As a part of the Kent Law School Guest Lecture series, the Keith Tucker Annual Memorial Lecture 2013 was held on Thursday October 17th. The lecture was open to the public and attended by members of the Kent Law Society as well. As an International Law with International Relations (ILIR) student with an interest in Human Rights issues I thought it would be useful to attend this lecture which was entitled ‘Human Rights: Myths and Reality’.
Prior to the lecture I decided to do a bit of research on the guest speaker, Lucy Scott-Moncrieff. As a woman, working towards a career in Human Rights, I was very interested to read about Ms. Scott-Moncrieff’s work as a Mental Health and Human Rights lawyer. She represented the first person to receive a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998. This decision effected a change in the requirements for discharge of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.
On the evening of the lecture, I walked into the large auditorium which was slowly filling with not just students, but also academics, legal scholars, judges, barristers and solicitors – many of whom were no doubt members of the Kent Law Society. It was a bit daunting, and for a moment I wondered if the lecture and discourse would be far too complex for me, a mere student to grasp.
However, about a minute into Ms. Scott-Moncrieff’s lecture I realized that this lecture was dealing with knowledge and opinions that everyone – regardless of whether they have had legal training or not – may have about Human Rights. She spoke of her experience of getting into a taxi and after indicating her profession, having the driver become enraged about all of the constraints that adherence to human rights legislation are placing on the UK. By the end of the journey she had pointed out to the driver some of the positive aspects of human rights legislation, of which the driver had previously been unaware. As someone who has learned about human rights issues not solely from campaigning politicians, but also through my legal studies, I agreed with Mrs. Moncrieff about the importance of engaging in discussion about these issues and dispelling the myths about human rights.
During the question and answer period, there were a wide range of questions which offered much food for thought. I was surprised but encouraged by Ms. Moncrieff’s response to the question, “Have you faced any barriers over the course of your career that you feel were because of being a woman?” to which she replied “No”.
A comment made by one of the solicitors also sparked a debate on an issue that I recall discussing during seminars in my undergraduate studies: whether prisoners should have the right to vote. That discussion extended to whether convicted criminals should have their human rights upheld at all. Listening to the opinions of barristers and solicitors who felt passionately about this issue, I found myself thinking about this issue in the context of extradition of foreign nationals.
At the close of the evening, the Law Society presented the Kent Law Clinic with a cheque which would be used for new and improved office space for the clinic. Having volunteered with the Kent Law Clinic during my undergraduate studies, it was heartening to see this show of support for the ongoing (pro bono) work of the clinic.
As each of us on the LLM contemplate topics for our dissertations, guest lectures such as this are proving very useful, both for information sharing and to get ideas flowing.