But you should be aware of what yesterday’s Panorama talked about.
Among other things, Panorama told the story of a woman who received an e-mail from her solicitor, informing her that the solicitor’s firm had changed bank.
Could she please pay the £47,000 into the new account instead of to the old account? She did.
The e-mail was spoofed, a genuine-looking but completely fake e-mail, headers (source) and all. She had willingly paid £47,000 into the bank account of a hacker. Continue reading
How can you prepare yourself for court situations as described in this long article in The Guardian?
Make sure that you feel comfortable in the court room.
You can do that by going to 
the court house – any court house – as often as you can. Enter the building, empty your pockets, go through the metal detector, and walk around in the building. Attend other people’s court hearings as a member of the public.
Pay a great deal of attention to how you feel and which things make you feel anxious. Or angry, or confused. Ask yourself why they make you feel that way and what you can do about it. Do not fight the feelings that well up in you. Most of the stress comes from trying to suppress feelings. That internal battle drains your energy and overwhelms you.
Go back into the court building time and time again, and teach yourself to look at your emotions from a distance, not seeing them as good or bad but as, heck, potted plants or tumbleweeds. Over time, they’ll probably disappear or show up briefly and then dissipate.
Teach yourself to stay calm in your court hearings.
This is the hard part. You can make sure that the people you will have to deal with in the court room, such as your ex, do not make you feel as panicked as one of the persons the article in The Guardian talks about.
You can do that by sitting in a room at home, with no one else around. Relax and picture yourself in the court room. Look around, and imagine seeing for example your ex there, and the other side’s barrister, and the judge, and everyone else.
Again, pay a great deal of attention to your feelings. Feel the panic and anger come up? The sorrow? The powerlessness? Let them be. Do not fight them.
If you do this over and over and over again, your feelings of panic and anger, powerlessness and pain may slowly start to disappear. It is hard work. Do it! It is worth it. Also, try not to look at your situation in terms of what you stand to lose, but in view of what you may gain, if that helps you.
Easy for me to say? Yeah! But I’ve been there. After my second court hearing, I walked into the ice-cold December sea because I felt terribly powerless. Useless. Later, I’ve stood in a court room’s toilet area, shaking, very nervous before yet another hearing.
I have also witnessed that lawyers themselves can get just as nervous and shaky and upset as you when they are the defendants in civil proceedings. It is a shocking sight. A moment of truth. The lawyers for the other side, too, are merely humans. They are not that different from you and me. They get tired and cranky and weepy, just like we do. But they don’t show it in the court room. Because they’ve taught themselves to remain as calm as possible in the court room.
It is not a matter of suppressing or fighting your feelings. It is a matter of acknowledging your feelings, accepting them and allowing them to come out – embracing them – when they don’t hamper your calm effectiveness. Particularly for Britons, who historically have been taught to abhor emotions, that can be very hard.
You know, I believe that the first court case that I handled without legal representation could have been completely avoided. Of course, that’s ridiculously easy to say now and it no longer matters. There is a lesson in it, though.
There is a great deal of information on the internet for those who go to court without legal representation, but not all of it is accurate, even when it’s published by a reputable source.
Just before I went to my first court hearing as a litigant in person (in legal proceedings that I had started), I quickly double-checked something on the web. What I then found was not what I remembered about it, but as the web site on which I found the information was high-quality, I assumed that I had remembered things incorrectly.
The judge set me straight. The information I had remembered was correct; the information I found on the reputable web site was out of date. it did not matter in this case, but it could have been important. Mistakes like this can get a case thrown out of court.
Also, even court staff such as ushers sometimes deliberately give you the wrong information, by way of joke. It is not supposed to happen, but it does. Be prepared for that.
Don’t pay too much attention by what that you’re told in the pub either. Many Britons may be excellent bullshitters, certainly when they’ve had a pint or two, but don’t get fooled by appearances. Don’t instantly discard everything you’re told, but don’t blindly take it for the truth either (or the opposite: the person you consider stupid may be smarter than you can imagine).
Rely on solid information. Be your own authority on the law and the legal process. That’s how you need to operate as a litigant in person. You set the course.
Some points.
When you are somehow in contact with police, as a victim, witness or offender, you can expect police to have data on you. Police have to be registered as data controllers, so that you are aware of this and can look up what they may do with the data they have on you (which they primarily obtain from you, in that case).
I carried out a search in the ICO database on “police Hampshire”. It turned up two records, of the Hampshire Police Federation (regarding its members) and the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire (see here). The latter covers the data Hampshire Police has on citizens. It surprised me that the registration includes potential sharing of data with traders in personal data. This is one of the default entries, however, and I am assuming that they have left it in, just in case (a form of “CYA”).
So far so good. You would think that it becomes a different matter if you happen to be standing on the pavement eating a cheeseburger when some kind of demonstration takes place. Does that mean that your photo gets taken and you become included in the National Domestic Extremism Database?
I’ll spare you the details but as of January, I have been extremely aware of the enormous power police officers hold to screw someone royally, to put it bluntly. A chill ran down my spine when I found out something that I had been unaware of until then. The kind of coincidence that I had been a bit worried about as a result happened recently, when I discovered that I had been in Parliament Square just a few hours before Occupy planned to occupy Parliament Square. I was completely unaware of those plans, and saw nothing out of the ordinary (perhaps because I am not familiar with Parliament Square).
I am sure I stood there for a while looking pretty suspicious, however. Among other things, I was timing distances, for the sake of planning any future journeys to meetings. In the past, would that already have gotten me into the National Domestic Extremism Database because my behaviour was out of the ordinary? Non-touristy? Puzzling?
Believe it or not, there can be silly coincidences that have someone present at some kind of demonstration five times in a row. We all see such silly coincidences in other areas of our lives, after all. Does that justify the inclusion in the National Domestic Extremism Database? Of course not, but unless media shine a light on what goes on and one or two gutsy personalities take to the courts, a great deal of this kind of activity remains completely hidden from sight.
The National Domestic Extremism Database is not the only database you have to be concerned about. The police’s Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS) can keep data up to twelve years. You would think that this CRIS system contains only crime data. It does not. CRIS contains data on serious offences, minor offences and about conduct that does not amount to an offence at all.
One wonders.
On 30 December 2009, the home office published Home Office Research Report 28: Improving public confidence in the police: a review of the evidence.
On 4 September 2014, a review of police functioning in England and Wales revealed that victims of crimes are being encouraged to investigate themselves, when they report offences to the police, according to the BBC. Other media, including The Guardian and the Huffington Post, also paid attention to the findings of this review.
Although the Association of Chief Police Officers appear to be explaining them as a consequence of austerity, these practices of telling victims to investigate crimes committed against them are not new.
When I reported an incident that according to the police constituted identity theft and harassment, the officer I spoke with informed me that I had to do the legwork myself if I wanted anything done because the police didn’t have the manpower to investigate these high-volume crimes. He also explained that what had happened to me could be very unsettling. He asked me whether I wanted counselling as it was available if I needed it. I appreciated that, but I declined.
That was in October 2008, when austerity measures did not play any role.
According to the BBC, the reviewers (led by Roger Baker) made similar observations, namely that this trend of telling citizens to solve crimes started before the budget cuts.
What may be related to the budget cuts, is that (in my own experience) police officers appear much less likely to offer any assistance with the psychological consequences of crimes people have been subjected to, even in more serious cases (other than standard phrases about victim support in automated recordings and printed information materials).
I think that I can safely assume that confidence in the police is currently worse than it was in 2009.
A September 2014 poll conducted by my local newspaper, the Portsmouth News, showed that only 8% of the respondents believed that police would properly investigate if they’d reported anything other than very serious crimes to the police. This number remained fairly constant during the increase of the number of respondents; the only brief deviation I saw was a percentage of 9.
But what does this low number mean?
In January 20913, the University of Twente in the Netherlands published a Bachelor thesis on the topic (confidence in the police). Notably researchers in the US and other non-EU countries have already conducted a great deal of work in this area.
When the public has a great deal of confidence in its police force, this can lead to increased feelings of safety and a decrease in fearfulness among citizens. Confidence in the police is also a good indicator for the quality of policing and of how well the public accepts the authority of the police as well as its actions.
Four factors play a role in the theoretical model to predict confidence in the police:
These factors also influence people’s fearfulness.
Confidence in the police consist of the following six components:
How does the above relate to crime figures?
In October 2014, Portsmouth City Council’s publication Flagship reported that “crime recorded by police is down by 33% since 2007/8 and 8% since last year.” I wonder how these numbers relate to the numbers of actual occurring crimes. Does citizens still report as many crimes to the police as they used to when they have experienced over the years that the police won’t investigate anyway? About 90% of all rapes go unreported, I read the other day.
The Flagship also gave numbers based on a March 2014 survey with 849 respondents. Of those respondents, 2% had experienced burglary, 1% mugging or robbing and 3% was assaulted such as beaten up. It did not mention the percentage of these crimes had actually been reported to the police. It did mention that 40% of the respondents fear burglary, 17% fear mugging/robbery and 14% fear being assaulted or beaten up.
How fearful citizens are of crime and of becoming crime victims is generally related to how much confidence they have in the police.
In essence, the fearfulness among the public does not represent citizens’ “degree of silliness” but reflects police performance and the degree of confidence people have in the police.
How much confidence people have in the police is also related to how much confidence people have in other organisations, in general.
In the Netherlands, how much confidence people have in the police is positively correlated to the quality of the contact they had with the police in the preceding twelve months, but negatively correlated if they were a victim of crime.
The Dutch study at the University of Twente was based on survey data for 125 respondents in the Netherlands.
In the same year, the Erasmus University published an extensive study of trends in the public’s confidence in the police and what they mean.
Thanks for reading. Do you still report crime to the police?
No matter how you felt about the situation of Charlie Gard and his parents and about how it was handled, you will likely agree that little Charlie’s life and death have not been in vain. Many bioethics scholars and others – predominantly men, I noticed – have been writing up their feelings and opinions on the matter, analyzing what happened and drawing conclusions. This will benefit future babies like Charlie and future parents like Charlie’s.
Like all those other people, I too want to do a write-up because it will be very enlightening for myself (maybe also for others, because I did a surprising U-turn).
In this post, I will not go into the differences between Britain and other countries. Neither will I discuss the British legal background of the case, but I do want to point out that it must be kept in mind as essentially separate from all other considerations. The law of England & Wales must be adhered to, whether we like it or not, and in many cases that should entice the legal profession to pick up the lead in their arena and endeavor to have laws changed where called for. (Legislature, that is your duty! Step up to the plate.)
I was like just about everybody else. When I first heard about Charlie Gard case, I saw it as a consumerist view of babies. Baby has a defect. Must be fixed. Period.
As a teenager, I saw my mother suffer for many years, wither away and die and it was an immense relief for me that her suffering had ended when she died.
So, no, I am not for the extension of life “at all cost” / “no matter what” because that often is very selfish on the side of everyone who is not the patient in question. Family members and friends have to ask themselves what it is that they want. Do they want to hold on to the person no matter what or do they want that person to be free of pain?
So I felt angry and frustrated toward Charlie Gard’s parents, although I certainly understood their anguish.
Earlier this year, I came up with a definition of what constitutes “a life not worth living” and Charlie Gard’s vulnerable little life fit that definition. Please, stop his suffering and let him pass away, as nature itself considers him not viable and he would surely have passed away a long time ago if it hadn’t been for the care and services provided by Great Ormond Street Hospital. That’s what I thought.
Please, please, please, let him go. Let him gooooooooooooooooooooo! That is what life is about!
But I had also come up with a definition of what harm is, within this context…
Both my definitions were very logical. I found them through play, playing with words, playing with ideas, concepts. They’d surely come across as “chilly” and “cruelly objective” to the “public”.
That’s when I saw that there was no conflict.
Both parties wanted what they thought would be the best for little Charlie.
But the only party with a real interest in this – one that didn’t clash with the wishes of the medical staff at GOSH – were Charlie’s parents.
Forgive me, please, for having accused you of a consumerist view of your child at first.
If Charlie had lived, he would be part of YOUR life now – not the hospital’s – and you were willing to accept anything that would have meant, it seems.
Who am I to judge a “vegetable” not worth of living?
Who am I to judge a being able of experiencing joy – and pain – as a life not worth of living?
Isn’t it true that ALL LIVES experience joy and pain?
Isn’t it true that this is LIFE?
I wrote the above after having consumed a considerable quantity of rum. Nothing bad about that! Below are my very (sober and) logical considerations.
“While those with money can secure the finest legal provision in the world, the reality in our courts for many of our citizens is that the justice system is failing them – badly,” Mr Gove will say in a speech in London.
The new Justice Secretary will deliver a damning verdict on the “creaking and dysfunctional” court system, warning that is riddled by inefficiency and bureaucracy which compounds the suffering of crime victims.
In his report last year, which was commissioned by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Leveson said: “Our conduct of criminal trials was designed in the 19th century with many changes and reforms bolted on, especially over the last 30 years.”
“The result is that it has become inefficient, time-consuming and, as a result, very expensive.”
In The Independent this morning. It all focuses on criminal justice only, but may have consequences for civil cases too. Read the rest of the article.
The judgment of Mr Justice Warren in Chadwick -v- Burling [2015] EWHC 1610 (Ch) highlights some important issues in relation to relief from sanctions in general, and the position of litigants in person in particular.
Reblogged from Civil Litigation Brief
The applicant in the case was the trustee in bankruptcy and bringing an action for possession and declarations of ownership in relation to a number of properties. An order was made for the filing of evidence. The respondents did not file any evidence. A peremptory order was made that evidence be served by 5th August 2014 or the respondents be debarred from relying on evidence.
The second-respondent was the former wife of the bankrupt. She did not file evidence. She stated that she did not recall receiving the order, but did not positively state she did not receive it.
An application was made for relief from sanctions. That application was refused by the…
View original post 3,463 more words
Like everybody else, I occasionally take items to repair shops to have them repaired. I have done that with shoes, with stereo equipment and with computers, including a laptop.
I always collect my stuff timely. Sometimes, the shop owner will text me when the item is ready for collection. If not, then the shop owner will have already given me a date from which I can collect the item. I usually give the shop an extra day to make sure that the product is indeed ready. If I am too busy to stop by sooner, then I collect my goods at the first available occasion.
But what are you as repair shop owner to do when a customer forgets to collect an item? It may sound incredible, but there are customers who still show up ten months later and ask for their stuff. Continue reading
This claim came before the Court of Appeal in 2003, from the Central London County Court via the High Court. Professor Norman Palmer represented the claimant.
This may be what the Jan Steen painting at the centre of this claim looked like.
If I travel to your town, pick your lock, take a lovely locket from your home and make sure to leave no trace of my presence, go to the post office and post the locket to my home or to someone else’s address, can you sue Royal Mail for having shipped the stolen locket if you somehow find out and can even prove that Royal Mail transported your locket? “Of course not.” I can hear you say it.
Royal Mail was just doing its job for which it had been paid (postage). It had no way of knowing that the box or envelope it shipped contained stolen goods. Royal Mail has no obligation to check whether the contents of a shipment might be stolen. If you tried to take it to court, you likely wouldn’t get far but the whole thing could cost you quite a bit of money. Continue reading
Another interesting case came before the High Court in January 2010. It took up four days. It bears similarities to the case of the destroyed art, but there are also marked differences.
There were two claimants and two defendants.
Historic images regarding Robot Wars TV series
From the original post:
“For us lawyers litigation is a technical process. For the litigants the effect of the litigation can have a major impact on their lives.”From a comment:
“It still amazes me that to date, as lawyers, we fail to appreciate the importance of actively listening and showing empathy when engaging with clients.”
The article examines the 24 main reasons for stress. Some of which lawyers can deal with, some not.
Interestingly the number one reason for stress is “Being asked about the event again and…
View original post 373 more words
A few years ago, in 2009, an interesting case came before the High Court. It was interesting because like so many claims involving interference with goods, it was a story about people, about mistakes they make, misunderstandings between them. and things that can happen to them. It was also relatively complex because it was a claim against three defendants, with a fourth defendant in a Part 20 claim brought by two of the original defendants, with the first two defendants and the third also pointing fingers at each other.
The claimant was sculptor Terry New.
Nidus Sculpture at The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
Last year, a New York steakhouse took legal steps to force Yelp to identify who wrote a certain post on Yelp. The writer claimed to be a waiter habitually spitting into the food served at the steak house. The writer used the name of a real person who said he had nothing to do with it and apparently filed a police report about the matter. The steak house took Yelp to court in an attempt to track down the real poster. (Read more here, here and here.)
Earlier, another company had taken a similar matter to the courts in Virginia, claiming defamation. These cases force the US courts to carry out a delicate legal balancing act. The Virginia Appeals Court initially ruled that Yelp had to reveal the identities of seven posters, but Yelp appealed against that decision (read more here, here and here). The Virginia Supreme Court heard the matter in October 2014.
I haven’t been able to find recent information on the internet about these cases so it’s not clear to me how either of them ended. As there is a great deal of debate about the validity of Yelp reviews and the company’s ability to manipulate reviews, the point may be moot.
I just stumbled upon a series of excellent videos about going to court on your own in family law matters. They are good to watch for litigants in person tackling other areas of law too.
I recommend going to the court at least once before the day of your hearing. That way, you will know where to go on the day of the hearing and you’ll know how long it takes you to get there.
Take into account that a hearing can suddenly be scheduled in a different building for logistic reasons if there are several courts on the same location. Always check with court staff in which room (and which building) your hearing will take place (and listen to any announcements on the public address system, if there is one).
In an article in Computing News last year about the warning ICO issued to the legal profession after a series of data breaches, Richard Anstey, CTO EMEA for collaboration tools provider Intralinks, was asked for his input on ICO’s top tips for barristers and solicitors. 
He said the following:
“instead of ensuring email is encrypted or password-protected, solicitors should not use email at all”
You can read what he recommends using instead in the article in Computing News.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has reported that in 2014, nearly 70% of UK law firms reported a cyber security incident.
Read more: here.
The first half of the article focuses on bogus law firms. The second paragraph under the ad is about how cyber crime affects law firms.
Uber Technologies – not a law firm – has billions at its disposal; that allowed it to do some investigating that enabled it to file a John Doe lawsuit after its recently reported hacking incident. Which it discovered about half a year after the fact and then kept silent about for another six months. Give or take a few days.
ICO, the Information Commissioner’s office, issued a warning last year after several data breaches at law firms.
According to the ICO, there were fifteen reported incidents of data breaches in the legal profession within a period of three months.
You can read more about it in this article in the online magazine Computing News and on
this article on the ICO website as well as in this pdf file by ICO.
What are the hurdles litigants in person run into? I have talked about this a few times before.
A review of all the complaints litigants in person made between 1 January 2011 and 31 March 2012 to the Professional Conduct Department of the Bar Standards Board against barristers provides further insights. The number of complaints made by litigants in person takes up 25% of all such complaints.
Most of the litigants in person who made these complaints were involved in civil matters. Almost half of their complaints had to do with County Court proceedings. 11% concerned the High Court and 18% tribunals.
47% of these litigants were claimants and 41% were defendants. (The role of the remaining litigants (12%) was not clear, apparently.) In 25% of these cases, the litigant had obtained some legal advice, while 75% of the complaining litigants had relied on their own research during the litigation.
30% of the complainants indicated that they might have a disability; this number reflects the percentage of litigants in person with disabilities, regardless of whether they file a complaint or not.
Most of the cases concerned property, construction and planning, followed by family law with employment taking third place (excluding work injuries).
57% of the complainants did not appear to understand all aspects of legal proceedings. In general, these complainants did not appear to understand that the barrister for the other side is there to represent the other side’s views and to do their best for that other party.
As a litigant in person, it is your responsibility to present your own viewpoint within the context of the law. You cannot rely on the other party’s barrister to do that for you; it would be naïve to expect otherwise.
32% of all complainants seemed to expect the Bar Standards Board to overrule the courts, or be an alternative to the courts, and make a (new) decision. That is not what the Bar Standards Board does. Only a higher court can look at what a lower court did, and possibly reverse a decision made by a lower court.
In my view, paying close attention to the actions of the barrister working for the other side can actually enhance your own understanding as a litigant in person. They’re the professionals who can teach you a thing or two.
There are many misgivings regarding the app-based taxi company Uber. One of those is a belief that Uber’s databases will get hacked.
Apparently, they already did. Get hacked.
Uber found out four months after the fact and kept quiet about it for months afterward. Last Friday, it finally came clean. In the New York Post, you can read more about Uber getting hacked.
Uber has meanwhile started a lawsuit against the hacker, identifying him or her as John Doe. This is also how you can sometimes take action against anonymous internet trolls as the FindLaw blog explains.
Yesterday, James Munby – President of the Family Division – announced that the Ministry of Justice is planning a study surrounding the cross examination of vulnerable witnesses by LIPs.
You can read more about it:
and
D. Rosen at London-based Darlington Solicitors just published a post titled Perceptions and Expectations of Litigants in Person (‘LIPS’): A commercial Litigator’s perspective on the firm’s blog.
Stressed litigant in person making a phone call
“During my career I have met many wonderful and varied LIPS.”, he or she writes.
“I am frustrated at seeing too many good people waste their lives pursuing their perception of truth and justice, because a Court has not agreed with them.”
I agree.
You have to know when to pursue a matter and when to let it go. A good way to decide can be to ask yourself whether other people – society – might benefit from it if you continue to pursue the matter.
Go read this post – here – because this solicitor makes very good points.
Last year, the National Audit Office published a report titled ‘Implementing Reforms to Civil Legal Aid’, a report by the Comptroller and Auditor of the General Ministry of Justice and Legal Aid Agency.
Last week, the Bar Council responded to it. Chairman of the Bar Alistair MacDonald QC said:
‘Overall, the report reflects the Bar Council’s concerns that the scale of the cuts made to legal aid, and the way they were introduced, abandoned the most vulnerable, created disorder in our courts, and damaged our legal advice services.’
You can read the rest of the response: here.
Last month, the Court of Appeal dealt with the case between Nata Lee Ltd and Abid & Another. Nata Lee appealed against an Order made in the Central London County Court in 2013.
Nata Lee had appeared in the County Court without legal representation and had failed to apply for permission to include an expert witness in a timely manner (three days late). The County Court judge subsequently refused to admit this witness.
Although other factors played a greater role in this case, in its judgement ([2014] EWCA Civ 1652), the Court of Appeal made clear that, in its view, the fact that a party is acting without legal representation is no reason to allow disregard for rules, orders and directions.
Litigants in person should not be surprised by the consequences of failing to comply with the CPR or by having applications for relief from sanctions turned down when these sanctions were the result of failure to comply with the CPR on the part of the litigant in person.
Lord Justice Briggs continued:
“There may be cases in which the fact that a party is a litigant in person has some consequence in the determination of applications for relief from sanctions, but this is likely to operate at the margins.”
Today is the third of three days at the Supreme Court that focus on homelessness, housing duty and vulnerability (or rather, priority).
The three cases are:
– Hotak (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
– Johnson (Appellant) v Solihull MBC (Respondent)
– Kanu (AP) (Appellant) v London Borough of Southwark (Respondent)
(Interveners in all three cases:
Equality and Human Rights Commission, Shelter, Crisis and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.)
What is it all about? Predominantly 189(1)(c) in the Housing Act 1996:
189 Priority need for accommodation.
(1) The following have a priority need for accommodation—
(a) a pregnant woman or a person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;
(b) a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside;
(c) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside;
(d )a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) specify further descriptions of persons as having a priority need for accommodation, and
(b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (1).
(3) Before making such an order the Secretary of State shall consult such associations representing relevant authorities, and such other persons, as he considers appropriate.
(4) No such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
Hotak is a pretty straightforward case, at first sight; the two other cases are less clear. Hotak concerns two brothers, one of which (Sifatullah) would certainly be considered vulnerable if the other one (Ezatullah) had not said that he would look after his brother. The brothers were living in a friend’s flat in Southwark, but told to leave because of overcrowding. Ezatullah’s immigration status at the time, however, made him ineligible for housing assistance.
Southwark did give the brothers temporary housing while it made its mind up. It decided that Sifatullah was unintentionally homeless, and eligible for assistance, yet did not consider him vulnerable in terms of in priority need of housing because his brother was looking after him. This is where the case went off the rails.
If Sifatullah were a pregnant woman, unintentionally homeless (as it is called), and eligible for assistance, whether the person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside supports her or not makes no difference, as one of the lawyers highlighted on Monday.
Another one pointed out that the law does not contain an element of comparison. A person’s own condition makes him or her relatively vulnerable when on the street, and the law had the intention of preventing and eliminating all homelessness. This would mean that a) there is no such thing as “an ordinary street-homeless person” (used by Southwark to compare Sifatullah against) and b) one could say that being homeless in itself already points toward a person being less able to fend for himself or herself, as homelessness is not the norm in this country.
It looks like the practice of the application of this legislation – carried out by the decision-making housing officer – has been moving toward comparing a blind applicant with street-homeless blind applicants, deaf applicants with street-homeless deaf applicants, mentally ill applicants with street-homeless mentally ill applicants, applicants with substance abuse with homeless people with substance abuse.
More specifically, practice seems to be more and more relying on the premise that all homeless persons are, almost by definition, street-homeless mentally ill and/or substance abusers and/or physically ill, deserving no special protection (in Johnson, for instance). The law was not intended that way. The law does not even say anything like this.
The pregnant woman, however, is never compared with other pregnant women to determine her vulnerability. The same applies to any persons who have lost their home in a flood.
“Ideas about vulnerability are perhaps most often applied by those in more powerful positions to define those in less powerful ones.” (Kate Brown)
