Speaker(s)

Tristan Cummings is the Baker-Fellingham College Assistant Professor at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge. Previously, he worked as a Stipendiary Lecturer at Merton College, Oxford where he is also a PhD researcher in law. His current research focuses on the intersection of family law, human rights law and religious freedom with a particular interest in the regulation of religious family law through a systems theoretical and reflexive law model. In his presentation, Dr Cummings will discuss the following: At the root of religion, argues Hugo Rahner, is the metaphor of play. The relationship between play and religion runs deeply. David Miller reasons that play refers to a ‘mode of consciousness’, not (just) to a certain behaviour; play alludes to a ‘profound reality’. This presentation seeks to elucidate some of the connections between the right to play and the child’s right to religion, Article 14 UNCRC. Play is both an activity, connecting the child with others, and an attitude that transcends reality. Building on my forthcoming chapter in Naomi Lott's edited collection, this presentation draws together some of the interrelationships between play and religion as rights from a child-centred perspective to argue that a proper understanding of Article 14 UNCRC must make room for play.

Speaker(s)

Ian Brownhill is a renowned advocate from 39 Essex Chambers and one of the country’s leading specialists in mental capacity and medical treatment. Outside of his expertise in the Court of Protection, Mr Brownhill advises and acts in safeguarding cases in respect of both adults and children. Mr Brownhill has provided an overview of his discussion: In respect of voluntary stopping eating and drinking, the law of England and Wales appears clear: if a patient has the capacity to make decisions as to whether to take food and drink, he is entitled to starve himself to death if he so chooses (as per Baker J in the Dr A case). This presentation will focus on tensions between the principles of autonomy and respecting life: How can the law differentiate between a patient on hunger strike due to a political belief or one experiencing a delusional disorder? What does the law do when a patient refuses, or is unable, to explain their reason for stopping eating and drinking? All patients will, at some stage, lose the mental capacity to make decisions as to their hydration and nutrition before their death. Does the Mental Capacity Act 2005 sufficiently protect the patient’s entitlement to starve themselves?

Speaker(s)

Professor Hitchings is a Professor of Family Law at the University of Bristol Law School. Her main research and teaching interests lie in the field of family law and family justice, in particular financial remedies on divorce. Professor Hitchings will be presenting her current work, leading the ‘Fair Shares on Divorce’ research project funded by the Nuffield Foundation. Professor Hitchings has provided the following overview: In England and Wales, the 100,000 couples divorcing annually do so within a legal system which confers wide powers and broad discretion on the courts to allocate money and property between them regardless of prior ownership. Until now, the evidence base on arrangements made within the formal legal context has been poor. For the two-thirds of divorcing couples not using the legal system to reach a financial settlement, the nature of any arrangements made is undocumented. For those using the legal system, most of the reported case law involves couples with significant wealth, far from typical of the divorcing population. The 'Fair Shares' research project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, is the first nationally representative study in England and Wales of the financial and property arrangements that people make when they divorce. Using data collected from the project (including a survey from over 2,400 divorcees divorced in the past 5 years), this paper will provide an overview of some of the project's key findings, exploring how the current law regarding financial and property division on divorce works in practice for the entire divorcing population and provides recommendations to inform debate about what legal and procedural changes may be required.