This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jul/18/interview-jocelyn-cockburn-lawyer-stephen-lawrence

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Jocelyn Cockburn: my cases are against the state – the little man against the big bullying monolith Jocelyn Cockburn: my cases are for the little man against the state monolith
(about 1 hour later)
When the families of several soldiers killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, apparently because of inadequate equipment, first contacted her for help, Jocelyn Cockburn was uncertain about whether she was the best person to represent them.
The human rights lawyer had spent her career representing vulnerable people in legal battles against the state and initially saw soldiers as agents of the state. When the families of soldiers killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, supposedly because of inadequate equipment, first contacted Jocelyn Cockburn for help she was uncertain if she was the best person to represent them.
"My cases are against the state – the little man, I suppose, against the big bullying monolith," she says with a wry smile. "Soldiers are state agents, in a way, a bit like a police officers." The human rights lawyer had spent her career representing vulnerable people in legal battles against the state, and, initially, she viewed soldiers as agents of the state.
It took her a while to realise that soldiers also needed legal protection. "I have learned that soldiers are an incredibly vulnerable class of people," she says. "Because they have to do what is ordered of them, they have very little autonomy." "My cases are against the state – the little man, I suppose, against the big bullying monolith," she says. "Soldiers are state agents, in a way a bit like police  officers."
Cockburn had a notable success earlier this summer at the supreme court when she represented the families of three soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and won a landmark ruling confirming that the Ministry of Defence has a duty to protect the human rights of the its soldiers, even when they are on the battlefield. It took her a while to realise that soldiers also needed legal protection. "I have learned that soldiers are an incredibly vulnerable class of people. Because they have to do what is ordered of them they have very little autonomy."
It was a significant and controversial victory, but not her first. Cockburn has been at the heart of some of the most interesting and politically sensitive court cases of the past decade. As well as taking on the Ministry of Defence, she has represented Neville Lawrence, launching the judicial review that helped secure the reopening of a moribund investigation into Stephen Lawrence's death, and which helped bring about the conviction last January of two men for his murder. Cockburn had a notable success this summer at the supreme court when she represented the families of three soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and won a landmark ruling confirming that the Ministry of Defence had a duty to protect the human rights of soldiers, even when they were on the battlefield.
She also represented the family of Fiona Pilkington, the woman who took her own life and that of her disabled daughter, Francesca Pilkington, after enduring months of disability-related abuse, securing undisclosed damages from Leicestershire police, who recognised that they had not responded sufficiently to the family's requests for help. Last year she was named partner of the year by the legal journal, The Lawyer, in recognition of her achievements. It was a significant and controversial victory, but not her first. Cockburn has been at the heart of some of the most interesting and politically sensitive court cases of the past 10 years. As well as taking on the MoD, she has represented Neville Lawrence, launching the judicial review that helped secure the reopening of a moribund investigation into Stephen Lawrence's death, and which helped bring about the conviction last January of two men for his murder.
When people ask Cockburn if she was nervous about taking on the force of the Ministry of Defence, she replies: "No, because I've done a lot more frightening things in my life than that." She also represented the family of Fiona Pilkington, the woman who took her own life and that of her disabled daughter, Francecca Hardwick, after enduring months of disability related abuse, securing undisclosed damages from Leicestershire police, who recognised that they had not responded sufficiently to the family's requests for help.
Although it is a subject she prefers not to dwell on, this is a sideways reference to her disability. She had a tumour removed from her spine when she was six, and developed scoliosis, which affected her growth and has left her with some enduring health problems. She has always flinched from describing herself as disabled, but concedes that the experience of growing up different gave her a strength she might otherwise not have had, and a desire to represent vulnerable people. Last year Cockburn was named partner of the year by the legal journal, The Lawyer, for her achievements.
"I have never defined myself as a disabled person; I'm still not really sure I am disabled, I'm just different physically – but I do feel it has played a big part in developing me into the sort of person who represents individuals in really difficult cases, and takes on the government," she says. When people ask Cockburn if she is nervous about taking on the force of the MoD, she replies: "No, because I've done a lot more frightening things in my life than that."
More frightening than taking on the Ministry of Defence might, for example, be "just walking into a room and have people look at you for being different. Those are character-forming things; if you can grow up and not let those things get you down or defeat you, then you can probably take on quite a lot in life," she says. "I think if you fight adversity in life, you are going to have developed strengths which other people who have a slightly more charmed existence don't have to develop." Although it is a subject she prefers not to dwell on, this is a reference to her disability. She had a tumour removed from her spine when she was six and developed scoliosis, which affected her growth and left her with some enduring health problems.
Brought up on a farm on the Scottish borders, and sent at eight to boarding school, Cockburn, 43, says she has had a privileged upbringing, but one which has made her into a fighter. "I am a bit of a fighter. I would never accept what I was told without trying to establish that it was what I considered to be correct," she says. She has always flinched from describing herself as disabled, but concedes that the experience of growing up "different" gave her a strength she might otherwise not have had, as well as a desire to represent vulnerable people.
After training as a commercial lawyer, Cockburn went into human rights law, a decision which thinks was motivated both by her desire to taken on challenging cases, but also a possibly a latent recognition that there were more discriminatory attitudes in the commercial world. "I have never defined myself as a disabled person; I'm still not really sure I am disabled, I'm just different physically. But I do feel it has played a big part in developing me into the sort of person who represents individuals in really difficult cases, and takes on the government."
She worked first for Christian Khan, before moving in 2004 to her current firm, Hodge, Jones & Allen. Shortly after she started work, Neville Lawrence contacted the firm, because he had received a letter from the director of the Crown Prosecution Service, which said that after reviewing the latest police investigation into the murder, they had decided that there would be no prosecution in relation to Stephen's death. More frightening than taking on the MoD might, for example, be "just walking into a room and have people look at you for being different". She adds: "Those are character forming things; if you can grow up and not let those things get you down or defeat you, then you can probably take on quite a lot in life
"He was not satisfied that they had tried every available avenue to try to bring these boys to justice. He wanted to know if the police had left any stone unturned," she says. She launched a judicial review to challenge the CPS's decision not to prosecute. Eventually the police began to reinvestigate. "I think if you fight adversity in life, you are going to have developed strengths which other people, who have a slightly more charmed existence, don't have to develop."
"I think the strength of the feeling of the family, that the decision wasn't right, had an enormous influence on the reinvigoration of the investigation," she says. She continues to represent Lawrence in the fall-out from recent revelations that the police ordered surveillance on the Lawrence family in the wake of Stephen's death. He has contacted the home secretary, Theresa May, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission to request an independent investigation and is still waiting for a response. Brought up on a farm on the Scottish borders, and sent at eight to boarding school, Cockburn, 43, says she had a privileged upbringing but one which made her into a fighter. "I am a bit of a fighter. I'd never accept what I was told without trying to establish that it was what I considered to be correct."
"Neville was completely shocked and he was anxious that this wasn't something that he thought the police could investigate themselves. He has always suspected that corruption did infect the first investigation into his son's death; not only that but he always felt that his family were treated more as suspects than as victims into those early days," she says. After training as a commercial lawyer, she went into human rights law, a decision she thinks was motivated by her desire to take on challenging cases, but also possibly by a latent recognition that there were more discriminatory attitudes in the commercial world.
"He thinks unless it's a publicly, transparent investigation, they won't get to the bottom of it. It has taken them 20 years to get this far. He can't wait another 20 years to get to the bottom of it – he wants it sorted out once and for all." She worked first for Christian Khan, before moving in 2004 to the company she now works for, Hodge, Jones & Allen. Shortly after she started work Neville Lawrence contacted the firm, because he had had a letter from the director of the Crown Prosecution Service, which said that after reviewing the latest police investigation into his son's murder, the CPS had decided there would be no prosecution over the death.
On the back of the reputation she had built with the Lawrence case, she began to be contacted by the families of men killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, who felt that their sons had not had proper inquests, and believed that there had been negligence in their deaths by the Ministry of Defence. "He was not satisfied that they had tried every available avenue to try to [get justice]. He wanted to know if the police had left any stone unturned."
Catherine Smith's son, Private Jason Smith, had died of heat stroke in Iraq, but she was struggling to get much information from the MoD when she contacted Cockburn. She launched a judicial review to challenge the CPS decision not to prosecute. Finally, the police began to investigate again.
"Catherine Smith was fobbed off – there's no other way of describing it; she was given incorrect information, told that everything was in order, and her legitimate questions were not answered for a long time. "I think the strength of the feeling of the family, that the decision wasn't right, had an enormous influence on the reinvigoration of the investigation."
"I think she had a two-page record of events, and that was it for the first two years. It was quickly clear to me was that the MoD was miles behind the police and the prison service in terms of their understanding of what families are entitled to or what they need, in order to be able to grieve," she says. She continues to represent Lawrence following recent revelations that the police ordered surveillance on his family after Stephen's death. Lawrence has contacted the home secretary, Theresa May, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission, to request an independent investigation and is waiting for a response.
"Eventually Catherine Smith had a one-week inquest in 2007, and we had virtually no disclosure of information from the MoD. Everything was redacted, crossed out, they were claiming public interest immunity and national security issues." "Neville was completely shocked and he was anxious that this wasn't something he thought the police could investigate themselves. He has always suspected that corruption did infect the first investigation into his son's death; not only that but he always felt that his family were treated more as suspects than as victims into those early days.
Cockburn took the case to the supreme court, where it was recognised that "in cases where there is a suggestion that the military were at fault and the death was avoidable, that the families should be entitled to disclosure and have a proper involvement in the inquest proceedings". She is proud that the case will have a "positive impact in terms of the MoD recognising the obligations it has to be more transparent". "He thinks unless it's a publicly, transparent investigation they won't get to the bottom of it. It's taken them 20 years to get this far. He can't wait another 20 years to get to the bottom of it – he wants it sorted out once and for all."
She went on to represent the families of three men who were killed in Snatch Land Rovers, while on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan. These vehicles had long been known to be ineffective at withstanding roadside bombs, and were known by some soldiers as "mobile coffins". On the back of the reputation she built in relation to the Lawrence case Cockburn began to be contacted by the families of soldiers, killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, who felt their sons had not had proper inquests and believed there might be negligence by the MoD.
Their inquests concluded simply that they had been killed by enemy insurgents, and did not question whether the MoD had any responsibility to protect its soldiers on the battlefield. The families felt this was wrong, and their conviction inspired Cockburn to fight for them. "Having represented many people who have lost loved one – if they think something is wrong, they won't let it go," she says. Catherine Smith's son, Pte Jason Smith, died of heatstroke in Iraq but she was struggling to get information from the MoD when she contacted Cockburn.
When Cockburn brought a case on behalf of the families, the government argued that it had no legally enforceable obligation to protect soldiers on the battlefield. It was this argument that was overturned in the supreme court in June. "Catherine Smith was fobbed off – there's no other way of describing it. She was given incorrect information, told that everything was in order, and her legitimate questions were not answered for a long time.
Until now soldiers have not been covered by article two of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to life, once they step out of a British base in a combat area. "I think she had a two-page record of events, and that was it for the first two years. It was quickly clear to me that the MoD was miles behind the police and the prison service in terms of understanding what families are entitled to, or what they need, in order to be able to grieve.
The supreme court ruled that soldiers should be covered by the legislation even when they on the battlefield. A claim for compensation still needs to be heard at the high court later this year. Cockburn thinks there are around 37 soldiers who have been killed in Snatch Land Rovers, and believes more cases may come to court. The vehicle has subsequently been removed from use in combat areas. "Eventually [she] had a one-week inquest in 2007, and we had virtually no disclosure of information from the MoD. Everything was redacted, crossed out; they were claiming public interest immunity and national security issues."
"The families felt really strongly about this – how can you send soldiers on to the battlefield and not only deny that you owe them any duty of care, but also deny that they are in the UK's jurisdiction at all for the purposes of human rights, so that they don't have any human rights protections? That is wrong – legally and morally," she says. Cockburn took the case to the supreme court, where it was recognised that "in cases where there is a suggestion that the military were at fault and the death was avoidable, that the families should be entitled to disclosure and have a proper involvement in the inquest proceedings".
"It was never about money; these cases are relatively low value. It is about wanting the MoD to take responsibility and admit that they have done wrong, and to put it right as far as they can." She is proud that the case will have a "positive impact in terms of the MoD recognising the obligation that it has to be more transparent".
Her involvement in the Pilkington case has triggered a new desire to represent people with disabilities, and she has been contacted by more people than she can currently support, with requests for legal assistance. She is concerned about the impact of legal aid reductions on her firm's ability to represent potential clients, and points out that were the Pilkington family to contact her now, she might have to advise them not to pursue the case, because the financial risks would be too high. She went on to represent the families of three men killed in Snatch Land Rovers while on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan. These vehicles had long been known to be ineffective at withstanding roadside bombs and were called "mobile coffins" by some soldiers.
"The austerity agenda is having a really detrimental impact on some parts of society – vulnerable people, the sorts of people I represent," she says, pointing in particular to changes to the benefit system, the bedroom tax, reform of benefits entitlements and new systems for assessing disability. The inquests concluded that the men had been killed by enemy insurgents, and did not question whether the MoD had any responsibility to protect its soldiers on the battlefield.
The families felt this was wrong, and Cockburn decided to fight for them. "Having represented many people who have lost loved one – if they think something is wrong, they won't let it go."
When Cockburn brought the case on behalf of the families, the government said it had no legally enforceable obligation to protect soldiers on the battlefield. It was this argument that was overturned in the supreme court in June.
Until now, soldiers were not covered by article two of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to life, if they moved out of a British base in a combat area.
The supreme court ruled that soldiers should be covered by the legislation even when on the battlefield. A claim for compensation still needs to be heard at the high court later this year.
Cockburn thinks about 37 soldiers have been killed in Snatch Land Rovers, and believes more cases could go to court. The vehicle has been removed from use in combat areas now.
She says: "The families felt really strongly about this. How can you send soldiers on to the battlefield and not only deny that you owe them any duty of care but also deny that they are in the UK's jurisdiction at all for the purposes of human rights, so that they don't have any human rights protections? That is wrong, legally and morally.
"It was never about money. These cases are relatively low value. It is about wanting the MoD to take responsibility and admit that they have done wrong, and to put it right as far as they can."
Her involvement in the Pilkington case triggered in her a new desire to represent people with disabilities, and she has been contacted by more people with requests for legal assistance than she can, at this point, support. She is concerned about the impact of legal aid cuts on her firm's ability to represent potential clients, and points out that were the Pilkington family to contact her now she might have to advise them not to pursue the case as the financial risks would be too high.
"The austerity agenda is having a really detrimental impact on some parts of society – vulnerable people, the sorts of people I represent," she says, pointing to the bedroom tax, reform of benefits entitlements, changes to the benefit system, and disability assessments.
"The legal aid changes will make it harder to challenge decisions for individuals who are really seriously impacted. Usually the vulnerable people in our society do not have private means to bring challenges so are thoroughly reliant on legal aid. Without legal aid, where are they going to go?""The legal aid changes will make it harder to challenge decisions for individuals who are really seriously impacted. Usually the vulnerable people in our society do not have private means to bring challenges so are thoroughly reliant on legal aid. Without legal aid, where are they going to go?"
She senses a shift in popular perceptions about disability. While there is an ongoing drive by politicians to vilify benefits claimants, and particularly disability benefits recipients, casting them as malingerers, she thinks there is a parallel growth in sensitivity from the general public to disability-related issues. She senses a shift in popular perceptions about disability. She thinks that, while there is an ongoing drive by politicians to vilify benefits claimants and particularly disability benefits recipients, casting them as malingerers, there is a parallel growth in the general public's sensitivity to disability related issues.
"The public has started to understand and be interested in these issues – whereas previously disability has been something which is not talked about, something a bit uncool. Compared with race and sex equality issues, disability has not had quite the same reputation. I think the Paralympics has started to shift public opinion. People are a lot more receptive, they want to understand more about the lives of people with disabilities," she says. "The public has started to understand and be interested in these issues – whereas previously disability has been something which is not talked about, something a bit uncool. Compared with race and sex equality issues, disability has not had quite the same reputation. I think the Paralympics has started to shift public opinion. People are a lot more receptive, they want to understand more about the lives of people with disabilities."
This is the territory where she expects to be busy in the next few years, provided funding can be found, given her preference for supporting the underdog. "I tend to represent people who are vulnerable, and that must lead to disability issues. I can see myself getting more involved in disability issues," she says. Disability is the territory where she expects to be busy in the next few years, provided funding is found, given her preference for backing the underdog. "I tend to represent people who are vulnerable, and that must lead to disability issues; I can see myself getting more involved in disability issues."