DMU Centre for Law, Justice and Society (CLJS) Symposium
I am delighted to welcome you to a CLJS symposium on the theme: Responsibility, Fault and The Blame Game: Social Justice and Law Reform, to be held in Leicester Castle Crown Court, from 10.00-13.00 on Wednesday 14 February. Lord Hughes (ex-UK Supreme Court Judge) and Professor Linda Gröning are keynote speakers. The symposium will be followed by two workshops in the afternoon.
In HU3.04 at 13.00 Professor Linda Gröning, Professor in Criminal Law at the University of Bergen, Chair of the Norwegian Criminal Law Commission and CLJS Visiting Fellow, will share her top tips on research bid development. Professor Gröning has won several grants from the Research Council of Norway for large research projects, has expert knowledge of the UKRI landscape, and is keen to share her experience and insights with colleagues.
At 14.00, in HU3.04, we will host a workshop on academic careers and pathways to promotion. This is an opportunity for colleagues to meet with professors from across the university and discuss any aspect of career development.
The programme is below. All welcome!
P R O G R A M M E
Responsibility, Fault and The Blame Game: Social Justice and Law Reform
LEICESTER CASTLE CROWN COURT 0.03: 10.00-13.00
and Afternoon Research, Networking and Careers Workshops
HUGH ASTON 3.04: 15.00-17.00
1. Lord Hughes, former English judge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Nocens uva aka voluntary intoxication: Aristotle via Beard to Majewski and beyond
An exploration of a series of important questions: Is the law on voluntary intoxication as it affects criminal responsibility soundly based on the proposition that intoxication negates mens rea or intention? If yes, why does it apply only to offences characterized as ones in which “specific intention” is an essential element? Which offences are ones which involve ‘specific intention’, and what is the principle by which they can be identified? Should one detect an (unacknowledged) shift in attitude towards the relevance of voluntary intoxication as between (i) the period prior to the C19th, (ii) the C19th – first half of C20th and (iii) after the 1960s? Is there an underlying principle of ‘prior fault’ which is relevant to this and allied areas of the criminal law? And finally, what is the relationship/overlap, if any, between cases of voluntary intoxication and cases of insanity?
2. Professor Ronnie Mackay, Professor of Criminal Policy and Mental Health, CLJS
Insanity, Fault and Blaming the Mentally Ill
The prior fault principle has played a significant role in the development of both the voluntary intoxication and automatism pleas. In doing so it attempts to ensure that defendants who are found to be in some way responsible for creating their own incapacity will be denied a defence. To date, this notion has not been used to restrict the scope of the insanity defence which is “fault-free”. However, the Law Commission in proposing a new special verdict of “not criminally responsible by reason of recognised medical condition” has recommended that this new verdict should be subject to the prior fault principle. This presentation takes issue with that proposal. In doing so I will argue that introducing fault and blame into mental illness is unwarranted and that instead, a more therapeutic approach is preferable.
3. Professor Linda Gröning, Professor in Criminal Law at the University of Bergen, Chair of the Norwegian Criminal Law Commission, and CLJS visiting fellow
Socially unjust punishment? Self-induced intoxication and insanity in Norwegian law
In Norway, criminal unaccountability (cf. insanity) is defined in the Penal Code section 20, to include conditions amounting to a ‘severe divergent state of mind’ (cf. serious mental disorder), ‘a severe impairment of consciousness’ and a ‘high degree of intellectual disability’. When defendants are unaccountable due to such a condition, they are fully excused from criminal responsibility. However, if the condition was a result of self-induced intoxication, the defendant is as a main rule liable to punishment. This rule has a long tradition in Norwegian law and is based upon a harsh policy towards intoxication. In the law reform in 2020, however, this rule was amended in favour of greater room for acquittals in the intoxication cases. In this reform, a new rule was also introduced that was argued to be based on principled considerations about prior fault. According to this rule, a defendant that suffers from severe mental disorder and “deliberately induces a state of unaccountability, is liable to punishment if special reasons so indicate.” This rule also allows for punishment in cases of non-adherence to prescribed medication. In my talk, I will explain and critically discuss this regulation of self-induced intoxication and self-induced insanity.I will argue that while the law reform made some efforts in a principled direction, it has increased the possibility of unjust punishment of severely mentally ill offenders in legal practice. As such, this reform can be viewed as an example of a wider problem of social injustice in how criminal law conceives of mental illness.
4. Professor Julia Shaw, Professor of Law and Social Justice, CLJS Director
Social Justice and Stigma: the social determinants of substance abuse
Stigma is defined as ‘a set of negative and often unfair beliefs that a society or group of people have about something or someone’. It is a mark of disgrace and reduces the whole and ‘regular’ individual to a tainted, discounted and damaged entity. Stigma towards people with mental illness has been identified as a primary impediment to inclusion as full members of society. The ‘punish don’t treat’ attitude has contributed to individuals not seeking help as they suffer from additional guilt and shame. Framed in the language of social justice, responsibility can be attributed to social determinants of poor health and addiction. As highlighted in a recent WHO report, socioeconomic conditions into which people are born, grow, live, work, and age are all shaped by the distribution of money, power, and resources at global, national, and local levels. It is important to address the wider societal circumstances, beyond current legal policy, in which individuals are labelled (perhaps unjustly) and stigmatised as mentally ill.
Research and Careers Workshops
HUGH ASTON: 15.00-17.00
15.00-15.50: Winning Big! Top tips on developing successful bids
All you need to know about developing a winning major research bid with Professor Linda Gröning, Professor in Criminal Law at the University of Bergen and Chair of the Norwegian Criminal Law Commission.
Professor Gröning is as Law Commission Chair was tasked with reforming the Norwegian criminal insanity rules and systems. Her work with the Norwegian law commission in response to the 22 July 2011 / Anders Breivik case resulted in significant legal reform. Since 2019 she has been the permanent expert commission on criminal law reforms in Norway. She has also won several grants from the Research Council of Norway for large research projects and is keen to share her experience and insights with colleagues.
16.00-16.50: Pathways to Promotion
This is a valuable opportunity for anyone seeking academic promotion to meet with professors from across the university (including Professor Linda Gröning) and discuss what next steps you need to consider. The workshop will be an informal opportunity to ask questions and seek support and advice. We are particularly keen to welcome women and colleagues from underrepresented groups and to hear how we can support you in developing your careers at DMU.