Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

International Women’s Day 2019: In Conversation with Harriet Wistrich

  • Interview
  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This reflection item provides an edited account of human rights lawyer Harriet Wistrich’s conversation with Manvir Grewal, Visiting Lecturer and Ph.D. student, and Harriet Samuels, Reader in Law at the University of Westminster. It summarises the exchange which focused on Harriet Wistrich’s career trajectory and the many public interest law cases that she has brought on behalf her clients, mainly women, in both domestic and international forums. It also includes a condensed version of the question and answer session with the audience. Questions included the broader issues around domestic violence, rape, coercive control, sex work and the nature of feminism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. Research Group for Law, Gender and Sexuality at Westminster https://www.westminster.ac.uk/law-gender-and-sexuality/projects. Accessed 24 May 2019. An edited video of the event will be uploaded to this site in due course.

  2. The background to the Sally Challen case is explained at Justice for Women https://www.justiceforwomen.org.uk/sally-challen-appeal. Accessed 24 May 2019.

  3. United Nations, General Assembly, Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women, UNTS 1249, 18 December 1979. Entered into force 3 September 1981. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CEDAW.aspx. Accessed 6th May 2019.

  4. For more information see The Centre for Women’s Justice https://www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk. Accessed 17th May 2019.

  5. See R. v. Thornton (No. 2) [1996] 1 WLR 1174 and R. v. Kiranjit Ahluwalia (1993) 96 Cr App R 133.

  6. R. v. Humphreys (Emma) [1995] 4 All ER 1008.

  7. R. v. Challen [2012] 2 Cr App R (S) 20. Challen’s conviction for murder was over turned by the Court of Appeal in February 2019. See R v Challen [2019] EWCA Crim 916. The Court of Appeal ordered a re-trial but the prosecution accepted a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility after acknowledging the view of an independent psychiatrist that Challen was suffering from an adjustment disorder. She was sentenced to 9 years and 4 months, but was immediately released as she had already served this time in prison. See Ellwood (2019). For a short commentary on some of the issues in the case see Bettinson (2019b). For a discussion of the defences to murder and coercive control more generally see Bettinson (2019a).

  8. See the definition of coercive control in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

  9. See section 23 Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.

  10. Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53.

  11. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD & Anor [2018] UKSC 11; [2018] 1 Cr App R 31.

  12. R (D and another) v. Parole Board and another [2019] QB 285.

  13. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012) Official Journal of the European Union, 26 October 2012, p 391.

  14. Supra n 3.

  15. UN General Assembly, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 6 October 1999, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2131, p. 8. For further discussion of the Optional Protocol see Hodson (2014).

  16. See the Eighth periodic report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under article 18 of the Convention, due in 2017, C/GBR/8. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=1190&Lang=en. Accessed 24 May 2019. For an account of the CEDAW 72 Session (18 February–08 March 2019) see Yoshida (2019).

  17. CEDAW Communication 126/2018.

  18. R. (Monica) v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] 2 WLR 722.

  19. For a discussion see Sharpe (2015).

  20. Crown Prosecution Service (2018).

  21. Report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry (1999 Cm 4262–1).

  22. Southall Black Sisters https://southallblacksisters.org.uk. Accessed 23rd May 2019 and the Angelou Centre https://angelou-centre.org.uk. Accessed 23 May 2019.

  23. East London Strippers Collective. Available at https://ethicalstripper.com/site/. Accessed 22nd May 2019.

  24. R (QSA and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2018] 1 W.L.R. 4279.

  25. For more information see Nesta https://www.nesta.org.uk/feature/new-radicals-2018/fiona-broadfoot/. Accessed 22 May 2019.

  26. MC v Bulgaria (2005) 40 EHRR 20 and D and V v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Liberty and others Supra n 11.

  27. Ibid D and V v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Liberty and others § 204.

  28. For more on the cuts to legal aid see Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. For commentary see Hynes (2019). For a discussion of access to judicial review see Mills (2015).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harriet Samuels.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Samuels, H. International Women’s Day 2019: In Conversation with Harriet Wistrich. Fem Leg Stud 27, 311–331 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-019-09411-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-019-09411-4

Keywords

Navigation