

My name is James Wellings and I will be taking over one of the editor roles for the Law Magazine, as of next academic year. I am very excited and hope to keep the magazine to the same high standard that it is currently at.

The Committee: Madison Sinclair

Anant Pathak

Hi, I’m Madison and I am taking History, Politics and Economics for A Levels next year. I am very excited to be part of the Habs Law Magazine! As for me, Law has always been a great passion of mine and something I find very interesting. I can’t wait to get involved next year!

Hi, my name is Anant and I am glad to be a part of the Law Committee next year. I am excited to share interesting law cases with others and I especially look forward to taking the law magazine to a new level, attracting even more readers.

Hi, my name is Avital and I’m very excited to be a member of the Law Magazine Committee this upcoming year. I am doing French, Geography and Economics for A Levels. I am passionate about law and can’t wait to get involved in the magazine.

Eliyeh Iqbal

Aditya Pillai

Krish Gadhia I’m Krish and I am taking Theology, English Language and Politics for A Level next year, and I hoping to become a lawyer in the future. I am interested in Human Rights Law and I aim to make the world a better place through my career.

Hi. I’m Eliyeh and for my A Levels, I am taking English Literature, Philosophy and Economics. I am thrilled to be a member of next year’s Law Committee, as I would love to study Law in the future! I find reading about and analysing legal developments extremely fascinating and I cannot wait to fulfil my role on the committee.

Avital Cohen

Hi, my name is Aditya. I’m super excited to be a part of this magazine and I’m looking forward to examining and presenting famous cases in history, learning the strategic analysis and details of the defence and prosecution with you. I’m fascinated by the letter of the law and it’s my dream to win a case in the Supreme Court. I am looking forward to contributing next year!

2

Jury Bias: Identifying its Prevalence and Significance in Discriminatory Verdicts Andie Anacreonte

A pivotal assumption that has attracted attention within the legal system is the notion that jurors are able to make unbiased decisions. In attempt to ensure that juries are composed of jurors who are free from bias, venirepersons (potential jurors) are interviewed in a procedure prior to the trial. During this procedure, venirepersons respond to questions that are designed to invite responses that will allow judges and attorneys to evaluate whether they may have knowledge or biases that would interfere with the duty, to evaluate the evidence fairly and make decisions that align with the law. However, the extent to which the process results in the removal of problematic jurors from jury service is extremely limited.

This issue has been prominent in society throughout history. Although, in 1880 the Supreme Court ruled that laws excluding black people from jury service were eliminated as they violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, exclusion of black jurors continued throughout both the 19th and 20th centuries.

States in the South evaded the law with ease and laws to protect African American’s juror rights were not enforced. A major example of Jury bias in all-white juries is prominent in the Scottsboro Boys case. On March 25, 1931, nine African American teenagers were accused of raping two white women aboard a Southern Railroad train in Alabama. A racially motivated fight broke out between young white men and the Scottsboro boys, and the white men were removed from the train. Their anger led them to creating assault accusations against the boys. Additionally, two white women who were also riding the freight train faced charges of prostitution. In order to avoid these charges, they falsely accused the Scottsboro Boys of rape. A legal battle which lasted for over 80 years commenced, in which an

all-white, prejudiced jury convicted the boys of rape several times, even with an undeniable lack of evidence. Eight of the nine young men were unjustly sentenced to death. This devastating case led to two additional Supreme Court rulings on jury diversification in Patterson v the State of Alabama, and Norris v the state of Alabama. Both of these cases involved false rape accusations against African American boys, in which all-white juries gave a prejudiced verdict. These detrimental examples of prejudice within the justice system brought attention to the issue of all-white juries and was extremely important in mobilising the Civil Rights movement’s fight against legal challenges.

This problem is also prevalent nowadays, even in an increasingly tolerant society. Due to jurors possessing a capability to access media content prior to trial, prejudiced views can be formed before one even steps into the courtroom. For example, a modern example of this devastating issue is particularly prescient in the case of Porter v. Magill, where defendant Dame Porter claimed that she suffered from tribunal bias, attributing it to historic negative press conferences. Would a fair minded and informed observer conclude there was a real possibility or danger that the tribunal was biased, based on the access they had to media reports of Porter? Jurors are only human, and it cannot be expected that all jurors are capable of setting aside their own biases or relationship to the case- particularly when cases are full of corruption. Subconscious and conscious biases within juries will inevitably continue to detrimentally affect verdicts within legal cases, and this issue cannot be ignored.

This demonstrates that implicit bias remains a terrible issue in juries. Moreover, in today’s society, the sheer speed that information can travel amplifies this issue to an extreme extent.

The effects of the “age of information” are growing, and as society becomes increasingly dependent on technology and mass media, the pivotal question: ‘who is an impartial juror in an age of mass media?’ must be posed. In today’s society, it is inevitable for some jurors to arrive with substantial knowledge of the victim, through access to their social media. It is said that ‘judges are virtually powerless to stem to the flow of information’. As a result, in cases where there is media involvement or social media, judges and barristers must identify areas of potential bias and seek to remedy them through skilled advocacy. The key issue is that it is possible that

3

not only is the age of information shaping our perceptions of guilt, innocence and implicit bias, but is also having a profound sway over how advocates present evidence and utilise a jury.

Furthermore, race undoubtedly continues to be a key issue when discriminatory views affect verdicts. Nowadays, black people convicted of murder or sexual assault are significantly more likely than their white counterparts to be later found innocent of the crimes, according to a review of nearly 2,000 exonerations nationwide over almost three decades. Innocent black people also had to wait disproportionately longer for their names to be cleared than innocent whites.

The review by the National Registry of Exonerations, found that black people wrongfully convicted of murder spent an average of three more years in prison before being released than whites who were cleared. When it comes to murder, black defendants account for 40 percent of those convicted of the crime, but 50 percent of those were wrongfully convicted.

verdicts, so are an important predictor of how a juror will decide, regardless of the evidence presented. This shocking evidence suggests a major change in the system is a crucial necessity in order to accurately and fairly achieve justice.

Implicit bias, therefore, has always remained a key issue within society. However, in a society in which technology continues to spread information rapidly, jurors are able to find information about the accused with ease, leading to an increase in discriminatory views being formed.

A contributing factor to this injustice is the fact that the UK abolished the practice of pre-emptory challenges in 1988 which allowed the defence to challenge jurors without cause. These challenges were primarily designed in order to allow both parties to contribute to the configuration of a jury, so that both sides find its verdict more acceptable. Described by some as an important safeguard, a pre-emptory challenge allows legal counsel to remove juries with potential biases that could obstruct justice. However, this is evidently not enough to challenge this key issue within society. A study which was published in the British Psychological Society’s Legal and Criminological Psychology journal, found that pretrial bias and jurors’ understanding of the concept of beyond reasonable doubt have a “significant impact on the verdict they are likely to deliver in court.”. Researchers from the University of Cambridge sampled a group of 118 people aged between 19-63, who were asked to imagine they were serving on a jury in a burglary trial. They were given details of the accusation and crime, the defence’s and prosecution’s cases, and instructions about the presumption of innocence.

Looking at the criminal standard of proof to convict - beyond reasonable doubt - the study found that the average threshold required to find someone guilty was a probability of 95%. It also found that pre-trial attitudes combined with interpretations of beyond reasonable doubt accounted for 37% of the variability in the

4

CASE STUDY: The Devil Made Me Do It Nikisha Patel

On November 24th, 1981, Arne Cheyenne Johnson was convicted of first-degree manslaughter for killing his landlord Alan Bono in Connecticut. In court, his lawyers claimed he did not commit the murder, but was possessed by a demonic spirit which forced him to kill Bono. Although the judge ruled his defence could never be proven and was therefore infeasible in a court of law, this story shocked media around the world. The case started with the possession of Johnson’s fiancé’s brother, David Glatzel.

David Glatzel and Demonic Possession Johnson’s fiancé, Debbie Glatzel, called in Roman Catholic priests to help her brother David. She told them he would ‘kick, bite, spit and swear’. He experienced strangling attempts by invisible hands and powerful forces would cause him to flop around from head-to-toe like a ragdoll. He would wake up screaming about a man with big black eyes and a thin face with animal features and horns who told him to ‘beware’. David did not watch horror movies and wasn’t known to lie.

Debbie asked her fiancé, Arne Johnson, to

stay with the family and help out. Whilst David slept, bruises and scratches appeared on his body and strange noises were heard in the attic. David then began to see the ‘Beast Man’ while he was awake in the form of an old man. In desperation, the family turned to the Catholic Church for help, but all this did was annoy the Beast Man. The noises became louder and David started to act strangely; hissing, speaking in different voices and quoting from the Bible.

After many attempts to save the boy, the family called in the demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren to expel the spirit. Lorraine said ‘While Ed interviewed the boy, I saw a black misty form next to him. Soon the child was complaining invisible hands were choking him and there were red marks on him’.

David’s parents sought psychiatric help and were told he was ‘normal’ but had a ‘minor learning disability’ – the Warren’s were convinced he was possessed. The Warren’s and a group of priests claimed they saw David levitate and temporarily stop breathing.

The Warren’s later informed the family that there were 43 demons in the boy.

Arne Johnson’s Possession Johnson was present at the exorcism of his fiancé’s brother, David Glatzel and made his ‘fatal mistake’ when he taunted the demons that David was possessed by. ‘Take me on, leave my little buddy alone’ he cried. After this, David’s condition worsened, and Johnson and Debbie Glatzel moved out of her family home. She was hired by Alan Bono who also rented one of his places out to the couple. Soon, Johnson started to behave strangely; he would fall into trances, growl and hallucinate. He would have no memory of it after, just like David.

The Day of The Murder On February 16th 1981, Johnson called in sick to work. He joined Debbie at work and then later went to lunch with Bono, Debbie, his sister Wanda and nine-year-old cousin Mary.

5

Bono was drunk and grabbed Mary, refusing to let her go. According to Wanda, her brother challenged Bono and ordered him to release Mary. Johnson growled like an animal, drew a penknife and repeatedly stabbed Bono more than 20 times. Johnson’s lawyer said there were five tremendous wounds to his chest, stomach and heart.

and Debbie (now married) support the Warren’s account and denies Carl’s claim.

This renowned case has also become the inspiration for the latest movie in the Conjuring franchise, titled ‘Conjuring 3: The Devil Made Me Do It’.

The Aftermath and Trial Arne had no prior criminal record. The small community of Brookline, Connecticut, was shocked at the murder, the first in its 193year history.

The next day Lorraine Warren told the police she felt Johnson was possessed at the time of the murder. The ‘Demon Murder’ trial made headlines around the world. Johnson’s lawyer, Minnella planned to fly in specialists, as well as a subpoena for the priests who carried out the exorcisms. Minnella cited two British court cases that had permitted a defence based on possession by demons, but Judge Robert Callahan refused this.

Ed and Lorraine Warren

The trial began, but the judge rejected the unusual defence saying it would be ‘irrelative and unscientific’ to allow related testimony.

The jury convicted Johnson of first-degree manslaughter and he was sentenced to ten to twenty years in prison, of which he served five, for good behaviour.

The Glatzels Now While Johnson was convicted, the drama was not finished there. Whilst David’s attacks had lessened, they hadn’t gone completely. The experience of David and Arne was made into a book by Gerald Brittle with Lorraine Warren’s help. Lorraine said the profits were shared with the Glatzels, but David and his brother Carl sued the authors and publishers for violating their privacy. Carl argued the book and story was a hoax conjured by the Warrens for monetary gain. David’s father denies his son was possessed but Johnson

Arne Cheyenne Johnson

6

the police that he knew his actions were wrong. This case led to Kendra's Law, passed in November 1999. This was a New York State law concerning involuntary outpatient commitment also known as assisted outpatient treatment. It granted judges the authority to issue orders that require people who meet certain criteria to regularly undergo psychiatric treatment, in order to prevent horrific cases similar to Goldstein’s in the future.

Should Mentally Ill Individuals Who Commit Crimes be Referred to Psychiatric Treatment or Should They Be Punished?

Katie Darbari

The main purpose of legislation is to maintain safety and order within our society, which is the key issue which the public is concerned with. However, there are some exceptions which may contradict common law order, for example could we accept the possibility that a person who commits a crime could be exempt through mental illness? Although this outcome may be legally possible if the mental state of the patient has improved, potential danger and threats to public safety remain primary concerns. There is no easy solution to this dilemma.

Majoritively, this is dependent on specific cases, and there are certain instances where a mentally ill individual who commits a crime (sometimes even a serious crime) can be hospitalized and eventually discharged. An example of this is seen in 1999, in the case of People v Goldstein. Goldstein was a patient with a history of schizophrenia. He had pushed a woman he had never met onto the New York City subway tracks in front of an oncoming train, causing her death.

Previously, he had been discharged from the hospital against his will. The jurors determined that he was mentally ill but guilty, because he understood the nature and meaning of his actions, and because he told

Another famous case was the Trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson. Please see the previous page titled ‘Case Study: The Devil Made Me Do It’ for further information. Martin Minnella, Johnson’s defence attorney, cited two British court cases that had permitted a defence based on possession by demons, but Judge Robert Callahan refused the tactic, stating such assertions could not be scientifically or objectively proven by evidence. Minnella argued self-defence instead. The jury found Johnson guilty of first-degree manslaughter on November 24, 1981. He received a sentence of 10 to 20 years, of which he served 5, for good behaviour. This case was a turning point and was widely discussed as the insanity defence with possession was rarely heard of.

These cases today bring up many legal issues, as there are such fine lines between distinguishing which cases would be eligible in pleading insanity as a defence. In the USA there are still many mentally ill individuals in the prisons, perhaps even suggesting a positive correlation between the two, (including those incarcerated under circumstances like the New York case described earlier). This raises the question as to which is the desirable situation, hospitality or incarceration? Today, there is more emphasis placed on the examination of the relationship between the crime and psychotic content, but there is no longer an automatic exemption from responsibility for a criminal who has a chronic psychiatric illness such as schizophrenia or possession in the case of People vs Goldstein or the Trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson.

7

actions were exceptionally brutal or malicious.

3. Third Degree Murder is similar to manslaughter, however the defendant commits an act “evincing a depraved mind without regard for human life.”

This charge carries a 25 year sentence.

George Floyd – The Legal Story Aadam Hashmi

On May 5th, 2020, an African American man named George Floyd was murdered by Minneapolis police after a store clerk suspected that he might have used a forged $20 bill. Clearly the response by the police to the supposed crime, was disproportionate, and ethically it is understood that what Derek Chauvin did (the man who knelt on George Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes and 29 seconds, causing his death), was a result of institutionalised racism and unnecessary violence. However, what was the resulting legal case that arose from this tragedy?

Derek Chauvin was initially charged on three accounts, second degree and third-degree murder as well as second degree manslaughter. What does this mean?

1. Second Degree Manslaughter is broadly defined as the reckless, or unintentional killing of a person without lawful justification.

(Manslaughter can be voluntary or involuntary, for example if someone driving a car hits someone because they did not see them it is involuntary however if someone kills someone because they punched them without the intent to kill then it is voluntary).

The sentence is no more than ten years imprisonment and a fine of up to $20,000.

2. Second Degree Murder is any intentional murder with malice aforethought but is not premediated nor planned. The sentence can be up to life imprisonment. A judge will increase the years if the defendant’s

There was some outcry as to why Chauvin was not charged with first degree murder given the deliberate, depraved intent of his actions. However there simply was not enough evidence to say that Chauvin had planned the murder beforehand, though some argued that Chauvin had ample time to remove his knee from Floyd’s neck, and did not despite Floyd telling him that he could not breathe.

The primary pieces of evidence in the case were the footage, filmed by bystanders of George Floyd being choked and an autopsy report which concluded that he had died of asphyxia from the pressure applied by Chauvin to Floyd’s neck and back. However, the initial autopsy report found that the cause of Floyd’s death was heart failure. Naturally, this formed a part of the defence. Moreover, a toxicology report also provided some degree of defence for Chauvin. Eric Nelson, the defence attorney told the jury that, “The evidence will show that Mr. Floyd died of a cardiac arrhythmia that occurred as a result of hypertension, his coronary disease, ingestion of methamphetamine and fentanyl, and the adrenaline flowing through his body.”

The general consensus in spite of this was clear. Despite the substances found in his body at the time of death, Floyd’s death was due to asphyxia and was indeed a homicide.

Two different medical examiners corroborated this. One who was hired from George Floyd’s family and one who was from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s office.

8

The trial was conducted around two main issues. Firstly (as stated above) the cause of George Floyd’s death and secondly, whether Chauvin’s use of force was justified and necessary. Throughout the trial Chauvin has refused to give evidence, citing his right to be silent via the 5th Amendment. Eventually Chauvin was found guilty and removed from bail and is now being held at Minnesota Correctional facility, as the jury deemed Chauvin’s use of force to be unjustified, and that asphyxia was the primary cause of his death.

There have been more proceedings after the trial, with his defence attorney calling the use of force authorised and saying that Floyd’s death was the culmination of multiple factors, including drugs and carbon monoxide poisoning. The judge has also stated that the defence’s statement is reasonable to infer from the evidence. Thus, an appeal seems likely, (though legal experts say the chances of success are very slim).

Chauvin is to be sentenced on the 16th of June and the severity of the sentence is still under doubt. (There is even an extremely small chance that he may be acquitted of his charges if his defence is successful, however it is more likely that his defence will result in less severe sentencing). The years that Chauvin faces for each charge culminate at 75 years however in Minnesota, such charges are served concurrently so Chauvin will be looking at 40 years for the severe charge of 2nd degree murder. However, prosecutors have argued for the sentencing to be harsher than usual given the circumstances of the murder. For example, the crime occurred within the presence of a nine-year-old child, which (in the prosecution’s eyes) warrants more punitive sentencing. On the other hand, given that Chauvin has had no past convictions, it is recommended by sentencing guidelines that offenders such as this, receive less time.

As for the other three officers involved with Floyd’s arrest, (Tou Thao, J Alexander Kueng and Thomas Lane), they are all facing trial (charged with aiding and abetting 2nd degree murder and 2nd degree manslaughter). The trial shall be held on the 23rd of August 2021.

To the vast majority, the case of George Floyd seems simple. Chauvin clearly knelt on Floyd’s neck for an unnecessary amount of time and during this event Floyd died. It would appear to many of us, that this indeed means that Chauvin is guilty beyond doubt.

However, this case is a perfect example that demonstrates the complexity of the law.

Despite the apparent ease of accusing Chauvin of murder, with the footage explicitly demonstrating so, the nature of the legal system means that this is by no means going to certainly result in Chauvin being sentenced for 1st degree murder or even 2nd. The defence of Chauvin actually appears to bear some degree of strength (according to the judge himself) and who knows, perhaps he will be relieved of some years, or maybe even released (and acquitted) if his appeal is successful. That there is so much uncertainty lingering around a case of such apparent simplicity, is testament to the sheer complexity of the current legal system.

9

is adopted for legal education must furnish equality of treatment now”. This meant that no matter the circumstance, desegregation on a wide scale was not necessary, rather equality in provision in schools was required by the state.

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950).

HISTORICALLY INFLUENTIAL LAWYER: Thrugood Marshall Tom Oakland

Born on July 2nd, 1908, Thurgood Marshall was an American lawyer and civil rights activist. He was born in Baltimore and graduated from the Howard University School of Law in 1933. Initially, he had his own legal practice in Baltimore before founding the NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund. During this, he argued several cases before the Supreme Court, the most poignant of which being on racial segregation within public education. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall as the US Solicitor General, before promoting him to being an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1967.

Marshall’s most notable cases

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. This was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. This was a unanimous decision in favour of desegregation. The case had started in 1851 in which the public school district would not enrol the daughter of a black man called Oliver Brown into a local school. Rather, she was ordered to go to a black elementary school further away from their home. However, this case was not one that went well for Marshall. Even though throughout his tenure as a lawyer, he had won 29 of 32 cases, the Brown Case did not go as he wanted. It was ruled that “whatever system

Once more, Marshall was arguing for desegregation with regards to education. Marshall argued to the Supreme Court that a public institution of higher learning could not provide alternate treatment to students simply based upon their race, as doing so was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment: rights of Equal Protection. This case took only a month to decide and was won convincingly. What then ensued was the University admitted McLaurin but provided him with separate facilities such as a special table, designated desk, and sometimes separate eating times. In commemoration of this decision, in 2001 the Bizzell Memorial Library at the University of Oklahoma was designated a U.S. National Historic Landmark.

Sweatt v. Painter (1950). In this case, the concept of “separate but equal” as a segregationist stance was challenged (in the footsteps of the Plessy v. Ferguson case ,1896).

The court sided with Sweatt, a black man who was denied the ability to attend the University of Texas School of Law due to his race.

In 2017, “Marshall”, which was a biographical drama recounting the first cases of Thurgood Marshall’s career, was released. The actor Chadwick Boseman played Marshall and brought his name back in to notoriety. The largest, longest-standing effect of Marshall’s life was that of his legacy and push for equality which changed the manner in which the whole U.S. Justice system acted towards race and segregation. He was a liberal member of the conservativedominated Supreme Court who made sure to stress the importance of just treatment of the country’s minorities. He was pragmatic and judicial, trying to ensure equal opportunity for those who lived in America.

10

FOOD FIGHT: Colin vs Cuthbert Rian Shah In a world replete with the worries of a pandemic and fears of whether life shall ever be ‘normal’ again, the UK’s legal news finds itself headlined by a feud between two supermarket caterpillar cakes: Colin versus Cuthbert. Colin was launched by Marks & Spencer in 1990, patrolling the market alone whilst providing a simple solution to the dilemmas faced by parents at their children’s birthday parties. Other supermarkets such as Sainsburys, Asda, Waitrose, and Tesco began to introduce their own versions of caterpillar cakes from 2011 and until recently the caterpillars had coexisted in a friendly market. This, of course, was until Aldi’s replica Cuthbert the caterpillar disturbed the peaceful harmony of the animal cake market.

Aldi sells its cake at £4.99 whereas Marks & Spencer charges a pricier £7 and shoppers have argued that the Marks & Spencer version is a “rip-off”, a potential reason as to why the supermarket giants have decided to take legal action against Aldi.

The Intellectual Property Act (IPA) of 2014 delineates that “infringement of registered designs” is a registered criminal offence and businesses which intentionally copy registered designs are liable to hefty fines and bans. Thus, on the 15th of April of this year Marks & Spencer lodged an intellectual property claim to the High Court suggesting that Aldi’s caterpillar cake “rides on the coattails” of the reputation of their original version. A claim of copyright infringement under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 was also lodged. The complaint suggests that Aldi have undermined the

authenticity of Marks & Spencer’s cake. The intention of the legal action is to ensure that Aldi remove the product from its shelves and agree to never sell similar products in the future; in effect disallowing Aldi from selling a caterpillar cake that Marks & Spencer deem too similar to Colin. Marks & Spencer holds three trademarks relating to Colin and a spokesman suggested that the reason for the legal action is to uphold the supposed reputation Marks & Spencer has for its freshness, quality, innovation, and value.

The High Court’s decision will rest on whether it believes that the cake served by Aldi is being used as an attempt to confuse consumers to gain commercial benefit. Aldi is no stranger to intellectual property claims, as in 2014 it escaped punishment by fighting off allegations bought to court by Moroccan Oil against Aldi’s own brand version “Miracle Oil”.

However, in the same year it did not have success in battling Icelandic Seachill who claimed Aldi had infringed their trademarks, and Aldi were forced to remove the product and the companies settled out of court.

Yet despite these previous and current allegations, Aldi ran an incredibly successful social media campaign in which it pledged a “friendship” between Colin and Cuthbert, with the proceeds of each cake sale going to a charity. The back-and-forth tweets split twitter into two sides: #SaveColin or #FreeCuthbert, whereby tweeters chose and fought for their preferred slogan. Aldi was widely praised for its humour on its social media channels however the Marks & Spencer’s representatives remained firm on their disapproval of any form of Cuthbert being sold, jokingly suggesting that Aldi use Kevin the carrot cake as a substitute for Cuthbert. Economically, Aldi’s social media campaign has boosted their sales and caused heightened interest as to why Marks & Spencer were so opposed to the sale of Cuthbert. The increased public curiosity has caused a surge in demand for Cuthbert cakes and experts expect them to sell rapidly when they return for a two-week stint. Marks & Spencer’s legal action becoming so prevalent within the press has in fact helped Aldi as it

11

served as an unpaid for advertisement of their products. Moreover, the plea of help to other supermarkets presents Marks & Spencer as an oppressor and the rest of the caterpillar cakes as the suppressed.

The result determined by the High Court is destined to be the precedent for future food intellectual property rulings. Some lawyers believe that the case rests upon whether Aldi is able to prove it has not intentionally tried to confuse customers whilst others suggest Marks and Spencer’s claims may be mitigated by the fact they did not employ a no tolerance policy to other caterpillar cakes.

12

Law-related Books, TV Shows and Movies

Books: ▪ The Children’s Act, Ian McEwan ▪ The Secret Barrister ▪ The Color of Law, Richard Rothstein ▪ Misjustice: How British Law is Failing Women ▪ Under the Wig, William Clegg QC ▪ Is Eating People Wrong?, Allan Hutchinson ▪ Eve was Framed, Helena Kennedy

TV Shows: ▪ Suits ▪ White Collar ▪ Judge Judy ▪ Law & Order: UK ▪ The Good Fight ▪ The People v. O.J. Simpson ▪ Making a Murderer ▪ When They See Us ▪ Rumpole of the Bailey ▪ Silk ▪ How to get away with Murder

Movies: ▪ Legally Blonde ▪ A Few Good Men ▪ To Kill a Mockingbird ▪ Kramer vs Kramer ▪ 13th ▪ On the Basis of Sex ▪ Michael Clayton 13

Subsequently, due to the beneficial physical characteristics bought about by such levels including increased muscle size and strength, she has a biological advantage over her competitors, especially in middle distance running events.

However, this is also a physical characteristic that many organisations within the sport of athletics deem unfair which has led to an ongoing legal battle between Semenya and those organisations.

CASTER SEMENYA’S ONGOING LEGAL BATTLE TO COMPETE Maya Brockie

Gasping for air, you heave yourself over the finish line after a gruelling 800 metre race in the sweltering city of Rio, and that’s the moment it hits you. At last, your years and years of exhausting training and countless sacrifices have paid off; a smile of complete ecstasy takes over your face and your elation is enough to make you completely forget about your lactate-filled legs because you’ve done it. You’ve finally fulfilled your lifelong dream of becoming an Olympic champion! Yet suddenly, a startling feeling of unease washes over you and you sense that something is wrong. Is it the crowd? Why are they glaring? Is it directed at you? You ask yourself - are those hushed whispers real or just figments of your imagination? This certainly isn’t how you imagined the best moment of your life.

There are no congratulations. No recognition of your achievement. No sportsmanship. Nothing.

The only evidence of your victory is the angry tears streaming down the faces of your competitors feeling robbed of a triumph that clearly isn’t theirs.

This is the situation middle-distance track athlete Caster Semenya found herself in when she controversially won the gold medal in the women's 800 metre race at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Whilst Semenya finished in a remarkably fast time that has only been achieved by a handful of athletes throughout the entirety of history, the outcome of Semenya’s win was unfortunately not a celebration of her talent and inspiring determination, but instead reignited controversy over the laws on acceptable testosterone levels for athletes.

This is because Semenya has a gift, a highly contentious physiological gift whereby she produces levels of the hormone testosterone that greatly exceed that of a typical female.

In April 2018, in an attempt to eradicate this perceived inequity, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) took a stand against Semenya by announcing new ‘differences of sex development’ laws. These new laws stated that athletes with testosterone levels of 5 nmol/L and above, who wanted to compete in the 400m, 800m, and/or 1500m races had to lower their testosterone levels. Whilst on the surface it may appear that this was simply a general change in legislation, due to the fact that Semenya became the first person to win these three exact events at the South African National Championships just the season beforehand, and the increased media attention that she received for her unusually muscular physique following her win in Rio, it was quite clear that these new laws were designed expressly to target her. Leaving her with the challenging decision of either: lowering her natural levels of testosterone (by undergoing potentially dangerous surgery) merely to have the legal right compete; or abandoning the sport that she had dedicated the entirety of her life to participating in behind forever, Semenya was beyond devastated. Consequently, in June 2018, Semenya revealed that she would legally challenge the IAAF rules in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), an arbitral tribunal that adjudicates disputes in sport on an international level.

Before detailing into her legal challenge, it is important to understand the nature of the CAS. The CAS is a private tribunal which essentially means that it creates and follows its own procedures and rules (rather than formally implementing all the rules of a particular jurisdiction). This is significant because it allows CAS panels to make their own rules backed by specific evidence on a case-by-case basis and means that they are not bound by other international laws governing evidential issues or executing all of the rules of a particular jurisdiction. What the above all leads to is the fact that the nature of the CAS gives it the

14

potential to be discriminatory in its judgement, something that was unfortunately evident in Semenya’s case.

During Semenya’s legal trial against the IAAF’s new restrictive laws, there was a stark divide within the court. At one end of the spectrum, people expressed the opinion that women's sport requires certain biological traits, hence supporting the decision to make Semenya suppress her hormones as this would remove her physiological advantage. On the polar end of the spectrum, commentators such as Eric Vilain (who testified for Semenya) argued that ‘sex’ is not defined by one particular factor and it is impossible to draw a line between men and women based on the concentration of one hormone in the blood.

Additionally, he expressed the view that it is unjust to exclude women who have lived their entire lives as such and tell them they have to change their natural biology to fit in a category that they should already have the right to be a member of. Despite Vilain’s perseverance in putting Semenya’s case forward, the CAS overruled her challenge, supporting the IAAF in forcing her to suppress her hormones in order to continue competing. In its decision, the CAS stated that the IAAF’s regulations are ‘discriminatory,’ but that such discrimination is reasonable and necessary in order to promote a ‘level playing field’ for female athletes. Yet, this vague, weak, and unconvincing justification by the CAS opens up far more questions than it answers.

How can heavily discriminating against one athlete create the ‘level playing field’ that the CAS attempts to promote? Surely that is immensely counterintuitive. More importantly, can a ‘level playing field’ in sport even exist?

The testosterone levels of an athlete fall along a continuum, much like any other physical trait in sport that has the potential to be advantageous, for example leg length or metabolism. Therefore, how can sporting boards place so much weight on monitoring and suppressing testosterone when a ‘level playing field’ can never exist and effectively choose a ‘cut off point’ between men and women based solely upon the concentration of testosterone in the blood? Caster Semenya was born female, is legally female, has been raised as female, and identifies as such, therefore how can it be justified that, due to fact that her body naturally produces high

levels of testosterone, she can be immorally forced into choosing between her health or career? Whilst one can easily argue that these hypothetical questions surrounding the morality of her situation have little place in the law, there was a significant legal factor that profoundly links to these questions that the harsh ruling by the CAS did not address in its judgement: human rights.

Semenya, like all of us, possesses rights for simply being a human. Since the trial took place in Europe, the specific articles regarding these rights that should have been applied in her case are set out in the European convention on Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, more specifically Articles 8 and 2 respectively. Firstly, Article 8 (which was in fact raised but ultimately dismissed) provides that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life. Effectively forcing a healthy athlete into taking hormone suppressing treatment is unquestionably a compulsory medical intervention, the utmost encroachment of Semenya’s privacy. Whilst one could argue that she has a ‘choice’ on whether or not she suppresses her hormone levels, when taking in to account her situation, the choice is not between whether she takes hormone treatments or not.

Instead, her choice is between continuing her career as an athlete or not, meaning that ultimately the judgement of the CAS violates this Article, and thus, Semenya’s human rights. Less disputable or ambiguous than the previous article, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine states that ‘the interests and welfare of the human being shall prevail over the sole interest of society or science.’

In this case, it is not only Semenya’s interest in wanting to be the best athlete that she has the potential to be that should be prioritised over the fact that her competitors feel threatened by her, but also her physical health. With senior researchers at Stanford University finding that lowering testosterone levels can have very serious long term health effects, it is imperative that Semenya’s wellbeing is regarded as more important than the IAAF creating their version of ‘justice’ on the track. Hence, this infringement of Article 2 is yet another unjust breach of her human rights by the CAS. Whilst these human rights were something the CAS disregarded, Semenya did not do so. Outraged by the injustice

15

16

Initial claims included that ‘Captain Marvel’s’ main powers, and his characteristics were drawn from ‘Superman’ including super-strength, superspeed, invulnerability, a skin-tight costume with a cape, and an alter-ego of a news reporter. In the first issue both characters were seen to be throwing the same car.

National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. Aarav Rajput

From 1938 to 1956, comics were at their peak in terms of consumption. This period of time was known as the ‘Golden Age of Comic Books’. Two of the most well-known comic characters were ‘Superman’ and ‘Captain Marvel’. Both were the leading characters of different comics. Between these two characters was the most famous law case on comics of all time.

The character of ‘Superman’ was created in 1938.

After an instant hit, the rights to ‘Superman’ were sold to the sister company of Detective Comics (DC), which was renamed to Superman- for $130 at the time. DC wanted to keep ‘Superman’ at the top and threatened the comic characters of ‘Master Man’ and ‘Wonder Man’. ‘Master man’ was a Fawcett Publication. However, these two characters were stopped when DC warned Marvel saying it would take legal action.

‘Captain Marvel’ was another Fawcett Publication which was much more successful than ‘Master Man’. It was created in 1939 and had more sales than ‘Superman’ during its production. Superman and DC wrote to Fawcett Publications, but was ignored, as Captain Marvel was very successful, and was making a lot of money. In 1941 Superman and DC sued Fawcett for a copyright infringement of the character, ‘Superman’. DC and Superman were trying to cease the publication of the comic strip and withhold release of the upcoming movie by Republic Pictures. However, the movie was released in 1941 and the comic strip continued.

There was a lawsuit for 7 years before a trial took place. By 1948, Superman and DC had joined to make National Comics. The case was now National Comics Publications, Inc. v.

Fawcett Publications, Inc. and lasted for another 6 years.

However, Fawcett argued that there was no proper copyright claim on ‘Superman’. Even though ‘Captain Marvel’ was a clone of ‘Superman’, no damages were owed. This is because there was a newspaper comic strip. This newspaper comic strip wasn’t copyrighted and used almost identical parts of the comic book, in some strips. It was ruled that the copyright of Superman was forfeited. Fawcett didn’t have to pay any damage, yet Captain Marvel was a copy of Superman.

National comics appealed to this decision and it was decided that ‘Superman’ had a copyright, but to receive payment for damages, they would have to provide evidence for the parts in the ‘Superman’ comics which had been published at a later stage in the ‘Captain Marvel’ comics. This process took two years, and eventually, Fawcett had to cease production of the comics and paid National Comics $400,000 (which is equivalent to $4,000,000 today) for damages.

Many people believe that the reason Fawcett didn’t appeal for the result, is because the Golden Age of comics was ending, and there was very little money to be made from the sale of comics.

Without ‘Captain Marvel’, ‘Superman’ would be very different. He wouldn’t have the ability to fly and his enemies may be very different. Whilst ‘Captain Marvel’ is a copy of ‘Superman’, National comics took ideas from the ‘Captain Marvel’ comic strip.

In 1968, Marvel, another comic strip company, bought the trademark of ‘Captain Marvel’ and created a completely new character. This meant that in 1972, when National Comics bought all characters from Fawcett publications, they had to change the name of the original ‘Captain Marvel’, to ‘Shazam’, the word said for Billy Batson (‘Captain Marvel’s’ alter ego) to become a superhero.

17

morality due to the fact Fuller named these eight principles the ‘inner morality of law’. Professor Hart argued that Fuller was, in fact, not justified in calling his principles a morality and accused Fuller of confusing efficacy (how effective the legislative system is) with morality.

The Complex Relationship between Law and Morality Claudia Caisley

Law is not a term that is easy to define and there are a plethora of opinions, theories and possible definitions which try to encompass what the law really is. The most important of these being the theories of legal positivism and natural law.

Positivists believe that if a law is made by the power of the state (for example, an elected parliament), regardless of what that law actually is, everyone must abide by it. On the contrary, natural lawyers oppose this and lend their argument to the relationship between law and morality, saying that the validity of a law depends on its compatibility with a higher, moral authority (this can be anything from God to the unwritten moral code which society follows every day).

Morality is thankfully simpler to define: a custom, habit or usage that is determined by man’s will rather than by law.

An example of natural law can be seen in the explanation of divine law, one of the four types of law that Thomas Aquinas (a 13th century Catholic philosopher) wrote about in his most famous work ‘Summa Theologica’. He wrote that Divine law is concerned with the standards men must meet in order to attain salvation, revealed to mankind by inspiration or revelation (for example the Ten Commandments contained in the Bible).

This type of law clearly illustrates the moral laws man should be following for his own good.

Furthermore, human law is derived from natural law and is a result of a process familiar to us today: applying the principles contained within natural law to particular circumstances. Lon Fuller (professor of jurisprudence) is a renowned natural lawyer who rejected the argument of legal positivism, believing that law has a higher authority than that of sovereign authority. Fuller also views law as intended to serve a purpose (in his case, ‘achieving social order’), and, in order to fulfil this purpose, laws must satisfy eight particular principles. This closely links law and

Onto a slightly more interesting topic: the relationship between law and morality. This is something I had never really considered or taken any notice of before, however, after researching and reading about the topic, I realised the conflict (and also the alignment) between law and morality is much more commonplace than we think. Law and morality heavily influence each other, and changes in either can influence the other. I will write more about this further on, including common examples.

Legal and moral rules have shared characteristics, the most obvious of these being that both are concerned with setting standards which are essential for governing the behaviour of individuals in our society. When driving, the law states we must all drive on the left in order to avoid unnecessary death or injury, whilst it is our morals which guide us to let ambulances pass for exactly the same reason, saving lives. It is here that law and morality are seen to be completely in line and concerned with the same purpose.

Law and morality also employ similar language as they both determine right from wrong and state duties, obligations and responsibilities that one must fulfil. An obvious example being that it is both a parent’s legal and moral duty to care for their child. Law and morality are shown to have a very close relationship when they constantly overlap. A great way to illustrate this is using the Ten Commandments, which continue to serve as a moral code for many today. But, aspects of it are also highlighted in the law: ‘thou shalt not kill’ is reflected in the common law on murder, and ‘thou shalt not steal’ is contained within ss1-6 of the Theft Act of 1968. Lastly, although not directly reflected in the law, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’, can be seen in developments of areas of the law like defamation (tort law).

Sometimes, legal rules are out of kilter with morality, often making them more difficult to justify. This can be observed in cases of strict liability, which the law imputes to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. For example, although not a breach of moral code,

18

something as small as discovering a worm in your apple would make the providing company legally liable. It is therefore clear that legal rules are lent greater validity by their moral content. Numerous moral rules are also not written in the law. To put it simply, for instance, there is no law requiring every citizen to be a ‘good Samaritan’, yet we feel it is our moral obligation to help a lost child or guide a blind person across the road, so they do not get injured. Often, a defendant will argue their case by saying a moral obligation does not imply any legal liability. It is then up to the court to decide whether the defendant is to be charged, although a specific law may not have in fact been breached.

Law and morality also influence upon each other, with changes in moral values causing developments in the law, and changes in the law leading to changes in morals. For instance, in the History of the Pleas of the Crown (treatise on English criminal law), Sir Hale declared that ‘a man cannot rape his wife’, implying that a woman gives indefinite consent to sexual relations with her husband by entering a marriage. However, in the 20th century, hoping to limit the moral outrage that acquittal in these cases would produce, due to the changing and progressing moral views of the population: the courts removed this immunity (to persecution of the husband) in cases where there was a legal separation order, a non-molestation order or a decree nisi. This immunity was then further weakened due to the RvR case in 1991 (between a divorced couple) and backing from the House of Lords that ‘the present marital immunity [should] be abolished in all cases’. In this way, it is evident that the law adapted to changes in perceived public morality.

were required in order to successfully pass the new law. It is tricky to deduce whether parties for or against this Act most accurately reflected public opinion on the issue, however, it is clear that the years since 1957 have seen significant legislative activity as well as a change in public attitudes (morality) in the area of homosexuality.

We are then left with an important (and very big) question: does and should the law reflect moral values? We live in a pluralist society containing an extensive range of moral views. To what extent, therefore, should the law reflect particular morals? Judges often have to consider these questions before making a ruling in a case where legal and moral rules seem to be at odds. This has also been a subject up for constant academic debate, both currently and throughout history, most commonly illustrated in the Hart-Devlin debate (sparked the aforementioned Wolfenden report). Devlin argues that law should reflect moral values because shared morality constitutes part of society. On the other hand, Hart proposed a more limited role for the law in the enforcement of morality, arguing that society should not interfere with what individuals deem as moral or immoral conduct.

As mentioned previously, changes in the law can spark changes in morals, such can be seen in the laws surrounding homosexuality. To begin with, in 1957, the Wolfenden Report recommended that homosexual behaviour between adults should be decriminalised, and that the age of consent be lowered to 21. It was not until ten years later that these recommendations became part of the law in the Sexual Offences Bill. About thirty years later, the age of consent was further reduced to 16 under the Sexual Offences Amendment Act, thereby equalising the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual activity.

This reform sparked determined opposition in the house of Lords and powers of the Parliament Act

19

enabled us to maintain the spread of the virus within the nation.

At present, in the United Kingdom, as earlier mentioned, there is a traffic light system in place. How this works is:

“Should the UK Government be Allowed to Suspend International and Local Travel During the Covid-19 Crisis Temporarily?’’

Suren Ramanakumar

During the pandemic, most governments have taken the act of imposing a lockdown on their citizens, which science and statistics have shown to have worked. One of the first actions that the government took was intervening in foreign travel. This was done in many countries and still is the case in many countries. At the time of writing, there is a traffic system in place in the United Kingdom, with each of the devolved nations having different countries in each section.

It is widely believed COVID-19 started in Wuhan, China. It has then spread by people who moved out of China into other countries.

Essentially, if international travel was blocked from the day cases of COVID 19 were discovered in China, the COVID crisis would have only spread in China. However, this is not feasible.

In the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government first imposed travel restrictions on 17th March 2020, when Foreign and commonwealth affairs (now Foreign Commonwealth and Development Affairs) secretary, The Right Honourable Dominic Raab MP, "advised against all non-essential travel". This restricted further cases from coming in from other countries. Had the UK not closed down, we would have had much more cases in the first wave and far more deaths. The closing of foreign travel has

Green - PCR tests required upon departure and re-entry into the country Orange - PCR tests required like Green but self-isolation for ten days at home Red - PCR tests required like Green, but selfisolation must be undertaken at a Government approved location This new traffic system makes sure that new cases of the virus do not enter from foreign countries, allowing us to focus on cracking down on the cases we already have.

Such measures such as forced isolation would generally be regarded as a breach of privacy.

Restrictions on freedom of movement would typically be considered as a move done by far-left communist governments. However, in the UK, we have a one-nation conservative right-wing government. This means that this would go against the traditional values of this government. However, this move has been made, and the vast majority of people accept the terms that have been put in place.

On the 25th March 2020, the government passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, allowing them to restrict citizens' freedom. This means that it is legal in the eyes of the law, but should it be allowed?

Some would say no. This is the voice of many from our friends from the other side of the pond, the United States. Their previous President, Donald J Trump, was against inflicting lockdowns. This is the view held by many republicans, who campaign very heavily for no restrictions to be set on their citizens.

The United States has one of the highest death tolls and cases out of any country globally, which would suggest that restricting movement would benefit the community as a whole.

20

However, is it necessary to restrict people's freedom to save lives? Some would say not.

In Florida, the Governor (Ron DeSantis) hasn't banned people's freedom but has maintained low case rates and low deaths rates. He has done this by protecting the elderly and vulnerable. This could mean that restricting people's freedom, which is typically considered illegal, unnecessary.

One crucial factor to bring into here is that each country is distinctive. Each country will have a further dependency on trade, tourism, and other means of movement. For instance, in the UK, we have one of the most bustling airports globally, London Heathrow, with over 300 flights on a normal day. Many of these flights often carry those visiting for business reasons. This means that there are lots of people coming in and out of London alone.

This is very different to Florida, which doesn't have as busy an airport as London and isn't a business hub, making it unfair to compare.

In the UK, as a global hub, our prosperity as a prominent nation depends on businesses big and small, meaning that having freedom of movement in and out of the country may not be safe.

This means that others would say yes. The United Kingdom, as the tremendous dominant country that it is. There would be thousands and thousands of people entering the country each day, which, along with the cases already in the UK, would lead to a growth in cases across the nation, making it unwise to be open. Regulating people's movement, in and out of the country, would prevent many cases from entering the country from outside, allowing us to control the spread much more, protect the NHS, and save lives.

Now we have considered international travel, however what about local travel.

Local travel has also been restricted in the UK, which some people have breached. Most famously, Dominic Cummings travelled 200 miles breaching restrictions, restrictions made by himself and his colleges.

Local travel would allow the spread within a country but not on an international scale.

Local travel has been blocked in the UK and, most notably, in the tier system where some areas were allowed to mingle whilst others weren't. There are two or maybe three sides to this.

We should allow local travel.

Some, who would like earlier, believe that it is illegal to restrict citizens' freedom of movement. These people would say that restriction of freedom is unlawful under any circumstances, so would back free movement as standard.

We shouldn't allow local travel.

Some say that the restrictions of citizens' movement are quintessential to stop the spread of a virus. This has been the strategy taken during the lockdown.

We should allow local travel, but with compulsory masks.

Others believe that we can go ahead and keep movement free, which would be legal by normal standards but impose mandatory masks, which would be illegal typically. This can allow us to go about our regular lives without spreading the spread of COVID. This can enable us to support businesses. This is the approach the UK Government has done for a lot of the time.

The latter two are what we have done since the pandemic took hold. This has significantly helped reduce the spread of COVID. Forbidding all local travel is more effective at preventing the spread of COVID. Allowing local travel with mandatory masks is helpful but not as effective.

Banning all local travel less viable as a long term (several months) solution leads to a significant loss for a business. Allowing local travel with mandatory masks facilitate trade to continue to survive and thrive.

Combining the two, there are several possibilities.

21

Those who believe that people should be free to do as they please would think that international travel should not be limited and local. Travel should not be limited but should look at other ways to control and defeat the pandemic.

Others believe that restrictions should be imposed, as this is a national health crisis and international travel and local travel should be limited.

As mentioned previously, the second would ordinarily be illegal but is at present legal in the UK under the Coronavirus Act 2020, which was further expanded for another six months, earlier in 2021.

The question is, however, whether they should be allowed to do so?

In conclusion, in the UK, it is explicit that imposing lockdowns have helped control the spread of coronavirus, and therefore, most would argue, including me, that it is legal in this case. The government represents the people of this country and must have its best interests at heart, and imposing a lockdown to control the spread of this pandemic is in the best interest of this nation.

22

INTERVIEW with an Ex-Solicitor: Lomax Ward Aaron Rashid

Lomax Ward was a solicitor at Slaughter and May for five years, then started his own venture capital business called Outsized Ventures.

Tell us a little bit about yourself - what do you do in your spare time / hobbies?

I live in London and I’m 36 years old. I run my own business. Outside of work, I like to run ultratrail marathons, sail, ski, play golf, cook, learn languages (Italian, Japanese and Spanish) and read.

What did you study at A-level and what degree did you do? Did you enjoy it? If you could go back, would you change your subjects/degree?

At A-level, I studied Latin, Greek, French and Italian. I read Classics at Cambridge. I enjoyed all of these subjects immensely as I love to learn languages, as well as enjoying the breadth offered by a Classics degree. If I had to go back, I would have added in computer science.

What do you do now?

Now I am an investor at (and founder of) Outsized Ventures, a venture capital fund focussed on deep tech and science-based investments in Europe. We partner with the best founders in Europe building companies using the cutting-edge technology of tomorrow.

Why did you choose this over being a lawyer? Do you miss being a lawyer?

I was a solicitor at Slaughter and May for five years and spent most of my time as a corporate lawyer. The job was highly intellectually challenging, and I worked alongside some great people (I met my wife there!) and worked on

some interesting deals. There were elements of the work that I enjoyed, however ultimately as a corporate lawyer you spend your career executing other peoples' decisions. You are brought in towards the end of a process and are asked to deliver a lot of work in a very short amount of time. As a general rule (and there are of course exceptions), you advise a company for a snapshot in time (a fundraise, an acquisition, an exit, a joint venture) but once the deal is done, the company moves on and your interaction ceases. I was much more interested to get closer to the decision making and had always aspired to start my own business. Hence, I opted to move to a role as an in-house counsel and then transitioned to being a full-time investment professional, before starting my own business.

As a founder of a business, I have the full responsibility of managing that, along with my two business partners. The risk I face is a lot greater now than when working in a highly paid role in a law firm, and the hours can be just as bad, but ultimately, I am much more invested in what I do, and I get a lot more enjoyment from that. I am building something, which would not have been possible within the confines of a law firm. A career in a law firm offers a lot: intellectually demanding work alongside very smart colleagues and clients, working on high profile transactions and, of course, it can be highly lucrative. However, it is a competitive market where you are selling time, so it can be very gruelling with long hours and a lot of very unglamorous work. As a junior lawyer you spend a lot of time doing fairly menial tasks - taking notes, building and reviewing data rooms, verifying documents etc.

I don't miss being a lawyer - life is a lot more exciting now, blending short term challenges with the need to think strategically over the long term as we build our business. As a lawyer, you spend all of your time wrapped up in the deals you are working on and then catching up on sleep in the downtime waiting for the next deal to come along. The training from my law firm days was invaluable (the logical problem solving and delivery high quality work to demanding clients in short time frames are valuable life skills) but a career as a corporate solicitor is not for everyone and I am thus glad that I recognised this and made the move I did. I now derive further satisfaction and meaning from my career at Outsized Ventures.

23