By The HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (UK)

Court delays mean that prisoners are waiting an unacceptably long time for their trials. This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of prisoners stuck on remand or waiting to be sentenced, and has contributed to the ongoing capacity crisis in prisons. Many remand prisoners are held in crumbling, inner-city Victorian jails where conditions are some of the poorest in the estate. Suicide is more common among this group and in our surveys 67% say they have mental health difficulties. In many of the prisons named in this report, remand prisoners comprised a large proportion of their population, yet we found too little being done to help this particularly vulnerable group. Men and women described a lack of support in contacting family members when they first came into prison, and not enough was done for those being released from court. This report highlights some areas where prisons have begun to address the difficulties faced by these prisoners, but with the growth in this population now endemic, the prison service and individual jails must think more strategically about how they support men and women held on remand. 

London: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, March 2026, 18p.

By Fionnuala Ratcliffe and Penelope Gibbs

If they are to receive justice, defendants must be able to participate effectively in court proceedings. The principle of effective participation is at the heart of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 6, defendants’ minimum rights include the right to be informed about the nature and cause of the accusation against them; to have time and facilities to prepare their defence; to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance; to examine witnesses; and to receive free assistance from an interpreter where needed. Despite the central importance of effective participation, there are multiple aspects of everyday court practice that make it a struggle for defendants to participate actively in their case. This fifth report of the Transform Justice CourtWatch London project vividly conveys the extent and nature of these barriers to participation in London magistrates’ courts. At the most basic level, defendants often find it difficult to hear, let alone understand, what is going on at court – whether they are appearing via a shaky video link, or are physically present in the court but (as is most common) seated in the secure dock at the back of the room, behind a perspex screen. Courtroom language tends to be complex, convoluted and full of jargon: not easy for any lay person to understand, and more so for people who are anxious, tired, mentally unwell or otherwise vulnerable. For those whose first language is not English, obstacles to understanding are higher still, compounded by inadequate interpreting provision. And the large minority of defendants who are unrepresented face additional challenges as they seek to navigate the court process. Participation implies not only understanding the process, but also making oneself heard. Yet defendants’ voices are frequently silenced. Opportunities to speak during proceedings are limited, and again are impeded by the practical barriers imposed by the secure dock or remote attendance. There is an essential paradox that while criminal proceedings, at their core, are about the defendant – about what they have or have not done, and what is the appropriate penalty if they did commit the alleged offence – they are often pushed to the margins of the courtroom, more an absence than a presence.Closely linked to the theme of participation is the quality of treatment defendants receive at court. Most court professionals are conscientious and respectful. The courtwatchers observed judges, magistrates, lawyers and court staff who took time to explain proceedings; responded calmly and with compassion to displays of distress, confusion and anger; and offered extensive support to unrepresented defendants. Yet good treatment of defendants is by no means universal. Court professionals are working within an overloaded, creaking and under-resourced system. They are under pressure to complete cases quickly, in order to reduce the delays that permeate all stages of the criminal justice process. Consequences include an over-emphasis on speedy ‘processing’ of many cases and inadequate consideration of individuals’ specific circumstances and needs. And while the humanity of many court professionals shines through courtwatcher accounts, it is evident also that there are judges, magistrates, lawyers and court staff who are rude, dismissive and careless in their interactions with defendants. The treatment received by people in contact with the criminal justice system has significant repercussions. We know from existing research on procedural justice that people involved in legal processes are more likely to regard those processes – and indeed the wider justice system – as trustworthy and legitimate if they feel they have been treated with dignity and respect. Also essential to perceptions of good treatment is the experience of having a ‘voice’: that is, being acknowledged as an individual and being heard by those making the decisions. In other words, quality of treatment is integral to participation, and vice versa. The findings of the CourtWatch London project resonate with research that my colleagues and I have carried out over many years at Birkbeck’s Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research. In our own work spanning the criminal (magistrates’, youth and Crown), family and coroners’ courts, we have repeatedly identified barriers to court users’ understanding of and engagement with legal processes. We have also seen how respectful, humane treatment can make a profound difference to people’s experience of justice. We have noted that seemingly small acts of kindness and attention can significantly enhance the sense of being supported and included; and, conversely, that professionals’ dismissive or thoughtless behaviour can be deeply damaging. What the courtwatchers have observed in magistrates’ courts across London should therefore be understood as one part of a much greater picture of how justice is delivered and experienced. There is much that can be done to strengthen participation, good treatment and fairness in court practice, and the recommendations in this report set out important steps for achieving this. 

London: Transform Justice, 2026. 41p.

By Kim Shayo Buchanan

We at the Center for Policing Equity (CPE) advocate reducing the footprint of law enforcement by removing police from places where they do not belong and cannot help. People’s health care, their pregnancy outcomes, and their gender and queer identities exemplify situations that should not involve police. Law enforcement can and should step back from enforcing such laws, as police have traditionally done. Enforcement of anti-abortion, anti-trans, and anti-LGBTQ+ laws would divert finite police resources away from serious and violent crimes that communities care about; squander the goodwill police have built with communities; embolden extremist violence; and endanger vulnerable communities—all while doing nothing to keep the public safe. We urge mayors and municipal governments to instruct law enforcement agencies to deprioritize enforcement of these new, victimless crimes. Instead, officers’ time and departmental resources should be used to prevent and investigate serious crimes that affect public safety. Police and municipal governments can take the following steps to deprioritize enforcement and protect their communities against the threats and harms these laws create: Municipal governments and law enforcement should take these actions: 1. Affirm a public commitment to the rights and safety of LGBTQ+ and pregnant people. 2. Consult with affected communities, on a structured and ongoing basis, about how to deprioritize enforcement. 3. Consult with affected communities about how loud and public to be about deprioritizing enforcement. 4. Ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, and provision or receipt of reproductive health care, abortion care, and gender-affirming care (whether real or perceived). a. Ban discrimination against municipal employees, including police officers, on these bases. b. Ban discrimination by municipal employees, including police officers, on these bases. 5. Provide employment benefits such as medical leave, comprehensive health coverage, travel for out-of-state health care, and assurances that any investigation or prosecution by another agency for breach of anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ laws will not affect the person’s employment. Municipal governments should take these actions: 6. Direct law enforcement leadership to allocate no funds to enforce anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-abortion laws. 7. Ban discrimination by municipal contractors and by local businesses based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, and receipt of abortion care and gender-affirming care. 8. Consider using municipal funds to ensure community access to health care needs such as prenatal care, doula care, lactation support, and out-of-state gender-affirming and reproductive health care. 9. Oppose any effort to criminalize use of municipal roads to access abortion, gender affirming care, or any other health care. Law enforcement should take these actions: 10. Protect people and communities against hate crimes and vigilante violence. Use and enforce restraining orders and, when warranted, laws against trespass and disorderly conduct. 11. Consult with abortion providers, reproductive justice advocates, and escorts; gender affirming care providers; hospital management and staffers; and trans and LGBTQ+ advocates about the risks they face and about how best to protect their rights and safety. 12. Amend policy manuals, as needed, to clarify that it is misconduct for police officers and civilian employees to discriminate against members of the public on the bases of sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome, or receipt of abortion care or gender-affirming care. 13. Do not enforce anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ+, or anti-abortion laws. Allocate no resources to their enforcement. Conduct no investigations and make no arrests. Amend policies and procedures to direct law enforcement employees as follows: a. Do not conduct electronic, in-person, or other surveillance to detect violations of these laws. b. Do not use traffic-safety laws, pretextual stops, or any other means to investigate whether drivers, passengers, or pedestrians may be pregnant, may be transgender, or may be traveling within or out of state to receive prohibited health care. c. Take no action on any report of a violation of anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ laws except, as needed, to protect the person against potential violence by the caller. d. Do not investigate whether anyone is or has been pregnant, or how or why their pregnancy may have ended. e. Do not investigate anyone’s gender identity, their biological sex, or their assigned sex at birth. f. Take no action when you see a person you think may be transgender unless you have reasonable grounds to suspect the person is committing a crime for which a cisgender person would be investigated. g. Do not enter bars, theaters, libraries, or anywhere else to identify drag performances. h. Apply the same standards of obscenity to LGBTQ+ content or performance as to heteronormative1 content or performance. i. Do not enter bathrooms, changerooms, or anywhere else to ascertain the assigned sex at birth or sex characteristics of people who are there. 14. Require multiple levels of written supervisory approval, including by the chief of police, before an officer can initiate an arrest or investigation for any alleged violation of an anti-abortion, anti trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ law. 15. Ensure that officers and dispatchers are aware of agency policy not to investigate alleged violations of such laws, and that they understand specific laws in the state and locality. 16. Remind officers that they and other people cannot know by looking whether someone is transgender, what their assigned sex at birth was, or whether they are pregnant. a. Do not assume that a person is engaged in sex work based on their gender presentation. b. Do not treat possession of condoms as evidence that a person intends to engage in sex work. 17. Do not treat the presence or existence of a person who is – or is perceived to be – transgender, queer, or gender-expansive as a threat to anyone. 18. Ensure that law enforcement does not interfere with provision of health care. a. Do not station police officers in emergency departments or at hospitals or clinics to investigate patients. b. Do not investigate or interrogate patients or health care providers about a patient’s health care, gender identity, biological sex, pregnancy, health condition, or any reason they may have sought or received medical treatment. c. Do not seek disclosure of patients’ health information or records to investigate any suspected violation of an anti-abortion, anti-trans, or anti-LGBTQ+ law. d. Do not partner with hospitals or health providers to surveil or investigate patients who are pregnant, miscarrying, birthing, thought to be transgender, or suspected of using substances. 19. Do not second-guess medical determinations of whether an abortion procedure was medically necessary within the meaning of a state’s criminal laws. 20. Meet with hospital management, together with local prosecutors – and with physician representatives and emergency health care providers – to understand their concerns about criminal liability and to clarify that police and prosecutors will not second-guess their medical decisions about pregnancy or gender-affirming care   

West Hollywood, CA: Center for Policing Equity, 2024. 35p.

By David Hausman

Prioritization by criminality, in which noncitizens who have been convicted of serious crimes are deported ahead of those with little or no criminal history, is the most consequential principle governing who is deported from the interior of the United States. This Article argues that, intuitive as prioritization by criminality may appear, it is only rarely justifiable. I show, empirically, that the interior immigration-enforcement system is successful at such prioritization. Being convicted of a crime makes deportation at least a hundred times more likely. And I show that center left attempts to reduce deportations over the last decade have sharpened this prioritization: both sanctuary policies and President Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program, which caused the two largest reductions in interior immigration enforcement in the last decade, prioritized deportations by criminality. Because well under one percent of undocumented noncitizens are deported in any given year, some principle for prioritizing deportations is needed (to the extent that deportations continue at all), but criminality should not be the primary principle. First, the crime-control rationales for punishing noncitizens more severely than citizens convicted of the same crime are surprisingly weak. Second, the immigration-policy rationale for prioritization by criminality is strongest among recent entrants to the United States. The longer a noncitizen has lived in the United States, and the stronger his or her ties here, the less deportation resembles a retroactive admission decision and the more it resembles punishment. Finally, the relationship between ties and criminality is asymmetric: there are better arguments for deporting people with weak  ties and no convictions than for deporting people with strong ties and serious convictions. If noncitizens convicted of crimes were mostly recent entrants, then the current prioritization might make sense. But the limited existing evidence on deportees’ ties to the United States suggests that prioritization by criminality leads the government to target people with deep roots in this country. The result is that interior immigration enforcement functions more as a method of social control of long-term noncitizen residents than as a tool of immigration policy. 

THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 110:973 2022

By Jan Pospisil

KEY FINDINGS • The governor of Lakes state, Rin Tueny Mabor, rules the state with an iron fist, and is credited with reducing overall levels of inter-communal violence during his two years in office. Despite widespread allegations of human rights violations linked to his heavy-handed approach to security, he has received considerable national recognition for pacifying Lakes state. • The governor’s reputation has suffered setbacks —including public unrest over a decision to demolish informal housing in Rumbek, erected by internally displaced people, and a perceived loss of authority in his home county, Yirol West, following the contested dismissal of a county commissioner nominated by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army-in-Opposition (SPLA-IO). • Since September 2022, pastoral violence has re-emerged along the border with Warrap state, especially in Rumbek North and Cueibet counties, highlighting faults with the governor’s disarmament strategy and his emphasis on a deterrence-based approach to curbing inter-communal violence. • Despite these recent challenges, Rin Tueny appears to be interested in a national-level position. While he is seen as indispensable among national leadership in tackling insecurity in Lakes state, he has political backing to support an appointment in a high-level security sector role. 

Geneva, SWIT: Small Arms Survey, 2023. 7p.

BARON DE MONTESQUIEU.. TRANSLATED FROM FRENCH BY THOMAS NUGENT,, VOL. 1.

In "The Spirit of the Law," readers are taken on a thought-provoking journey through the intricate workings of legal systems and the moral compass that guides them. This compelling exploration delves into the essence of laws beyond their literal interpretations, examining the underlying principles and values that shape our understanding of justice and accountability. As the narrative unfolds, readers are challenged to reflect on the profound relationship between law and ethics, shedding light on the critical interplay between rules and righteousness. "The Spirit of the Law" is a captivating read that raises compelling questions about the true nature of justice and the timeless quest for a fair and equitable society.

LONDON. VOLLINGWOOD, CLARKE, LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME,& BROWN, CADDELL, J & A ARCH, WHITAKER AND SCHOLEY. DEIGHTON AND SONS., 1823. 375p.

By Kees Sterk

For the identity and well-functioning of Europe, independent national judiciaries are key, and the selection processes of judges and Court Presidents essential. During the last decade, however, several European Governments have been undermining this by trying to establish political control over national judges, especially through political dominance over the selection and appointment processes for judges and Court Presidents.

In his inaugural speech, Sterk addresses the topic of selection processes, both on substance as well as on procedure. He analyses the case law of the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights, and the enforcement policies of the European Commission. 

Sterk identifies problems and recommends five steps to protect independent justice in Europe including the systemic enforcement gap, an effective enforcement duty, the standards for selection bodies, a duty to reason selection decisions, and on limiting the power of the executive to refuse candidates selected by selection bodies.

The Hague: Eleven International Publishing, 2023. 56p.