Impact case study database

Enhanced Legal Representation

We use our research expertise to inform amicus curiae briefs filed in US capital cases. We have been involved in four briefs post-2014, addressing justice system recognition of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, the constitutionality of capital punishment, and procedural fairness [S01]. Yorke’s work on Linda Carty’s case, as a member of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s (FCDO) Expert Group on the Death Penalty and Pro Bono Lawyer’s Panel, demonstrates the significance of this work. Carty has been on Texas’ death row for 18+ years. In 2014, Yorke formed a drafting team for Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Carty’s case (promoting her rights to a fair trial) to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA). The TCCA subsequently gave a “significant” and “ rare” judgment in the case, with its grounds for remanding Carty’s execution and its order for the reconsideration of her case “consistent with” arguments raised by Yorke [S02]. In 2018, Yorke led HMG’s brief to the United States Supreme Court (USSC), submitting (as in R02) that the right to a fair trial under international law requires a cumulative error review to determine the fairness of Carty’s proceedings. Yorke’s work has been described as “ instrumental in the UK government’s efforts” to highlight important human rights issues to the USSC [S03].

We also support Amicus, a charity that helps provide legal representation in US capital cases, including through coordinating volunteer placements in the UK and US (30+/year) and pro bono case-workers (800+). To ready volunteers to be of “ maximum, immediate use” to US offices and to train caseworkers, Amicus runs a Death Penalty Training Programme (DPTP), which is CPD-accredited by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board. The BCU team has supported the DPTP “ for over a decade… utilizing their research expertise to deliver innovative sessions” on capital punishment and international law (Yorke & Storey), the infrastructure of the American legal system (Di Gioia), and forensic science and wrongful conviction (Cooper). Between 2014 and July 2020, “ The BCU team … reached over 2000 participants”, with Amicus’ Director describing them as “ key contributors” to Amicus’ mission, undertaking work that “ makes a difference...” [S04].

Informing Litigation

US judges, lawyers and civil society cite our research as authority to inform litigation. In rejecting a challenge to Kentucky’s clemency procedures, the Kentucky Supreme Court referenced R04 when finding no state “ provides the adjudication-like process Appellants contend is due” and “ Kentucky’s reliance on the Governor” for clemency decisions was not unique. In considering if defence counsel was ineffective for failing to find and present a firearms expert, the Tennessee Supreme Court referenced R03 when stating forensic science had “ faced criticism” and was associated with wrongful conviction. Lawyers have repeatedly referenced – in appellant briefs and memorandums of law – R03’s account of firearms evidence limitations when making firearms evidence-related challenges in state and federal courts. R03’s finding that courts commonly rely on precedent to admit criticised forensic evidence has also been referenced by amici non-profit organisations representing indigent defendants, in support of their argument that courts are abdicating their gate-keeping role to ensure jurors only receive reliable evidence [S05].

Increasing Awareness about necessary Law Reform

Arizona has a “ very narrow” compassionate release procedure. Only if permitted by their sentencing statute (which is rare) and medically certified to be within four months of death, can prisoners apply to Arizona’s Board of Executive Clemency (BOEC) for compassionate release based on ‘imminent danger of death.’ Concerned, a contract attorney for the Arizona Justice Project, sought Cooper’s expertise in evaluating US state clemency procedures , asking if Arizona’s approach could be compared to that of other states. Funded by a BCU Small Development Grant, they “ Harness[ed] Dr Cooper’s research methods” to undertake a Pilot Study of US compassionate release procedures.

They then successfully applied for a Leverhulme Trust and British Academy Grant to scale-up the study [S06]. In 2018, multi-stakeholder panels in New York and Arizona discussed Cooper’s study report [S07]. For the Co-Chair of the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice’s Legislative and Policy Committee, the report confirmed Arizona “ lag[ged] way behind” and was “ extremely helpful” for reform efforts, so they asked Cooper to model legislation for Arizona [S08]. Cooper’s model proposes a broader medical parole procedure that takes account of serious medical problems, public safety, medical appropriateness, cost, and human dignity [S07]. The model is a “ way forward” at a time when Arizona is “ looking for ways” to decarcerate and “ show mercy for those most deserving…” and would allow the “most vulnerable to die with dignity” [S06]. Shared across “ charitable organizations, public-policy think tanks, research… organizations, faith groups, lobbyists and more” the model is “ rais[ing] awareness … and significantly advancing [Arizona] reform efforts...” [S08]. This led to the model becoming a Bill (SB1478) sponsored by Arizona law-makers [S07]. Cooper’s research “no doubt….opened a path for stakeholders to discuss the need for such change in Arizona…” [S06].

Our research also increases awareness about the need for law reform internationally. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) repeatedly cited R06 in its Summary of Stakeholders’ Submissions on the United States of America in relation to the US 2020 Universal Periodic Review [S09]. In its report, the OHCHR cited R06 to: (1) support Women's International League for Peace and Freedom et al statements that US energy policy mostly focuses on fossil fuels, that oil and gas industries benefited from favourable taxation, and that the US should reinstate the Paris Agreement (per R05); (2) the American Civil Liberties Union’s submission that capital punishment is declining in the US; and (3) Amnesty International’s concern that executions have taken place in cases involving “ serious doubts about the proceedings…” Here, the OHCHR specifically referenced to the accounts given of Linda Carty’s proceedings in R02 and R06. With 139 stakeholder submissions, the OHCHR’s citations to the BCU team’s stakeholder report are noteworthy. The OHCHR’s report is compiled for the UN Human Rights Council and is reviewed by the US government, UN member states, and civil society. Notably, in December 2020, the Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review reported UN member states’ formal recommendations to the US, at its review on November 9, 2020, included that the US abolish capital punishment and reinstate the Paris Agreement [S010].

Recommending a Moratorium on Capital Punishment in Myanmar

In 2017, Yorke advised the high-level Myanmar government Workshop on the Moratorium of the Death Penalty, organised by the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission and Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions. Workshop attendees included the Attorney General, Justices of the Supreme Court, Government Ministers, parliamentarians, civil society, and media. Yorke “outlined international perspectives on the death penalty” and “ raised pertinent points regarding the denunciation of the death penalty as an expression of … state sovereignty and the solidity of the human rights standards for rejecting the use of the death penalty and for enhancing … human dignity…”

Based on a review of Myanmar’s UPR cycles, Yorke suggested the Myanmar government was amenable to a moratorium, and led the Workshop in drafting an Outcome Statement ( OS) recommending that Myanmar’s government adopt an official moratorium [S01]. The OS remains under the government’s consideration. In their stakeholder report to Myanmar’s 2020 UPR, Yorke, Nazir and Storey recommended the OS be “ implement[ed]”; a recommendation expressly noted by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights across 64 stakeholder submissions [S02].

Safeguarding Human Rights in the Sudan

In 2014, the Sudanese Human Rights Initiative (SHRI) represented, in Sudanese courts and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Meriam Ibrahim, a pregnant woman sentenced to death for sexual immorality and 100 lashes for apostasy after marrying a Christian man. Due to “ their expertise”, the SHRI’s Director “ sought advice from … Yorke and … Nazir on the application of international human rights law and Islamic law in the case…” which “ helped …[the] legal team to prevent both …punishments” and to free Meriam [S03]. Meriam’s case “ triggered outrage and condemnation around the world…” and, in October 2014, BCU hosted ‘ Meriam Ibrahim: The Case that Gripped the World’ to discuss the case’s human rights implications, with panelists including the SHRI’s Director and the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) [S04]. Subsequently, across three grants, the FCO Human Rights and Democracy Programme awarded Yorke and the SHRI £244K+ to promote freedom of religion and access to justice, build capacities, and safeguard human rights in the Sudan. This included training for “ Sudanese judges, lawyers, media and civil society” which “ informed the SHRI’s collaboration with the African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies … where [they] worked together to have charges of apostasy … dropped by the Sudanese Ministry of Justice against 27 people, including 3 children...” [S03].

In 2016, Sudan’s National Intelligence Security Services prevented SHRI members from travelling to Geneva to participate in Sudan’s UPR pre-session. In Geneva, Yorke, Nazir and Storey, joined other organisations to “ prepare a cross-regional statement, alerting the pre-session to the travel restrictions….” and then “ coordinated lobbying 15 missions with member state delegations ….and 36 NGOs.” Their work “ led to UN Member State delegations raising human rights concerns” at Sudan’s 2016 UPR [S03]. The BCU team’s work was crucial, with the UN Secretary General (UNSG) accounting for the travel restrictions in his annual report and commenting heavily on the issue of intimidation and reprisals (including travel bans) in his conclusions and recommendations. In particular, the UNSG welcomed continued efforts to assist groups subject to such action (like the BCU team did), particularly by “ raising their cases…to the Human Rights Council…” In addition, the UN Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan, noting the travel restrictions, urged the Sudanese government “ to enable a conducive environment for a free and inclusive national dialogue by respecting the basic….rights of Sudanese people…” [S05].

Informing the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (UN GGE on LAWS); Developing the Guiding Principles on LAWS

Since 2016, Ulgen has been involved as an Academic Legal Expert to the drafting committees and meetings of the UN GGE on LAWS. She was involved in the UN Fifth Review Conference of High Contracting Parties (HCP) to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) (12-16 December 2016), which led to the historic decision by HCP to formalise LAWS discussions and establish the UN GGE on LAWS. At that point, BCU was the only UK university represented at the CCW by an expert on the law and ethics of LAWS. The Secretary General’s welcome statement to the Conference noted that LAWS are “increasingly challenging for humanity … with serious ramifications for international law. ” He commended HCP for rising to the challenge by establishing the GGE as “a welcome step to consider how the international community can take a proactive approach to this critical issue.” [S06].

The UN GGE on LAWS, which has been meeting since 2017, is composed of State representatives, military experts, lawyers, academics, civil partnership organisations, and UN agencies, and operates under the auspices of the 1980 UN Convention on CCW.

Ulgen’s work has been instrumental in steering the UN GGE on LAWS deliberations and influenced the drafting of legal and ethical rules on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, leading to the Guiding Principles of the UN GGE on LAWS. For instance, her report Definition and Regulation of LAWS assisted HCP to reach a common definition of LAWS (based on maintaining human agency and responsibility, and human dignity that covers ethical considerations under The Martens Clause); review the merits of regulatory proposals; and develop the human control elements of a weapons system. Her Command Responsibility and LAWS report considered the different types of human control exercised by commanders/superiors in order to fulfil specific duties; the doctrine of command responsibility; and the impact of LAWS. Several HCP have endorsed her submissions during UN GGE on LAWS sessions. For example, Chile commented “….the terms ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’ are different… [BCU’s] explanation is the right one…” and Germany stated “[The] suggestion made by [BCU]….clarifying the concepts of responsibility and accountability …should be reflected…” Ulgen’s contributions are reflected in the Guiding Principles on LAWS affirmed in 2019 [S07].

Developing International Standards and Ethics Certification for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

Ulgen’s work influenced the development of ethics, principles and values in international standards formulated by IEEE, the world’s largest technical professional association for electrical and electronic engineering, which produces technical standards (known as P series) for products, services, and systems. The IEEE Standards Association asked Ulgen to participate in developing the IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, Ethically Aligned Design, a global treatise of high-level ethical principles, key issues, and practical recommendations intended to inform the public, engineers, policy makers, and manufacturers of autonomous and intelligent systems (A/IS). Ulgen’s treatise chapter, Classical Ethics in A/IS, draws on her Kantian ethics and human dignity research. [S08].

As an Expert Member of IEEE Standards Working Groups P7007 Ontological Standard for Ethically Driven Robotics and Automation Systems, and P7000 Model Process for Addressing Ethical Concerns During System Design, Ulgen drafted legal principles and ethical values applicable to engineers, designers, programmers, and companies in the design and development of products, services, and systems. She developed the P7007 standard to incorporate legal responsibility and accountability, and drafted use cases demonstrating their application and representation in real-world RAS operations (e.g. healthcare robots; LAWS). She also drafted specific ontology models for data protection, privacy, and human dignity ethics. Ulgen contributed to extensive review and revision of the next P7000 draft, with amendments reflecting human dignity ethics and legal requirements [S09-10].

As Chair of the Accountability Expert Focus Group (AEFG) for IEEE’s Ethics Certification Programme for Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (ECPAIS), Ulgen led on the development and drafting of the world’s first accountability requirements for ethical certification of public and private sector A/IS. To guide technological development in the absence of specific laws, she developed ethical values of prevention of harm; human agency; human dignity; privacy and data protection; fairness; transparency; accountability; and responsibility. These ethical values form the basis to the accountability certification requirements, used to certify that a product/service/system incorporating emerging technologies is ethically compliant. Companies, organisations, and governmental entities across the globe can implement the accountability certification requirements to enable cross-jurisdictional trade. Ulgen produced the final AEFG Process and Technical Reports, explaining the organisation of work, rationale for the ethical values framework, and detailing the accountability certification and evidentiary requirements [S010].