Advertisement

Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 311–331 | Cite as

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

  • Harriet SamuelsEmail author
Interview

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.

Keywords

Strategic litigation Coercive control Violence against women Human Rights Act 1998 CEDAW 

Notes

References

  1. Bettinson, Vanessa. 2019a. Sally Challen: What quashing of murder conviction means for similar cases alleging coercive control. The Conversation. March 4 2019. https://theconversation.com/sally-challen-what-quashing-of-murder-conviction-means-for-similar-cases-alleging-coercive-control-112739. Accessed 24 May 2019.
  2. Bettinson, Vanessa. 2019b. Aligning partial defences to murder with the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour. Journal of Criminal Law 83(1): 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crown Prosecution Service. 2018. Violence Against Women and Girls Report 2017–2018. https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cps-vawg-report-2018.pdf. Accessed May 20 2019.
  4. Ellwood, Helen. 2019. ‘CPS Accepts Sally Challen’s Manslaughter Plea’. CPS News. https://www.cps.gov.uk/south-east/news/accepts-sally-challens-manslaughter-plea. Accessed June 15 2019.
  5. Hodson, Loveday. 2014. Women’s rights and the periphery: CEDAW’s optional protocol. European Journal of International Law 25(2): 561–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hynes, Steve. 2019. Legal aid at 70: LASPO review revealing the damage. Legal Action: March 7–9.Google Scholar
  7. Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. MacPherson, William. 1999. Report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry: Report of an inquiry. HMSO Cm 4262–1Google Scholar
  9. McColgan, Aileen. 1993. In defence of battered women who kill’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 13(4): 508–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mills, Alex. 2015. Reform to judicial review in the criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Promoting efficiency or weakening the rule of law. Public Law 4: 583–594.Google Scholar
  11. Patel, Pragna. 2003. Shifting terrains: Old struggles for new? In From homebreakers to jail breakers, ed. Rahila Gupta, 234–260. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  12. Samuels, Harriet. 2018. Education Act 1944. In Women’s legal landmarks, ed. Erica Rackley and Rosemary Auchmuty, 219–226. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  13. Sharpe, Alex. 2015. Sexual intimacy, gender variance and criminal law. Nordic Journal of Human Rights 33: 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stark, Evan. 2017. Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Wells, Celia. 1994. Battered women syndrome and defences to homicide. Legal Studies 14(2): 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yoshida, Keina. 2019. CEDAW, WPS and the UK Government’ Centre for Women Peace and Security. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/wps/2019/03/01/cedaw-wps-and-the-uk-government/. Accessed 24 May 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations