Impact case study database

4.1 National

4.1.1 Supporting the introduction and implementation of effective consumer protection legislation in Ethiopia

Dawar’s research has contributed both directly and indirectly to stronger consumer protection in Ethiopia. Due to a recognised lack of consumer protection in the country (earlier protocols had not been successfully implemented), in October 2016, Dawar was commissioned by UNCTAD to provide a legal evaluation of Ethiopia’s Competition and Consumer Protection Proclamation for the Ethiopian Trade, Competition and Consumer Protection Authority (TCCPA). This led to the collaborative drafting with the TCCPA of Consumer Protection Regulations based on the Proclamation [S1], in addition to writing Guidance on the Consumer Protection from Unfair Commercial Practices [S2]. TCCPA judge Biruh Gemeda Gage, then Chair of the committee responsible for drafting an amendment to existing competition law and the new implementation regulation stated:

‘The expertise and support you provided for TCCPA was invaluable not only because it came at a critical moment when the competition law and the authority established by it were new but also because there was a desperate need for training and creating an effective regulatory body with capable officials that are able to implement the policy in practice as Ethiopia’s economy was expanding and developing …. The legal analysis of the laws identified overlaps in the sanctions attached to consumer protection and weaknesses in the regional implementation mechanism. The draft consumer protection regulation and implementing guidelines focused on explaining the scope and objectives of the Protocol and how to ensure implementation and enforcement of the relevant rules and the competence of competition and consumer bodies.’ [S3]

Dawar’s training in Addis Ababa on 6-7 October 2016 [S4] not only enabled TCCPA officials to understand and effectively implement the regulation, it built TCCPA’s capacity further by enabling these officials to cascade their knowledge more widely. As Gage affirmed:

‘At the end of the workshop, you had successfully provided training for over 20 public officials and staff from TCCPA which imparted a high level of understanding of the broader context within which national procurement policies operate; and provided them with the tools needed to develop effective competition and consumer protection system in Ethiopia …. Furthermore, those who received training directly were able to disseminate the knowledge we got from the training and your analysis/evaluation document to approximately 75 TCCPA staffs and hundreds of other experts working in different federal and regional stakeholder bodies. This has built the organisation’s capacity beyond the immediate workshop participants, contributing to the development of better consumer protection in Ethiopia.’ [S3]

[text removed for publication] [S5]

4.1.2 Strengthening and improving the effectiveness of procurement and consumer protection in Guyana

Dawar’s previous research into public procurement and competitiveness in the Caribbean formed the basis for the training workshops she delivered in Guyana and the Caribbean from 2015-2017 to government officials and public procurement officers. The workshops advocated domestic procurement regimes based on – and in harmonisation with – international best practice, and recommended addressing the weakness of Guyana’s domestic review system. [text removed for publication] [S6]

1. Regional

4.2.1 Increasing regional competition cooperation between Eastern, Western and Southern African countries

Dawar’s research addresses weaknesses in implementation of consumer protection and the need for more cooperation between countries and regional bodies in Eastern, Western and Southern Africa. Developing the above relationships in Ethiopia was the basis for follow-up advocacy with COMESA, the regional economic community of 21 African Member States that promotes regional integration through trade. As Gage noted: ‘Your evaluation … set the context of regulation in Ethiopia with that of Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa – COMESA’s competition and consumer protection regime. The legal analysis of the laws identified overlaps in the sanctions attached to consumer protection and weaknesses in the regional implementation mechanism.’ [S3]

Dawar created a competition media advocacy tool kit of good practice resources, and delivered training on ‘Competition Enforcement and the Role of the Media’ in Zambia in 2016. [text removed for publication] [S7]

Dawar’s research has been the basis for her technical assistance to the South African Development Community (SADC) Competition Division and the Botswana Competition Authority from 2011 to 2016. Dawar’s research has promoted SADC’s harmonization of competition under African Union Law and the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) [S5, S7]. [text removed for publication] [S8].

1. International

4.3.1 Enhancing the expertise and professional capacity of the World Trade Organisation in competition and public procurement

Dawar’s research in public procurement law and policy has underpinned the work she has undertaken providing technical expertise to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) since 2014. The WTO has a worldwide remit to ‘work with its diverse membership, primarily developing countries and economies in transition, to promote greater policy capacity and stronger empirical understanding in the field of public procurement’ [S9]. In her role as an ‘expert external resource person’ [S9], Dawar has provided technical assistance on harnessing the benefits of public procurement reform, international best practice and legal compliance with the WTO GPA including: Thematic Seminar on Trade and Competition Policy: Reviewing Practical Experience with Existing WTO Agreements (Geneva, July 2016), Advanced Global Workshop on Government Procurement (Geneva, November 2017), Advanced Regional Workshop on Government Procurement (Bangkok, January 2018) (Namibia 2016) [S10].

This outreach has had important institutional impact, strengthening the work of the WTO in promoting a fair international trade rule book and good economic governance through reforming public procurement law in line with international best practice. As Antony Taubman, Director of the WTO Secretariat division responsible for competition and procurement, affirmed: ‘Dr Kamala Dawar has, over the past decade, made a significant and sustained contribution to our programs of capacity building on technical assistance in the fields of government procurement and competition policy, as an expert external resource person.’ He adds:

‘Dr Dawar has thus… made an important and useful contribution to the success of the WTO Secretariat’s technical assistance and outreach programmes in the fields of trade, government procurement and competition policy, and delivered sustained and valuable benefits to participants in this respect’. [S9]

4.3.2 Improvements to the expertise and professional capacity of the World Economic Forum in the areas of government procurement, competition, subsidies and industrial policy with reference to crises

Dawar’s policy impact in developed and developing countries led to an invitation to join the Working Group on Subsidies and Industrial Policy of the World Economic Forum (WEF) (the global not-for-profit organisation with a remit ‘to shape global, regional and industry agendas’). Dawar drafted the Davos 2021 White Paper on sustainable development, subsidies and industrial policy in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and presented her research at the Geneva Trade Week 2020. Sean Doherty, WEF Head of International Trade and Investment, testifies that:

‘Dr Dawar was highly recommended to us as an internationally recognized expert in this field. We are grateful that since mid-2020 she has taken a leading role in driving a global working group of businesses, policymakers and researchers to pursue this project. During this time she has contributed significantly to several virtual discussions, including a session organized by the European University Institute as part of the Forum’s Trade Multistakeholder Conversation 2020 and as part of a Forum organised panel on Industrial Policy, COVID-19 and the WTO at the Geneva Trade Week. Her contributions on these panels have helped explain in practical terms to high-level, non-specialist audiences the rise of government support, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, and why existing rules fall short in disciplining them. … Currently, Dr Dawar is acting as lead author on a white paper intended for discussion at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting and among WTO delegations in Geneva. Her contributions to the paper so far bring a knowledge of the theory, along with practical examples, to help contextualise the problem for a broad audience.’ [S11]

Dawar’s work at the national, regional and international levels has made an important contribution to effective procurement and competition policy, which is essential to good governance and which is – in turn – the basis for improved pro-poor economic outcomes.

Moscati’s research has been used to: 1) diversify mediation policy and practice at an organisational level; 2) secure changes in mediation training leading to improved mediation practice; and 3) help to put these issues on the agenda at national and local levels. Her work – which is ongoing – has helped to make mediation guidance and resources more inclusive. Moreover, it has been adapted to specific national contexts: in Italy, many of those receiving training based on her work were encountering same-sex mediation issues for the first time. However, in the UK, her work contributed to an existing understanding of same-sex relationship breakdowns by promoting greater support across the LGBTIQ+ spectrum, to include the needs of trans and non-binary couples and families.

Moscati has also used her research in creative ways, including writing a book to support children from diverse family structures when relationships break down – ‘ Rainbow After the Storm ’ – which is available in five languages and free to download (to date more than 500 downloads). This has been of benefit at a local level; for example, the joint Headteachers of one London primary school – where Moscati talked to Year 6 students – described how this enabled students ‘to speak openly about themselves without masking their emotions’ (S9).

4.1 Diversifying mediation policy and practice

Moscati’s work with the UK College of Mediators (CoM) – an independent standards-setting organisation that approves mediation training providers and membership body for mediation with more than 350 practicing members – has informed CoM policy and, through that, mediation practice in the UK. After delivering a workshop at the CoM 2018 AGM, she was invited to join the College’s Diversity and Inclusion Working Group. She is also Co-editor of the CoM journal ‘Mediation Theory and Practice’ (S1.1, S1.2).

As a member of the Working Group, in November 2020, Moscati contributed to drafting a new diversity policy for the CoM. Together with contributing to the drafting of the whole policy, Moscati drafted the principle of the policy which links diversity in mediation to intersectionality. Once approved by the CoM Board in 2021, the policy will be provided to all CoM members to use in their client practice, as well as being incorporated into the training, networking days, monthly digests and conferences of the College that benefit its 350 members (S1.3). According to the Chair of CoM’s Professional Standards Committee, Moscati’s research ‘has made a very valuable contribution in helping mediators to broaden their understanding of the nature of intra-family disputes between same sex partners, and in equipping them with the tools to support parties to mediation more effectively’ (S1.1).

Moscati’s research has influenced the work and communications approach and materials of Resolution, a UK-based organisation with a membership of 6,500 family lawyers and other professionals working on the resolution of family disputes and providing public information. Resolution’s Director of Operations wrote:

‘We first encountered Maria's booklet, ‘Rainbow after the storm - Mylo and his Dads go to the mediator’, which presents in an engaging and clear way the many different family dynamics that a child may experience. The resource highlighted that our current materials only spoke of divorce and separation within heterosexual relationships. As a result, we [are] now reviewing and updating our materials.’ (S2.1).

Two years later, she stated that ‘those conversations and the use of Maria's publication came early on in our work around diversity so their impact was profound and felt across the organisation’ and ‘Maria's publication was part of a really important change in focus and approach for the organisation, one we're still working on’ (S2.2).

In 2017, the UK charity [text removed for publication] (S3.1). [text removed for publication] (S3.2, S3.3)

The GeA (Genitori Ancora) is the first established school of mediators in Italy and has similarly adapted its approaches and materials in response to Moscati’s work. In addition to the training module it has introduced (see below), GeA has improved its mediation forms to include gender-neutral language, previously based on the binary male/female distinction (S4.2).

4.2 Changes in mediation training and practice

In Italy, Moscati’s research has been the inspiration for GeA’s development of a compulsory module on same-sex couples and mediation as part of its annual professional training for mediators, a module which Moscati has delivered since 2017 (S4.2, S4.6, S4.7). As their training coordinator, Paolo Scotti, explained in 2017: ‘Moscati’s initiatives have allowed us to tackle a theme that is still in its infancy in Italy and is suffering from a difficulty linked to the absence of trained and serious trainers’ (S4.1). In November 2020, GeA’s subsequent training coordinator, Ilaria Viganò, testified to the impact that had been realised:

‘This is the fourth edition of Dr. Moscati's training (2015, 2017, 2019 and 2020) and in all about seventy professionals, mediators and others, participated. Over the years, the attitudes of the participants have definitely changed: every year there is a more active participation, a greater ability to become aware of their own prejudices and the desire to further explore the various issues that have emerged. Both during the seminar and in the questionnaires completed afterwards, to which I refer for specific comments, the majority of the participants pointed out that the training provided them with a much broader knowledge of LGBT families, often confused with homosexual families only, and made them take awareness of the impact that gender identity and the acceptance of one's sexual orientation can have in the parents' experience, and in the mediation room, topics that are still too little talked about in Italy.’ (S4.4)

For mediation students and their trainers, Moscati’s training provided a new formative space for participants to, as one family mediation course tutor stated, ‘reflect on their stereotypes and prejudices, on the roles of biological and social parent and in particular on how to deal with the different dynamics that arise from the situations of conflicting separation’ (S4.5). A participant in Moscati’s training in October 2020 stated ‘I think it [the training] will change my way of thinking and feeling and therefore of listening and understanding parents more free from prejudice’ while another said ‘I feel I have gained more tools to carry out work with non-heterosexual couples’ (S4.10).

GeA was the first Italian mediation school to introduce this module; however, other mediation providers in Italy have since used Moscati’s training (S7).

The research has contributed to the development of a Masters course for future mediators at the University of Verona. [text removed for publication] (S5).

In the UK, the research has underpinned the development of a training programme accredited by the College of Mediators, delivered by prominent family mediator Stuart Hanson, whose own mediation company website ‘attracts in excess of 40,000 visitors a year’ (S6.2). As a result of the training, mediation practitioners have made changes, such as ‘amending their websites and literature to include the LGBT flag and including gender neutral language’ (S6.1). Hanson has also used Moscati’s work to improve his own firm’s training and services, stating that: ‘As a firm, we have made a commitment to being inclusive and on the basis of Dr. Moscati’s work, we have done the following:

• Rewritten our policies and procedures to be gender neutral

• Created interactive forms that when asking about gender include non-binary

• Challenged the Legal Aid Agency and the Family Mediation Council on their position of recording gender as just male or female

• Given our staff training on not assuming a heterosexual normative when speaking with clients

• Emailed out to LGBT+ charities, including Stonewall, to try and engage with the community

• Future plans include doing targeting SEO on the LGBT+ community via our blog’ (S6.2).

A member of the CoM Professional Standards Committee, herself a practicing mediator, stated that: ‘Maria’s booklet for children of same sex parents who are separating is highly accessible and gives messages of importance to children, parents and mediators alike. I train mediators to meet with children directly in mediation and I refer to the booklet regularly on the training and provide details on the booklist’ (S1.2).

4.3 Developing understanding among European countries

Moscati’s work has informed ‘DoingRight(s)’, an Erasmus project to develop a trans-national and cross-sectoral curriculum on family diversity and raise awareness of family diversity in European countries, thus ensuring that mediation was included in the project’s remit. The project concluded in February 2020 with outputs including ‘Key training challenges for professionals working with LGBT parents and their children’ (S8.3). Moscati’s work was used to underpin the section on LGBT families. According to the Principal Investigator, this meant that ‘mediators have been targeted as pivotal figures in the “law” section, while previously they were not foreseen’ (S8.1). She adds: ‘[Moscati’s] insights supported the development of the outputs in relation to topics such as how the rules of law affect family perception and daily life; power imbalance within the couple, shaping the relationship; variety of children conception and raised; strategies to make explicit family structure and configuration’ (S8.2). In addition, she confirms: ‘These outputs have been disseminated in Italy, Spain and Poland through 8 public events, national and international. Total participants were 690. They were mostly lawyers, psychologists, social workers’ (S8.2). In this way, Moscati’s work has put sexual and gender diversity in family mediation and dispute resolution on the agenda in numerous new contexts.

Changing UK pesticides legislation

Dr Lydgate’s analysis, underpinned by research expertise developed in [R4], led directly to a change in UK pesticides legislation. The research was used by two NGOs in 2019, Chemtrust and the Public Law Project, in separate legal challenges against the UK Government: a pre-action protocol for Judicial Review and a High Court case appealed to the Supreme Court.

Lydgate’s research, which received wide media attention [S1], uncovered that the UK Government had omitted EU restrictions on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. Inspired by this analysis, and after liaising with Lydgate, the NGO Chemtrust partnered with the Law firm Leigh Day to initiate legal action against then Environment Minister, Michael Gove, regarding this omission [S2.1]. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) confirmed that:

‘On 16 May 2019, Defra officials became aware of the issue after being alerted by HSE [Health and Safety Executive] to an online news article alleging that controls on endocrine disrupting chemicals would be removed by EU exit legislation. This article was based on work by the University of Sussex’s UK Trade Policy Observatory. Officials immediately initiated action to address this issue by including a correcting provision within the forthcoming Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.’ [S2.2]

The news article to which DEFRA refers is a blog titled ‘Not Just a Technical Exercise: a look at new pesticides regulation’, published by Lydgate and her team on the UKTPO website on 15 May 2019; this blog was based on research developed in [R4]. In Parliamentary debate on 1 October 2019, Shadow Minister Sandy Martin made clear the harm that could have been caused by this omission:

‘...if it were not for this correction in this SI [Statutory Instrument], we would not have been able to prohibit the approval of active substances, safeners and synergists which have endocrine disrupting properties. Endocrine disrupting chemicals have a significant effect on animal and human health.' [S3]

The omission had broader constitutional significance. Lydgate partnered with the Public Law Project (PLP) NGO in a UKTPO event at Chatham House in May 2019, where she presented the results of the pesticide research; it was subsequently included as evidence in the PLP submission to the High and Supreme court cases in which Miller successfully challenged the Government’s prorogation of Parliament in September 2019. The pesticides Statutory Instrument was directly cited as an example of poorly-drafted secondary legislation and thus requiring scrutiny from Parliament [S4]. It was thereby used as an example to argue that prorogation would restrict scrutiny of remaining Statutory Instruments, to the detriment of the public interest.

The final judgement of the Supreme Court includes the PLP as an intervenor (non-party participant) and relies upon its argument as a core reason for finding prorogation unlawful: ‘[The memorandum recommending prorogation] does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to make UK law ready for exit day.’ [S5]

Strengthening Parliamentary oversight of post-Brexit food standards

Research undertaken in [R4] also helped to impel stronger Parliamentary scrutiny of how post-Brexit UK trade agreements will shape UK food standards. In Parliamentary debate about the Agriculture Bill, Lord Burnett stated:

‘I commend to the House an article dated 12 September 2019, written by Chloe Anthony, a lecturer in law at the University of Sussex, and Dr Emily Lydgate, a fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory … entitled UK food safety Statutory Instruments: A problem for US-UK negotiations? Referring to the statutory instruments created under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, these authors argue that some provide extensive scope for Ministers to make future changes to food and safety legislation … We in this House and the other place are aware of the problems of overseeing secondary legislation and the power it gives to Governments. Much of the existing legislation on food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards can be altered by statutory instrument.’ [S6.1]

The article Lord Burnett referenced was a blog based on research undertaken in [R4], which argued that food standards statutory instruments undermined Parliamentary oversight over trade agreements – an approach that was fundamentally flawed and needed reform. To rectify this problem, the Lords proposed an amendment to the Agriculture Bill that addressed this concern directly by increasing Parliamentary oversight [S6.2]. Whilst HM Government rejected this amendment, they agreed a similar ‘amendment in lieu’ which now forms part of the 2020 Agriculture Act. It requires the Government to report directly to Parliament on whether UK Free Trade Agreements weaken food standards [S6.3]. Lydgate’s research, explicitly cited in Parliamentary debate, provided an evidence base to support the need to make this change.

Guiding the formulation of EU environmental non-regression policy

When, in 2017, the EU Commission Task Force 50 [Brexit] negotiators began developing their strategy for the ‘level playing field’ – which would inform the EU’s approach to environmental non-regression – they sought Lydgate’s expertise on trade agreements and environmental legislation. Although this is a standard component of EU Free Trade Agreements, the UK negotiation requires unwinding existing integration – a unique context. After a series of meetings with EU negotiators, Lydgate wrote a briefing paper for their internal review, followed by a version published by the European Policy Centre [R3].

In both the unpublished version and in [R3], Lydgate put forth, and critically examined, the possibility of basing environmental non-regression on calibrating a shared level of protection. This novel approach was adopted in the Withdrawal Agreement from November 2018. That Agreement was not accepted by UK Parliament, but it formed the basis for the EU’s position on environmental provisions in a UK-EU FTA. In the final EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), it is incorporated through a novel mechanism which, in certain circumstances, allows either side to impose tariffs if they do not maintain a shared level of environmental protection (TCA, Part 2, Title XI, Article 9.4) [S7]. In a letter to Lydgate, [text removed for publication] [S8]

Supporting Parliamentary scrutiny of UK trade policy

Between July 2016 and December 2020, Lydgate contributed to 10 Parliamentary inquiries to 5 different Commons and Lords Select Committees through oral and written evidence – a sustained contribution to the capacity of Parliament to scrutinise trade policy [S9]. Among these, Lydgate’s research briefing [R3] prompted the House of Commons Exiting the EU Committee to invite Lydgate to give oral evidence. [text removed for publication] [S10]

Similarly, [text removed for publication] [S11]

[text removed for publication] [S11].

Influencing the Labour Party in its advocacy of a UK-EU Customs Union

Lydgate and Winters [R2] examined in detail the limitations of trying to replicate the benefits of the Customs Union through sectoral agreements, and examined the implications of a ‘sectoral’ approach, as well as a UK transitional arrangement, with respect to the rules of the World Trade Organisation. The analysis of this possibility was published in several UKTPO Briefing papers and blogs and underpinned UKTPO influence on the Labour Brexit position. Following several meetings with Lydgate and other UKTPO fellows, the Opposition stated in August 2017 that it would seek to remain in a customs union with the EU. In February 2018, following further meetings, Labour argued for seeking a customs union in the long run. [text removed for publication] [S12].

During spring 2019 the debate and cross-party talks revolved almost entirely around Labour’s demand that the future trade arrangement with the EU include a customs union.

Creating a new public dialogue on the need for hate crime law reform

The EU-funded study has been pivotal in shaping both public discourse and public policy developments on legislating for hate crime [R1-3]. Walters gave interviews detailing findings between 2016-2018, including on: The One Show (BBC, reaching approx. 5 million viewers); ITV Meridian News, (approx. 8 million viewers); BBC News Channel; Victoria Derbyshire Show (BBC2, 140k viewers); The Today Programme (BBC Radio 4, seven million listers); Live Drive (BBC Radio 5, five million listeners) [S1a]. The extensive reach of these interviews resulted in broader public debate on the topic as evidenced, for example, in the letters section of the Guardian where members of the public cited the research to call for law reform, as well as by journalists who debated the findings more fully (e.g. The Economist) [S1a]. Dissemination of research was further supported by Walters’ launch of [R1] at the House of Commons at an event hosted by Sir Robert Neill, Chair of the Justice Committee (October 2017). Presentations were then delivered to public sector and civil society organisations, including: the National Offender Management Service; the Sentencing Council; Hate Crime Awareness Week (charity); and Equally Ours (charity).

This public and policy engagement has contributed to improved understanding of the impacts of hate crime and how the law should be used to effectively challenge it. This has, in turn, influenced the direction of third-sector charities that work with the UK Government to reduce hate crime. For instance, the Director of one national equality charity Equally Ours has stated:

“Professor Walters’ work has been a crucial resource for a wide range of civil society organisations to lobby both politicians, officials and criminal justice organisations. It has underpinned our work, firstly, in lobbying for parity of uplift in sentencing across all five characteristics [and, secondly] his work on legal reform has provided a focus for a comprehensive overhaul of legislation around hate crime and has aided civil society organisations in developing lobbying options for change.” [S2a].

The significance of the research led to Walters being called to give televised oral evidence to the Home Affairs Committee’s Inquiry into Hate Crime in the House of Commons (February 2018), where he outlined the need for a reformed legal framework and for greater use of alternative justice measures to tackle the underlying causes of hate crime. Findings were thereafter requested by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Hate Crime and their report published in 2019 [S2b] details Walters et al.’s research extensively (Walters/Sussex is cited 72 times in the 58-page report). Drawing directly on [R1], the APPG final report states: “The law on hate crime needs to be consolidated and evened out to ensure that all victims can expect the same level of justice.” [S2b, p56]. Later that year, Walters was awarded the Social Research Upstander Award at the National #No2H8 Crime Awards (run by a coalition of civil society organisations) in recognition of his work on criminal justice reform [S2c].

Shaping formal reform proposals across UK jurisdictions and underpinning new legislation internationally

In response to the findings disseminated in [R1-3], and ensuing lobbying efforts by civil society organisations and parliamentary inquiries, the UK Government announced a full review of hate crime legislation by the Law Commission for England and Wales. The Commission published its consultation paper (no.250) in September 2020 in which it notes “[R1], that examined the legal framework for hate crime in England and Wales, has been particularly influential in the hate crime sector.” Referencing the work of Walters 148 times, the Commission goes on to use the research to underpin proposal recommendations throughout, and pivotally they ask consultees to respond to a newly-designed model of legislation set out by Walters et al in [R1] (p.200), which aims to have the effect of reducing the fragmented and hierarchical structure of the current law [S3a].

Simultaneously, [R1-3] were used extensively by Judge Desmond Marrinan, tasked by the Department for Justice in Northern Ireland to review hate crime legislation, and by Lord Bracadale in his Government-commissioned review of legislation in Scotland. In his final report [S3b], Judge Marrinan recommends the new model of legislation proposed in [R2] and states in a letter “It is no exaggeration to say that this work [R1-2] in particular has prompted a number of… recommendations in my own work” [S3c]. For example, the legislative model outlined by Walters and colleagues in [R1] is adopted by Marrinan [S3b, p.130-132] and he is further persuaded by reform proposals to change the legal test in the legislation [S3b, recommendation 6]. Marrinan also notes in relation to the Scottish law review that “Professor Walters’ academic work was acknowledged to be a significant influence in shaping the final [Scottish] proposals” [S3c]. Indeed, Lord Bracadale’s final report [S3d, p.18-20] has a section dedicated to reviewing and responding to the research conducted at the University of Sussex. Bracadale’s proposals have now been taken forward and a new Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill was introduced at Holyrood on 23 April 2020 [S3e]. The Bill is currently at Committee Stage 2 where MSPs are reviewing the legislation.

Most recently, Walters was commissioned by the international charity the Human Dignity Trust to produce a research report outlining recommendations for enacting new hate crime legislation internationally [R4]. Upon publication, Walters was invited by the Belizean Special Envoy for Women and Children to advise on law reform to the Belizean Government. The report was then used directly by the legislative draftsperson as the basis for a new Hate Crime Bill, which was introduced to the House of Representatives in 2020 [S3f]. The Bill, which is the first piece of hate crime legislation in central America / the Caribbean, aims to provide protection to six identity characteristics (race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity and sex). The draftsperson for the Attorney General’s Office states in a letter “The Bill which I prepared is constructed on the basis of the recommendations of [R4] … The draft Bill would not have taken the form it did but for the influence of Walters’ work.” [S3g].

Changes to national prosecution guidelines

[R1] outlined nine recommendations to change prosecution practice. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) responded formally to each of its recommendations, including changing its CPS Evidence Checklist (based on that outlined in [R1]), which is used to assist police and prosecutors prepare evidence for trial [S4a]. Further amendments were made to the CPS’ Racist and Religious Hate Crime Legal Guidance section on “alternative charges” based on findings that uncovered a disparity in day-to-day practice [S4b]. The CPS Legal Lead on Hate Crime states in an email to all regional hate crime leads that “[this] update is as a result [of] an article on hate crime in the Criminal Law Journal [Review] written by Professor Mark Walters of Sussex University.” [S4a]. The fourth and fifth paragraphs of the guidance are now fully revised online [S4b]. These amended guidelines directly affect charging practices across the country (as prosecutors must include alternative charges in the Crown Court) affecting circa 15,000 cases each year [S4c].

Impact on national and regional restorative justice programmes

In addition to law reform work, Walters has carried out impact-led research on alternative justice measures to combat hate crime. His book Hate Crime and Restorative Justice [R1], launched in the House of Commons in July 2014, has provided both theoretical grounding and practical guidance to new restorative initiatives run regionally and nationally by criminal justice agencies and civil society organisations. Collectively, these projects have offered hundreds of victims and offenders an alternative justice process aimed at resolving the harms caused by hate crimes. Examples include:

• Why Me?, a national restorative justice (RJ) charity, which set up a RJ programme in 2017 across multiple police forces in England. The project manager stated that the book “has been critical to Why Me?'s project … [and] provided [the programme] with an academic rationale [and has] helped to shape the trajectory of the work” [S5a]. The book is also prescribed reading for all new restorative practitioners working on the programme. As a result of the programme, Cambridge, Lancashire and Avon & Somerset police services are all now referring hate crimes for RJ, with two areas reporting a “significant increase in hate crime cases” being referred for RJ since the start of the Why Me? programme. A further five police areas are now at the beginning stages of working to offer RJ for hate crime [S5a].

• Restore DiverCity is a police-led programme that uses RJ for “low-level” hate crime cases in East Sussex and was established in 2015 by Brighton and Hove Police after the city RJ coordinator attended a workshop led by Walters. The programme coordinator stated “I have worked in partnership with Dr Walters since [his book’s launch] with his knowledge and research feeding into the development of restorative justice across the city” [S5b].

• The book’s findings underpinned a HEFCE-funded restorative programme, Restore Respect, set up in 2018 at the Universities of Sussex and Brighton. 82 student support staff have been trained on the harms of hate, and 12 new university-based practitioners have had advanced three-day training drawing on case studies from the book. 15 students who have experienced a hate incident on campus have been referred to Restore Respect. A full toolkit and training materials have been disseminated to the Office for Students and are now freely available to all universities across the UK via the University of Sussex website.