Since 1st September 2003, colleges of Further & Higher Education have been obliged by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) to supply auxiliary aids and services to disabled students.

John Savva is profoundly deaf. He started his undergraduate degree course in Sept 2005 with the help of a Disabled Students Allowance. He was assessed as needing British Sign Language interpreters at lectures and for group work, and a note-taker at all course related sessions. It was estimated that the standard Allowance would not be adequate by some £10,000, to pay for all his learning support needs.

The Disability Rights Commission’s Code of Practice for providers of post 16 Education envisages “instances when disabled students might need reasonable adjustments to be provided by the institution in addition to those resourced through their disabled students’ allowances”.

The University’s approach was to offer him a maximum, and insufficient, amount of £3,500 per year which they obtained through the Access to Learning Fund. This figure did not take into account his individual needs.

Mr Savva struggled to keep up with his studies, only half of his lectures were interpreted and he was provided with no notetakers. He may have to give up his course if he cannot get sufficient support to meet his needs.

Jocelyn Murphy of the Disability Law Service who is representing John Savva says –

“To my knowledge this is the first case to make use of the auxiliary services provision in the DDA and highlights the barriers deaf students have to undertaking and completing higher education courses”.

This post was originally featured on North of the Stupid Line, and has been amended to suit Deaf Blawg.

I qualified as a solicitor today, the culmination of nine years of hard work.

At the tender age of 14, I made the decision that I wanted to become a lawyer. A careers adviser at the time said that I couldn’t become a lawyer because it would be too difficult as I was Deaf. That was probably the best thing he could have ever said to me, as it just made me more determined to succeed.

During A Levels, I applied to the customary six universities, but the A Level European History teacher put me off applying to do a Law degree, as her son was a Cambridge University graduate and he couldn’t get a training contract. If that was true, then what chance did I have? This led me to apply to read History instead of Law.

After the first term at University of Wales Swansea during the 1998/1999 academic year, I began to have second thoughts about the History degree (although I was enjoying it), and made enquiries as to whether I could switch courses. The answer was affirmative, but there was a catch; I’d have to start the first year of the Law degree in the academic year 1999/2000, pushing me behind. The parents weren’t too thrilled with the idea, and I didn’t like the idea of having to work from January to August in the meantime. I decided to stick with my History degree, having obtained advice from the university’s Careers Centre, who informed me that I could do a conversion course after my degree, known as the Common Professional Examination or Postgraduate Diploma in Law, for a year. This course is specifically for non-law graduates.

So, having completed my History degree, I applied for a place on the CPE at the University of the West of England, Bristol, which was accepted. The CPE was the hardest thing I’ve ever done - it was non-stop studying for a full academic year, bearing in mind that it’s the equivalent of a three-year Law degree crammed into one year. I managed to pass it, and enrolled on the Legal Practice Course or Diploma in Legal Practice at Cardiff University.

Then came the difficult part, securing a training contract. I applied for over 150 training contracts since 2001, and despite having about 11 interviews, wasn’t offered one. I started work at the Royal Association for Deaf People in June 2003, the week after I completed the LPC, as an Advice Worker, and eventually was able to arrange a secondment to South West London Law Centres to do an 18-month training contract, beginning on 28 November 2005. Wanting to specialise in Employment Law, I arranged an additional secondment to Hugh James Solicitors for the last five months of the training contract, which ended this week.

So, I’ve now reached my goal - I’m a qualified solicitor, due to be admitted to the roll on 1 June 2007.

So, what’s next? After having worked in the public sector for four years, the aim is to obtain a position as an Employment Solicitor in private practice, in the South Wales or South West area. I’d like to get a few years’ experience under my belt, and perhaps get promoted to Associate or Partner level, and then set up my own law firm with some mates.

Just turned on Channel 4 News which seemed to be covering trials, the length of them and if juries can understand their complex nature. As soon as I had turned the television on, it was covering the fact that a trial had to be postponed for a day because a member of the jury’s hearing aid broke. Does anyone know any further details about this?

Whilst hearing aids are acceptable over here (without communication support), having communication support is not. It becomes the 13th person issue, within the deliberation room. It seems rather bizarre that a juror functioning with a hearing aid alone (after all, it does not replace natural hearing) is safer or indeed more legal than one who is relying on communication via a third party.

This post was originally featured on North of the Stupid Line, and has been amended to suit Deaf Blawg.

You will be interested to know that I am just under 4 weeks away from qualifying as a solicitor. For the past 4 months, I have been on secondment from the Royal Association for Deaf People to Hugh James Solicitors in Cardiff, completing an Employment seat. I am due to qualify on 27 May 2007, with the aim of becoming an Employment Solicitor.

Thus, I am looking for a Newly Qualified position as an Employment Solicitor/Lawyer in the Cardiff and Bristol area, and would be prepared to commute as far as Swansea, Gloucester, Cheltenham and Bath.

I don’t like the way they recruit solicitors. Most law firms recruit using recruitment agencies, and there are literally hundreds of them specialising in legal recruitment. Advertisements are usually anonymous, so you don’t know which firms you’re applying to. If a law firm is advertising through multiple agencies, you don’t know whether you’re applying for the same position in the same firm.

When a seemingly new position that I’m interested in pops up in my searches, I apply, and then I hear nothing. Communication is non-existent. If I apply for a job through a recruitment agency that I haven’t had contact with before, they usually ring me up the next day enthusiastic about my potential, get a few details and send me a letter in the post asking for a copy of my passport for ID purposes. I do as requested, and then hear nothing from them.

There are a number of positions I am particularly keen on, but I don’t hear anything, and as I don’t know the name of the firm, I can’t contact them to check whether they’ve received my application. How do we really know that the recruiters are actually submitting our CVs? It scares me to think that I could be missing out on opportunities.

To be honest, I’m quite disappointed with how the job search is going. I was confident that it would be easier to get a job as a Newly Qualified than it was to get a training contract, but it seems I may have been wrong. I put down my lack of success to the following:

• The market for Newly Qualified Employment Solicitors is quite quiet in the South West and Wales region at the moment;
• My CV is too eclectic, as I’m employed by RAD but seconded to South West London Law Centres, and sub-seconded to Hugh James Solicitors;
• Lack of experience in private practice - however, I will have had five months’ experience when I qualify;
• I’m Deaf - is this same old adage still a barrier?

I really don’t know how to handle this. I guess I’ve just got to plow ahead and hope that my luck will come in one day soon.

Did you know that the constitutions of Finland¹, South Africa² and Canada³ contain provisions recognising the right to use sign language?

1. Section 17, Constitution as amended in 1995 and in 2000 [back]
2. Section 6, Constitution as of 1996 [back]
3. Section 14, Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms 1982 [back]

I was reading Disability Rights in Europe: from theory to practice, and came across a reference to the cases of Skjoldager v Sweden¹ and Malone v UK² at the European Court of Human Rights (”the ECtHR”).

Skjoldager v Sweden

The applicant, a psychologist, visited a care home for people with learning difficulties where he found a number of residents unlawfully locked in their rooms. Following his report, action was taken which eventually resulted in the removal of the locks. He was, however, denied further access to the residents. Where unlawful detention of this nature has occurred, Article 5(5) requires that compensation be paid. Because none was offered to the residents, the applicant complained to the European Commission. He did so in a represenative capacity, but in his own name because the muncipality had refused to provide him with the names of the residents (who were incapable of lodging the complaints themselves). The case was rejected on the ground that the applicant had no specific authority to make the complaint. The residents were, therefore, effectively outside the protection of the Convention.

Malone v UK

Mandy Malone, a wheelchair user, was the defendant in possession proceedings relating to her council house. Her request that these be heard in a court near to her home was refused. Consequently, in order to reach the court, she had to leave home at 4.30am and undertake a 950 kilometre round trip. As a result, she was confined to her bed for four days and requried medical assistance. Her complaint related to the unfairness of the process and the inaccessibility of the court building (she had to be carried up the steps of the court and experienced ‘excruciating discomfort’ due to the lack of suitable toilet facilities). The Strasbourg complaint was rejected on the grounds that she had ‘failed to appropriately bring to the attention of the court her difficulties’³.

These two cases serve as a reminder of how difficult it can be to enforce disability rights at the ECtHR, and that the ECtHR”continues to have profound difficulty in identifying and addressing state responsibility for discrimination against disabled people”⁴. Indeed, there is a paradox here, as the Convention is also silent on the rights of children and gay and lesbian people, but this has not prevented the ECtHR developing caselaw to remdy the injustices they face.

If the ECtHR had some imagination, they would ensure that Article 14 specifically includes disability as an example of unlawful discrimination.

1. (1995) 22504/93 [back]
2. (1996) 25290/94) [back]
3. Lawson, A and Gooding, C, Disability Rights in Europe: from theory to practice, 2005 at 28 [back]
4. Ibid [back]

On behalf of Deaf Lawyers UK, Alison and I would like to apologise for the lack of posts over the last few months. Ok, I’ll rephrase that. The lack of posts over the last year.

There are a number of issues and personal developments that we would like to bring to the Deaf and Deaf legal community, so watch this space.

In England and Wales, 98% of criminal cases are dealt with by the Magistrates Court, and are heard in front of Magistrates.

Traditionally in the UK it has been said that Deaf people cannot serve as Magistrates, Judges or Jurors because interpreters will not be able to convey the full nusances of a court room. However, great strides have been made in recent years, especially after winning the campaign for BSL recognition (although more work needs to be done on this), and various other initiatives.

A Deaf person is in the process of applying to become a Magistrate, and the latest advice given this week by the Department of Constitution Affairs, to the Justices’ appointment team states:

‘The position of people who are deaf serving as magistrates is analogous to that of people who are deaf serving on a jury. Courts do everything they can to accommodate people with a disability and there is a presumption in favour of people with a disability serving as magistrates. The Magistrates Courts Committee will make any adaptations necessary to the court to enable them to carry out the duties of the office, such as induction loop systems, where the adaptations required are reasonable. However, the present law is that a bench of magistrates must reach its decision in the privacy of its own retiring room free from the presence of anyone else except the Justices’ Clerk, who may to be present to give legal advice only. The presence of a person who is not a magistrate in the retiring room can amount to an irregularity upon which a convicted defendant may challenge his or her conviction. For this reason, it is not possible to permit a person who would need assistance from an interpreter in the retiring room to be a magistrate’.

An ongoing argument, where interpretation of primary legislation is literal and does not recognise interpreters. We will keep this matter updated.

A frequent argument, at least used in the UK is you cannot possibly be a good lawyer or participate in courtroom proceedings, if you cannot hear.This has been an argument that has been swung for years, in relation to access, especially in terms of jury service until the 13th person issue became the mainstay. The same argument has been swung in terms of Deaf people cannot be magistrates or members of the judiciary.

Consequently, there is sensitivity to issues around whether a Deaf person is able to be a lawyer, and interpreters can be used effectively. The only people who are effectively able to judge this are interpreters themselves, and Deaf people with an experience of using interpreters.

An argument flared up over at Blind Insight relating to this very issue (see comments).

Firstly, it is understood that this is a personal blog and I for one have full respect for Mad. She has inspired me, and I hope her career continues to go from strength to strength.

However, the bone of contention was around this statement:

“my client deserves to have an advocate who can hear and address everything the judges and opposing counsel have to say about his case”

Whilst I accept that Mad prefers audio as her reasonable adjustment in the courtroom and this is what she needs to have her client’s best interests at heart, this statement could have been better worded. After all, wording is meant to be a lawyer’s craft. The statement as it stands implies that lawyers who do use interpreters are giving a second rate service. It implies that via interpreters you somehow miss information, and thus an inferior advocate.

There are further comments relating to this argument in this comment section. Interestingly those lawyers who were affected by this comment, all use interpreters and thus a direct personal experience.

Those people who attacked those speaking out, were all hard of hearing, and none of them use interpreters in the courtroom! is sign language their preferred language and used regularly? This is not about a Deaf vs hard of hearing debate, it is about people not getting issues that Deaf people preferred sign language users face and thus are neither qualified or experienced to pass judgement. This is largely about use of interpreters in the courtroom, and only those who use interpreters are familiar with the issues. In the same way as only Black people are qualified to speak on Black issues, and should a white person pass judgement on racism and declare something was not racist there would be an outcry.

With such issues still raw in the mainstream, it is imperative that assumptions and prejudices are challenged on the surface of access and discrimination that happens. It is nothing more, nothing less, and to bring other arguments such as the difference between two websites, what law school someone went to (what has this got to do with it, I attended a top ranking law school too!), or CIs kind of makes me wonder if people are actually lawyers and can stick to the issue in hand. Where is the clarity, and a focus on the key issue?

Deaf lawyers having to fighting their corner says an awful lot relating to lack of understanding relating to the issues.

What scares me is the same people are meant to be representing sign language users within the American Bar Association. This is truly frightening, and one hopes that US colleagues make their voices heard on this.

17 February 2006 11:47

The Equality Act has gained royal assent, paving the way for a new ‘one-stop shop’ for advice on employers’ and individuals’ rights and duties under discrimination law.

Under the Act, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) will bring together the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission from October 2007.

The Commission for Racial Equality will join in 2009, putting expertise on equality, diversity and human rights all in one place.

The CEHR will be required to produce a regular ‘equality health check’ for the UK and to work with individuals, communities, businesses and public services to find new, more effective ways to combat discrimination.

The Act also introduces a new gender duty, which will require public bodies to take account of the different needs of men and women to ensure equality of opportunity when preparing policies or providing services.

Meg Munn, deputy minister for women and equality, said the Equality Act marked a transformation in the way modern Britain tackles discrimination.

“The CEHR will be a powerful body dedicated to fighting discrimination, prejudice and inequality and promoting fairness for everyone,” she said.

Arguments still remain over whether a single equality Act should be created to support the work of the CEHR.

The public sector is pressing for a single equality Act to bring all the present discrimination law together to ensure that all the groups covered by the CEHR have the same degree of protection from discrimination.

However, the CBI said employers would strongly oppose the creation of a single Act.

Neil Bentley, the CBI’s head of public services and diversity and a member of the CEHR taskforce, said: “Rushing towards a single equality Act could be an attempt to rush through a one-size-fits-all approach, with all rights and duties raised to the highest common denominator.”