X Close

The UCL Centre for Access to Justice

Home

Pro Bono Blog

Menu

Archive for the 'Pro Bono' Category

‘Volunteering for the Know Your Housing Rights Project’ written by Caroline Jixin Gao

RoseIreland20 April 2017

Caroline Jixin Gao, a second year Law student at UCL, was one of eight students to volunteer for the pilot project ‘Know Your Housing Rights’, in partnership with Haringey Citizens and Hodge Jones & Allen. In this blog post, she reflects on her experience delivering public legal education on housing law in Haringey and the wider implications of the housing crisis in London.

“Know Your Housing Rights with Haringey Citizens” is a pilot Pro Bono project, which involved us delivering educational workshops. As the name suggests, these workshops focused on giving Housing-related legal advice for residents. For this initiative, we worked with Citizens UK and solicitors from Hodge Jones & Allen. One of the solicitors remarked to us that they believe that Haringey is an “untapped market” for them to offer Housing-related legal advice, given the demographics of this area. As this is a pilot initiative, the conservative workshop numbers meant that we were able to deliver tight-knit interactive sessions. We were able to keep the workshops informal, and cater to the many specific questions posed by the participants. Hopefully, next iterations of the project will see an increase in turnout numbers, but this will also mean that the structure of the workshop has to adjust accordingly.

There were 8 of us, UCL law students, involved in this project. We split into two teams of 4. My team consisted of Sanjit, Diya, Sara and myself. Our first workshop was on Tenancy Rights and Responsibilities, and our second workshop was on Homelessness, Temporary Accommodation and Allocation, both conducted at St Mary’s Priory Catholic School.

My general takeaway from the project is observing how competing objectives in law play out in real life cases. Policymakers often have to impute certain sanctions and limitations to prevent abuse of the system, whilst still ensuring that the individual cases are treated equally and fairly.

The project gave rise to as many questions as there are solutions. Where do you draw the line between a need and want, and balance competing priorities? Will you consider that a disabled person who is immobile will be unable to live in a house without stairs? Or will you simply classify it as a grave inconvenience but not amounting to inability, if that particular disabled person has a carer? What if there is no stair-less temporary accommodation available, and the only alternative is homelessness? In reality, the defining line between needs and wants is rarely clear, and many compromises have to be made.

One way the Council has addressed this dilemma is through its Allocations Policy. In Haringey, Council Housing Applicants are ranked from Band A to C, with those being of immediate and critical need being placed in Band A, and those of moderate need in Band C.  Most applicants will be placed in Band B, which caters to those of a serious need, and this includes the real life case of a disabled husband and his carer wife. It is important to note that, given the severely burdened Allocations system and the limited supply of Council housing, this means that the Council’s noble aims are rarely fulfilled to its entirety. For example, in both 2014/2015 and 2015/2016, no Haringey applicants placed in Band C succeeded in securing permanent Council Housing.

It is tough not to be emotionally stirred by some of the heart wrenching stories, but that sentiment has to be tempered with a perspective for the bigger picture. Often, there may be people out there whom are in even more severe need, and are in more critical circumstances. A Common complaint lodged by the Haringey residents during our focus group was that, no matter how much time they dedicate to bidding for their Housing, there will always be “someone who swoops in at the last-minute, who is more needy than them” (quoting a resident). Over time, this degenerates into a vicious cycle of desperation and resignation. A common sentiment is also that the bidding system is more competitive than ever before, and that a decade ago it was relatively easy to secure Council housing- a revealing sign of the growing housing crisis in London. Rent affordability problems that the City faces has placed unprecedented demands upon state institutions, to provide for the increasing numbers of Londoners that have fallen through the cracks.

Despite systemic inadequacies, I am nevertheless relieved by the fact that the UK’s welfare system seeks to help the most destitute. I am glad that Pro Bono initiatives like ours are able to offer assistance to those in desperate need of legal advice on their housing arrangements.

‘Reflecting On My Experience As A Grassroots Project Volunteer’, written by Ila Tyagi

RoseIreland10 April 2017

In this blog post Ila Tyagi, an LLM student at UCL, reflects on her experience volunteering for the Grassroots Human Rights Project and how the education system in the UK compares to the education system in her home country, India.

When I first entered the state school in Eastlea, I couldn’t believe the kind of amenities and infrastructure a publicly funded school in UK could afford. Such facilities are not available even in some of the wealthier schools in India. We were required to pose for a photo-id for record keeping purposes. But much before that was a thoroughly conducted Disclosure Barring Services Check to ensure that the volunteers did not have a criminal record or a history of violence towards children. To conduct such procedural formalities for ensuring the safety of children was very impressive to me.

While undergoing the training for the Grassroots Human Rights Project, we were told to encourage participatory learning. This meant that we were required to assist the children in coming up their own answers and gently guide them towards the correct answer. The fact that we were not allowed to be dismissive or critical was remarkable to me. This progressive and inclusive approach helps to ensure that little or no harm is inflicted upon a child’s mental well-being and self-esteem during his/her formative years. These formative years are crucial in shaping who the child becomes as an adult and as such it is important to acknowledge that shaming or berating the child for answering a question incorrectly may adversely impact his/her confidence and estimation of self-worth.

I know that I am stating the obvious but shaming and criticising a child for giving the wrong answer is common across the lower-rung of schools in small-town India (which is to say a majority of schools across India). Some schools even believe in corporal punishment despite it being illegal in India. I remember being slapped for failing to attempt a math problem correctly, and being hit on my knuckles with a wooden ruler just because the teacher felt like hitting every child in the class that day. But to be fair, that was when I was studying in one of the worst schools in a small town in India. I will concede that there are many modern and progressive schools across the bigger cities in India and the government has enacted a law to ban corporal punishment in schools. But the law is poorly implemented especially in the Indian hinterland.

While teaching the children, I found it difficult to engage in a proper discussion of the issues at hand. Perhaps, it was to do with my own inability to assemble too many opinions at one time. It could possibly be attributed to rarely ever being taught like that in school. I admired the skill with which my colleagues could gather different opinions and present a succinct conclusion at the end of their presentation. The students were so impressed with one of my colleagues that they gave her a loud round of applause after she finished presenting.

But what was more surprising and clearly the highlight of my volunteering experience was the ability of these adolescents to engage in a meaningful discussion about human rights. Not only were they able to ask intelligent and rhetorical questions highlighting that there was no real difference between active and passive euthanasia, but they were also able to support their arguments in favour of or against the topic of discussion with sound logic and good reason. For example – when asked whether a murderer should be sentenced to death they counter questioned us by asking what if the murderer was suffering from a mental illnesses, could he not then plead the defence of insanity? To me this was surprising because I did not even know that mental health problems or a defence of insanity existed when I was their age.

Perhaps the students’ critical and analytical reasoning abilities could be attributed to the emphasis placed on the value of an individual’s opinion in the UK. The fact that we were not to disregard a child’s opinion during our training session is illustrative of the importance given to developing an independent opinion in the UK. Indeed, this is what our lecturers talk about when asking us to write essays for our assessment. This is something that I truly struggled with when I first came to study in the UK. It was difficult for me to assemble various pieces of information in my head to present a logical opinion or any opinion at all. May be this can be attributed to a system of teaching in India that suffocates independent thought and analysis. Many schools across India expect us to regurgitate the textbook in the exam without any analysis. At my previous university (which is one of the top universities in India), we were instructed to present a neutral answer in the opinion-based essay questions in order to avoid offending the examiner through our opinions. I think this practice hinders the development of the reasoning skills necessary to deal with the complexities of our professional life. The right to opinion is a necessary underpinning of a democratic society and perhaps the world’s largest democracy could learn something from one of the world’s oldest democracies on this matter.

However, what struck me was that the students were involved in a campaign against Donald Trump for Amnesty International. When asked why they were supporting the campaign, the students answered by saying that it was because he was racist and had no respect for women. I was amazed to see how much these thirteen year olds knew about issues like racism and sexism. I am of the opinion that Indian schools should incorporate raising awareness about racism and sexism in their curriculum considering the attitude of many Indians towards their fellow dark-skinned Indians, the African students studying in India and people from northeastern parts of India. On the issue of respect for women, India has infamously made international headlines for the many instances of sexual violence against women that take place regularly across the country. However, I would like to emphasise that there is a growing class of Indians who respect women and abhor racism but they are in the minority. I truly believe that education is the best way to solve such problems in India.

I believe that if India truly wants to emerge as the superpower it so desires to be then a starting step would be to reform the education system to promote critical reasoning and logical thinking rather than regurgitation because good education aids both personal development of an individual and the collective development of a society. India needs to act big and act soon before her demographic dividend turns into a demographic disaster. Perhaps, India could start by modeling its education system roughly along the lines of the one in UK.

In conclusion, volunteering for the Grassroots Project was an eye-opening experience. It compelled me to question the merits of the education system in my own country. It helped me to analyse my own weaknesses and learn from my colleagues and the students that I was teaching. It prompted me to reflect on my educational experiences and compare them with those of my students. It was a great learning experience for me. Grassroots Human Rights Project was different, refreshing and definitely more worth my while than I was expecting it to be.

To find out more about pro bono opportunities for law students at UCL, please visit the CAJ website.

Volunteering for the Grassroots Human Rights Project, written by Clement Cheung

RoseIreland3 April 2017

Clement Cheung is a first year Law student undertaking the UCL Dual Degree Programme with Hong Kong University. The mandatory Access to Justice placement, organised and overseen by the CAJ, forms an important part of the first year of the programme. Here, Clement talks about his experience volunteering for the Grassroots Human Rights Project.

Perhaps this blog post can begin with how disappointed I was initially, when assigned to the Grassroots Human Rights project. I considered approaching one of the CAJ members to request a switch, but recalling from a seminar that ‘the more I put in to my experience, the more I can get out of it’, I did my best to approach the experience with a positive attitude. Now that I have experienced the full spectrum of tasks involved in the project, I have gained insight into many issues of society and learnt valuable skills. I cannot imagine not having completed this project, and I am grateful that this experience was more meaningful than simply doing research and teaching children, as I first thought it would be.

My journey began with a research task for a new seminar, the ‘Right to be Free from Discrimination’, and I was responsible for the ‘Quotas Debate’ – whether universities should impose quotas to increase the number of state school students admitted. This involved researching laws on positive discrimination/action, the legal status of quotas, and gathering background information about the debate. Having only been in London for a few months, this was a challenging task, as I was unfamiliar with the types of schools in the UK and past news, such as the admissions controversy of the University of Bristol in 2003. Thanks to the internet and Rose’s guidance, I compiled some useful information which was suitable for the lesson plan.

The most meaningful moment of this research task was when Rose prompted me to think about the almost paradoxical wider picture. Financially well off families who can afford to send their children to fee paying schools can receive a higher quality education, and enter prestigious universities. Such qualifications allow for a relatively high income job, and thus can have their children attend fee paying schools too. This cycle repeats itself – those from a disadvantaged background who attend state schools and cannot compete against excellent A-level grades of their fee-paying school counterparts, may be denied a university place and remain relatively disadvantaged. Seeing my research in this light motivated me to plan the lesson well. Bringing up the idea of university and getting young people to think about it is one of the objectives of Grassroots, and is a starting point for improving societies. At this point, I also realised similar education and wealth gap problems are present too in Hong Kong and other Southeast Asian countries, potentially to an even greater extent. While the state and fee paying school distinctions are present too, this is complicated by the wide presence of tuition centres or ‘cram schools’. These are additional classes outside of normal school which teach exam techniques and help students ‘cram’ knowledge. Since many students enrol, those who cannot afford to attend or cannot afford the best tuition centres are at least somewhat disadvantaged from their wealthier peers. These thoughts of tackling the wealth gap encouraged me to deliver this lesson well, and think about what further contributions I can make in the field of education, even after leaving London.

After planning the lesson and attending training sessions, my teammates and I taught the first two seminars to a class of Year 9 students. I felt comfortable with the human rights material I was to present, but I was shocked to find the class uninterested and unresponsive. I adapted quickly by breaking the class into smaller groups and joining each group to discuss broader questions (instead of giving a lecture on human rights history). After the lesson, I felt I failed to bring the slightest positive change to their lives, and even felt somewhat remorseful for not capturing their interest. Despite this moment of disappointment, I learnt important lessons, which prompted me to make changes for the next session. Most importantly, I learnt that how much I know becomes irrelevant if I cannot communicate it to my audience. Part of this requires simplifying technical points and avoiding jargon; the other element involves maintaining their interest.

During the team meeting in preparation for the next teaching session, we made changes to the ‘Right to Life’ and ‘Right to Freedom from Discrimination’ seminar plans to suit our class better. Since they were quiet in whole class discussions but more active in small groups, we planned to spend more time with a volunteer leading discussions in each group. The students also seemed tired and uninterested in the first session, so we selected short videos as introductions to each discussion topic, such as extracts from Terry Pratchett’s documentary on euthanasia. A day before the seminar, Donald Trump made his so called ‘Muslim ban’ executive order, and we decided to discuss this as an introduction to the ‘Right to Freedom from Discrimination’ seminar.

Although the lesson was imperfect again, our changes improved the experience for everyone. The group discussions seemed effective, especially since the topics this session may have been more interesting (death penalty). The students were more active and some discussions became quite passionate and heated! I particularly enjoyed challenging the views of students who seemed certain of their stance, as some had ‘eureka moments’ which gave them more ideas, or left them considering arguments from both sides. After ending each discussion, the students appeared less sure of their response. This made me feel more successful, as I believe my task was to expose them to differing views and teach them to evaluate before coming to their own view – a valuable skill regardless of what they grow up to do.

The video also proved to be excellent introductions to each topic. After discussions of the death penalty, the video was a good transition tool which recaptured their attention while giving time to rest. In the next seminar, articles on Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ made students surprisingly excited for the ‘Right to be Free from Discrimination’! Leading this seminar, I capitalized on their interest by encouraging the students to apply the content, such as the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination, to the executive order. This worked well and I believe the students genuinely enjoyed this part of the lesson and gained something from it.

Unexpectedly, the university ‘quotas debate’ was difficult to execute. I was shocked that the Year 9 students did not know the distinction between state and fee paying schools. They were also unaware of the existence of top universities such as Oxford and Cambridge, and after talking to the students, most have not considered attending university. After the lesson, the teacher explained that around 80% of the students were entitled to free school meals, and many may be the first generation of their family to even graduate from high school. This was the moment which affected me the most – I felt helpless. Education is immensely powerful, and if these young people cannot even afford to think about university, how can they bring changes to their families and communities? On one hand, I could have shared more about my university life and stories to inspire them, but on the other, I think the ‘quotas debate’ was a good starting point for them to think about university, being in Y9 and thinking about GCSEs. I feel we planted the seed which will hopefully grow in the future, but it is a process that unfortunately none of us can accelerate.

If I were to repeat the placement, I would be more of a friend than a teacher. The students have many teachers, but may have lacked a role model they could be inspired by. Regrettably, I focussed too much on delivering content and teaching them, and missed chances to connect with them on a personal and emotional level. The teacher noted it often takes time for students to trust a ‘guest teacher’, but I could have tried to learn names and make sessions more informal. I also followed seminar plans too rigidly, and should have used them as guidelines instead. To improve experiences for everyone, I wrote some brief notes and comments to the next volunteer group which should help them with their planning – I feel continuity by communicating like this will help in the future.

These lessons I learnt will be useful for my future and are transferrable skills. As mentioned, I have learnt to communicate effectively, and there is no better audience for practicing this than a class of impatient young people going through puberty! Even outside the classroom, I can use analogies, anecdotes, and current affairs to communicate a message effectively. This is likely to be helpful when working as a lawyer for example, as I might need to explain complex law in a way ordinary people would understand.

The Grassroots Human Rights project was a truly valuable experience, and I now see far more meaning in it than simply teaching children. I plan to participate in this again next year to improve the experiences of students, and to learn more life lessons in the classroom.

Volunteering with the City of London Criminal Appeals Clinic, written by Nora Wannagat

RoseIreland16 December 2016

Nora Wannagat is an LLM student at UCL that previously completed a BA in Jurisprudence with Law Studies in Europe at the University of Oxford. In this post, she summarises her experience volunteering for a new project at UCL CAJ this year – the City of London Criminal Appeals Clinic.

The City of London Criminal Appeals Clinic is a new pro bono project set up to help those convicted of criminal offences bring their cases to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and, eventually, to the Court of Appeal. Several London universities are involved. At UCL, two teams of students each started working on one case in October, under the supervision of a criminal solicitor. Both of these cases have long and complicated histories (being over ten years old), and naturally a lot of material has been accumulated. Essentially, we have been trying to bring this material into a useful form for submission to the CCRC.

For my team, this involved taking document bundles of roughly 5,000 pages in total, making charts describing the documents and their location in each bundle (some of which contained over a hundred witness statements), writing a chronology as well as a dramatis personae, summarising information on certain pieces of evidence and researching relevant legal points.

As to the cases, both are concerned with very serious offences. My team has been working on a case involving several murders and robberies. Certain aspects of the investigation, as well as the conduct of the client’s initial solicitors, presented significant problems. There were issues with some of the most important pieces of evidence, one having gone completely missing from the police station, making it impossible to examine it any further. The client’s first solicitors drew up defence statements without ever consulting with him, and have, apparently in an effort to appear “street smart”, made mistakes that go far beyond merely unprofessional conduct.

Through this project, we have gained rare insights into the workings of the criminal justice system in practice, and we very much hope that our work, the final results of which we are scheduled to submit in January, will be a good basis for the CCRC and the Court of Appeal to review the many troubling aspects of the case.

For more information about pro bono opportunities at UCL, please visit the UCL CAJ website.

Working with MIFUMI to abolish the bride price in Uganda, written by Sarah Kulubya

RoseIreland14 December 2016

Sarah Waliwo Kagale Kulubya, a first year LLB student at UCL, writes about her experience volunteering with MIFUMI – a women-led organisation based in Uganda that seeks to end domestic violence.

Indigenous customary law defines some social and domestic arrangements, namely marriage, in certain Ugandan tribes.[1] However, the rules of customary law perpetuate inequality in relationships between men and women. Women are severely dependent on their husbands; as a result, domestic violence and fear undermine the security and love that most young women seek in a marriage. In 2007, the MIFUMI organisation, an NGO that works to end domestic violence in Uganda, filed a petition in the Ugandan Constitutional Court to abolish the bride price, the price paid, in cattle, goats or money, by the groom to the bride’s parents in return for her hand in marriage.

One of the most abhorrent relics of the customary union is domestic violence. When one thinks of goods on the supermarket shelves they normally think of Cereal, Milk or Bread. In my native Uganda, women in customary unions were seen as goods on the shelves. They are valued like items in a supermarket, their value is based on their level of schooling, manners or housekeeping skills. This occurs because women are seen as objects in shops who can be easily bought and returned for the dowry the husband made for his wife. If the marriage is dissolved the man may ask for refund of his payment. This commercialisation of marriage dissuades women who feel trapped in abusive marriages from filing for divorce.

Last Summer, I came across a startling statistic by the MIFUMI organisation: “68% of women in Uganda have faced some form of domestic violence”. At the time I was looking for material for my Legal minds radio programme and I decided to provide an in-depth coverage of the MIFUMI organisation’s petition. Sections of my interactions and work for MIFUMI were serialised in Monitor Newspaper and on 99.3 Kfm in attempt to raise awareness of domestic violence to young adults. Successfully conducting the first-ever radio debate between Ladislaus Rwakafuuzi, a human rights lawyer, who represented MIFUMI and Principal State Attorney, Ms. Sarah Naigaga, allowed me to highlight the nuances of the legal arguments and the dichotomy between the civil liberties and the abolition of the bride price.

Prior to working with the MIFUMI organisation as their volunteer media affiliate I was unaware of the impact that customary unions had on rural women. My Legal Minds segment provided a forum for young and enlightened Ugandans to discuss the legality of the bride price. I achieved this through a series of debates, reports on the court case, interviews with the MIFUMI organisation representatives and Q&A session with the audience. The Supreme Court has outlawed bridge price refund and this has had positive effects: first, most of the beneficiaries of the Supreme Court in Kampala’s decision to outlaw the “bride price” refund have sought divorces and certain poorer families have rebelled against divorces that are based on domestic violence. Second, after hearing my Legal Mind segment, several teenage girls were empowered to stand up to their families about the “haggling” that characterises bride prices and seek refuge in MIFUMI’s domestic violence and advice shelters in Tororo.

I was empowered to hear that some girls were inspired to leave their marriages because they no longer felt the need to protect their poor families from having to refund the “payment” their husband made in return for her hand in marriage. I was also glad to hear the responses from some people who were happy to see greater visibility for an issue that has been largely stifled in the mainstream press. Similarly, the debate I chaired on the bride price ruling inspired several girls to visit the MIFUMI village.

One unexpected challenge I experienced was some of the criticisms and angry callers who were unhappy that I was working to dismantle a centuries old tradition. I learnt that Indigenous Customary law can regulate social relations, but it needs to be reconciled with changing sentiments. In addition, shirking the customary law is not whitewashing our history it is simply upholding civil liberties.

I also learnt that the customs and traditions that define tribal interactions are hard to reverse. MIFUMI is continuing to lobby the Ugandan government to abolish the “bride price” altogether, as many men have continued to seek refunds after the dissolution of marriage and tribal leaders have encouraged their subjects to ignore the supreme court’s ruling. My work with the MIFUMI organisation empowered me to question certain tribal customs that have promoted gender discrimination.

[1] It should be noted that, not all tribes in Uganda adhere to a strict application of the customary laws that define marriage, and there is a clear disparity between the way that customary unions are interpreted in rural areas and cities.

The Impact of LASPO, written by Ila Tyagi

RoseIreland23 November 2016

Ila Tyagi, an LLM student in International Commercial Law at UCL, writes about the impact of LASPO and summarises the findings of a recent Amnesty International report addressing this issue.

The Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) was enacted with the objectives of reducing the government’s expenditure on legal spending during time of large fiscal deficits, providing legal aid to the people who need it most, reducing the cost of the legal aid scheme and providing the tax payer with better value for their money. However, it seems that the government did not fully consider the adverse impact of such drastic measures on vulnerable sections of the society. A recent report by Amnesty International[1] reveals that LASPO negatively impacts poor and other vulnerable people.

Amnesty’s report concludes that LASPO has created a “two-tiered” structure for access to justice in England & Wales. This means that it has moved towards limiting access to justice to those who can afford to pay legal fees. The report also mentions that LASPO has encouraged the formation of “advice deserts”[2] across England & Wales. This claim is well supported by the disappearance of many legal aid offices across the North of England.

LASPO has reduced the number of legal aid grants from 927,000 in 2012 to 497,000 in 2013, thus almost halving the amount of grants in just one year. Legal aid is now unavailable in family context if the applicant cannot show that they have suffered domestic abuse or there is a risk of child abuse.

LASPO also requires some people to represent themselves in court. This can be very daunting for teenagers and other people who have little knowledge about court processes and the law. People are usually unaware about how to properly fill out various sorts of legal forms and where to submit those forms. Therefore, it seems very harsh that they are expected to fully understand legal concepts and argue their case in courts by applying legal precedents. Not only can it be particularly intimidating for a layperson to argue in front of judges against barristers but it can also be very difficult for them to fully comprehend the judge’s elaborate legal reasoning. Representing themselves in court can be a serious challenge for vulnerable groups of people such as immigrants, refugees, teenagers, people with mental health problems and those with learning disabilities. A court case can be an extremely daunting and testing period in one’s life and going through it alone can feel very alienating and disheartening. It seems terribly unjust if a vulnerable person were to lose their case just because they did not have the legal knowledge or skills to fully understand the technicalities of the law that applies to their case.

Thus, LASPO creates an unfair legal system where access to justice is limited to those who can afford it. This does not fit well with the principles of a democratic society based on values such as equality. The government’s safety net program to grant legal aid to exceptionally vulnerable people is riddled with loopholes and is inadequate to satisfy the demands of all the people who could fall into that category.

The Amnesty Report proposes many solutions to the on-going legal aid crisis. A few of them are[3]:

  • It suggests that children and other young people should have access to legal aid irrespective of the legal issue at hand.
  • It also requests the government to provide better legal education so that individuals can understand and claim their rights effectively.
  • It asks the government to provide free legal advice to all cases of immigration where a significant human rights concern has been raised.
  • It demands that government conduct a review of LASPO immediately.

The government has promised to undertake a full-scale review of LASPO in 2018. However, this seems like a long time to wait for much needed reform.

[1] Amnesty International, “Cuts That Hurt: The Impact of Legal Aid Cuts in England on Access to Justice”, 2016, EUR 45/4936/2016, Pg 36 https://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/aiuk_legal_aid_report.pdf

[2] Ibid Pg 21

[3] Ibid Pg 47