Public pressure to change laws - is it effective and is it necessary?
The actions and campaigning of individuals for legal change and increased public awareness can be crucial. Individuals have campaigned for changes such as the right to a second opinion to protect vulnerable people in hospital, the ‘right to know’ to ensure parents can receive necessary information about those who have access to their children, and the police to have a duty to disclose information about an abusive or violent partner.
Sarah's Law
Sarah’s Law, otherwise known as The Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, allows parents to contact the police to find out whether someone who has contact with their child has been convicted or is suspected of child abuse.
This duty was introduced as a result of the campaigning of Sara and Michael Payne whose daughter Sarah was sadly killed by a convicted sex offender. Sara and Michael consider that their daughter would still be alive if they were aware of the history of her killer. Although not the result of a formal pressure group, the resolute campaigning of Sara and Michael was crucial for the introduction of the Child Offender Disclosure Scheme which now places an obligation of disclosure on the police where a parent or someone close to a child has raised concerns.
The tragedy Sarah and Michael Payne suffered will never be forgotten, but thanks to their drive to prevent a repetition their campaigning has been instrumental in the protection of children in the future.
Clare's Law
The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme was named after Clare Wood who was murdered by her abusive ex-boyfriend in 2009. The inquest into Clare’s death showed that there was a loophole in the Data Protection Act which prevented the police from sharing information about an individual’s abusive or violent past.¹ Clare’s father Michael Brown was adamant that Clare would not have lost her life if she had been aware of her ex-partner’s abusive and violent past. As a result, Michael campaigned relentlessly for 5 years to raise awareness about what had happened to his daughter and how it could have been prevented. His efforts meant that the police now have a duty to disclose and actively inform people of their partner’s criminal records and relevant past convictions as the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme was formally introduced in 2014.
Furthermore, under Clare’s law the duty of disclosure is referred to as the ‘right to know’ and the ‘right to ask’. The ‘right to ask’ means that you have the right to ask the police about someone of concern as long as you are over 16. The ‘right to know’ means that if police checks show that the person of concern has a record of abusive or violent behaviour, they have a duty to share that information. (It is important to note that any information disclosed is confidential and sharing the information with anyone else could result in criminal or civil proceedings.) Clare’s Law was introduced to formally give people the ‘right to find out’ and to help prevent individuals suffering at the hands of an abusive or violent partner.
Clare’s Law didn’t introduce any new legislation, but it reformed the way in which information relating to domestic abuse is handled and disclosed and provided a framework to ensure that individuals are informed about their partner’s history where they have raised concerns.
Martha's Rule
Martha’s Rule aims to ensure that parents have the right and access to a second opinion where they feel their concerns are being dismissed, or where the health of the patient is rapidly deteriorating. Martha sadly died in King’s College Hospital in South London because of complications following her admission to hospital with a pancreatic injury due to falling off a bike. Her parents have explained that whilst her injuries were difficult it certainly should not have been fatal, and had they been permitted a second opinion from another senior doctor the true nature of the severe sepsis would likely have been discovered earlier. Concerningly, the inquest concluded that Martha would have survived if her care had been better. This certainly demonstrates the necessity for Martha’s Rule, and the tragic preventability of her fight with sepsis.
Martha’s parents campaigned tirelessly to raise awareness of what happened to their daughter. Martha’s mother Merope explained that she was not listened to by senior doctors which meant that they were not given the full picture and left unable to speak up to ensure she received sufficient treatment. The aim behind Martha’s Rule, as explained by Merope, would be ‘to effectively formalise the idea of asking for a second opinion, from a different team outside the team, currently looking after you if you feel your concerns are not being listened to’.² This rule is now being implemented by hospitals nationwide, with the aim of setting up a 24-hour urgent care helpline where patients and their families are able to raise concerns and request a second opinion quickly.
² Martha’s rule: Call for right to second opinion after tragic teen death – BBC News (4 September 2023) by Smitha Mundasad
Conclusion
The persistent and determined campaigning of individuals in the above cases was crucial to the legal developments which now aim to protect people in vulnerable situations and attempt to prevent the reoccurrence of the tragedies the parents in these cases experienced. Individuals can invoke legal change and it is certainly positive that public opinion is influential where change is desperately needed.
