This report documents the reasons for health justice partnerships, the literature, the methodology, the field research which used a participatory action research approach with a continuous learning and development framework. This Draft Working Paper sets out the summary of qualitative and quantitative data, the findings, conclusions lessons and recommendation emerging from this longitudinal study on the Bendigo Health Justice Partnership, in advance of the Full Final Research and Evaluation Report which will be released in 2017.

ARC Justice (specifically one of its programs, the Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre (LCCLC)) and the Bendigo Community Health Service formed a partnership in 2013 to commence a Health Justice Partnership (HJP) in January 2014 to better reach those clients experiencing disadvantage.

ANU (through the author Dr Liz Curran) was commissioned to conduct empirical research and an evaluation of the pilot project's impact on the social determinants of health, its outcomes and the effectiveness of Health Justice Partnerships in reaching clients who would otherwise not gain legal help with a range of problems capable of a legal solution.

This Draft Working Paper is released, in advance of the Full Final Report, so that agencies, researchers and funders and policy makers developing or working in Health Justice Partnerships or multi-disciplinary practices can benefit and be informed by the research and evaluation given the wide range of issues emerging from the research canvasses while the Full Final Report is finalised.

The Full Final Research & Evaluation Report will be released in 2017 but, in the interim, people using SSRN can utilise the research for their work. This responds to the numerous requests to share the research at the earliest opportunity so as to inform service delivery and funding applications which may occur before the release of the Final Report.

In recent times, Australia’s national security concerns have had controversial impacts on regulation of Australian medical practitioners in areas related to immigration detention. This column explores three recent case studies relevant to this issue. The first involves the enactment of the Australian Border Force Act 2015 (Cth), which has a significant impact on the regulation of medical professionals who work with people in immigration detention. The second involves the decision of the High Court of Australia in Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] HCA 1 that an amendment to Australian federal legislation justified sending children back to immigration detention centres in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. This legislation was previously heavily criticised by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. As a response to that decision, application of the principle of loyalty to the relief of individual patient suffering has guided the decision-making of health professionals who have refused to discharge children from hospitals if that means returning them to offshore immigration detention centres. This legislation was previously heavily criticised by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner. The third case study concerns the deregistration of Tareq Kamleh, an Australian doctor of German-Palestinian heritage who came to public attention on ANZAC Day 2015 with his appearance online in a propaganda video for the Islamic State terrorist organisation al-Dawla al-Islamyia fil Iraq wa'al Sham, also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Daesh. Dr Tareq Kamleh, an Australian, travelled to Syria and joined the Islamic State (IS) a terrorist organisation whose targeted killing of innocent civilians typifies the terror that has contributed to the influx of refugees into Australian and other immigration detention centres. Australia’s Our professional regulatory system should presumptively respect professional virtues, such as loyalty to the relief of individual patient suffering, when dealing with doctors (whether in Australia or ISIS-occupied Syria or Australia) working under regimes whose principles appear inconsistent with those of ethics and human rights.

This seminar/workshop examines innovations such as multi-disciplinary practice, specifically Health Justice Partnerships (HJP) and how they can enhance human rights adherence and protection.

Services are already hard to navigate for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Even where there is no court or tribunal case involved access to legal advice can be critical. It can save mistakes being made, help people understand their rights and responsibilities and according to my research on the impact of HJP's through evidence based field research, such models lead to early intervention and often prevention of problems or their escalation. Fundamental universal human rights such as the right to income support, the right not to experience inhumane or degrading treatment including poor housing, and rights to safety are all aspects that can see vulnerable and disadvantaged people needing legal advice and support.

It is also critical to the Rule of Law. (See author's comments, Chapter 1 (21) ‘Access to Justice’ Global Perspectives on Human Rights (3rd edition, 2015) OHRH, at 22).

This seminar/workshop discusses some of the human rights settings and what HJP can to do help realise rights to health and well being that are effected by the social determinants of health.

It examines some research and findings of the author including the types of lawyers that are critical to successful lawyering and health service support if those programs/services are to be effective in engaging the most vulnerable. The presentation also suggests how HJP might be explored in student clinics and in non government organisations doing work in developing countries which have limited resources and where the reach of HJPs, collaboration and capacity building can be critical. This feeds into Sen's notions of capability and empowerment and the critical importance of systemic work to solve the causes of problems including the alleviation of poverty.

This Panel/Workshop focuses on International Lessons on Health Justice Partnerships. Speakers including Dr Curran were asked to respond in an interactive session to the following headings:

i. Development of HJPs in Australia/USA

ii. Benefits of the model

iii. Evaluation of HJPs funded in Victoria

iv. Commonalities across projects

v. Key messages and lessons from evaluation

The session was held for UKAcademy which has been developed by the UK Collaborative Plan for Pro Bono, with planning support from the Association of Pro Bono Counsel. UKAcademy now comprises ten sessions focused on practical topics of relevance to those managing or developing pro bono in a law firm setting. Information-sharing is a cornerstone of the UK Collaborative Plan for Pro Bono. Members of the Plan have agreed to share data on pro bono activities, they share information on new pro bono opportunities, and they share practical knowledge to help expand their respective pro bono practices. The audience for this event was lawyers and managers employed by law firms who coordinate law firm pro bono programmes. The majority of audience members have a UK base, although joined by some colleagues from the USA.

The event was coordinated by Allen Overy's Pro Bono Manager Hayley Jones.

This presentation will examine the emergence of Health Justice Partnerships (HJP) in Australia and will discuss some of the ethical dilemmas and resolutions of these dilemmas that have emerged during Dr. Curran's action research evaluations. A Health Justice Partnerships (HJP) sees a partnership between a legal assistance (or legal aid) service and health services (including allied health services). Empirical research sees unresolved legal problems lead to poor health outcomes. In Australia and the UK those most likely to have multiple legal problems are the poor and disadvantaged and figures say only 13% - 16 % get help. In HJP the focus is on problem solving for client/patients with often complex and multiple problems and solving these in a holistic way through integrating legal and non-legal services to enable client access and seamless assistance. This presentation will also discuss the ethical issues and how these have been resolved due to the holistic client focus of all the professionals in the HJP examined.

Civil Procedure — Commentary and Materials provides students and practitioners with a comprehensive analysis of the practical and theoretical issues encountered in Australian civil procedure, including alternative dispute resolution. This text combines a wealth of primary and secondary materials from all jurisdictions. The common law is clearly set out, together with extensive practical commentary. Each chapter features in-depth questions and notes together with lists of further reading to aid and extend understanding of the issue. It also examines and discusses each substantive and procedural step in the trial and appeal process.

This sixth edition contains completely revised and updated legislation, Rules of Court, cases and articles.

This report documents the reasons for health justice partnerships, the literature, the methodology, the field research which used a participatory action research approach with a continuous learning and development framework. This Draft Working Paper sets out the summary of qualitative and quantitative data, the findings, conclusions lessons and recommendation emerging from this longitudinal study on the Bendigo Health Justice Partnership, in advance of the Full Final Research and Evaluation Report which will be released in 2017.

ARC Justice (specifically one of its programs, the Loddon Campaspe Community Legal Centre (LCCLC)) and the Bendigo Community Health Service formed a partnership in 2013 to commence a Health Justice Partnership (HJP) in January 2014 to better reach those clients experiencing disadvantage.

ANU (through the author Dr Liz Curran) was commissioned to conduct empirical research and an evaluation of the pilot project's impact on the social determinants of health, its outcomes and the effectiveness of Health Justice Partnerships in reaching clients who would otherwise not gain legal help with a range of problems capable of a legal solution.

This Draft Working Paper is released, in advance of the Full Final Report, so that agencies, researchers and funders and policy makers developing or working in Health Justice Partnerships or multi-disciplinary practices can benefit and be informed by the research and evaluation given the wide range of issues emerging from the research canvasses while the Full Final Report is finalised.

The Full Final Research & Evaluation Report will be released in 2017 but, in the interim, people using SSRN can utilise the research for their work. This responds to the numerous requests to share the research at the earliest opportunity so as to inform service delivery and funding applications which may occur before the release of the Final Report.

The Bendigo HJP Research and Evaluation (HJPRAE) was undertaken over three years with an evaluative process embedded in the service from service start-up. At the time it was challenging research as it examines impact and grappled with the internationally renowned challenge of measuring the social determinants of health.

Qualitative and quantitative data have been collected using multiple tools and specific questions.

Findings: 1. The clients of the HJP are complex and more often than not have more than one legal problem and a multitude of other health and social welfare problems. They often feel judged and lack trust in services. They will seek help when they feel they are not judged, where they are respected and where there is service responsiveness. Appointments are problematic – time and place can be critical to engagement, especially for people who have experiences of trauma or negative previous experiences of the legal system. 2. During its life, the Bendigo HJP has provided a significant amount of legal service to clients on a range of matters, often where one client has a significant number of legal issues. The clients’ lives are complicated and building trust takes time. Given the project has only one lawyer co-located at the HJP, the number of clients and client problems tackled is significant in view of the limited staff, funding and resources. 3. The Bendigo HJP is reaching clients who would otherwise not have sought legal help. The role of their trusted health or allied health professional in facilitating that reach has been overwhelmingly critical – 90% of clients interviewed in the HJPRAE said that without the HJP they would not have sought legal help. 4. Clients who have multiple and complex problems reported they were anxious and frightened as they did not know their rights/position. They reported this impacted on their health and wellbeing. The effectiveness and quality of the HJP service and its impact as reported by health/allied health professionals delivered the following relevant responses: • confidence in engaging with services in clients to have increased by 90.9% • knowledge of rights and responsibilities in clients to have increased by 72.7% • knowledge of options and more skilled over time in clients to have increased by 90.9%. 5. The capacity of professionals, due to the HJP, to respond to legal issues with confidence has increased; that is, they have become ‘empowered’.

General Application to Other Replicable Models of HJP Clients turn to ‘trusted’ health/allied health professionals but may not turn to lawyers without the facilitation and transferral of trust. Some clients will not turn to a lawyer as they are not emotionally ready (e.g., due to trauma, fragility, fear) and so the health/allied health professional that they trust becomes an important intermediary for them to gain legal help and information at salient times. A service which is a HJP needs to be ‘opportunistic’ in taking advantage of clients’ health appointments to provide legal assistance – due to complexities of their lives and confusion, lack of confidence and being overwhelmed etc. The capacity of professionals, both lawyers and non-lawyers, as well as client service staff, is key/critical to being able to support clients in a timely way, when in crisis or ready for help. Legal Secondary Consultations (LSCs) ‘are pivotal’; ‘it would not work if we did not have LSCs’. A significant majority of research participants noted that the LSC enables quick, efficient and targeted building of knowledge which can ‘save time’ in the long run. The type of lawyer used has been critical to the success of the Bendigo HJP and should be considered when hiring and recruiting staff. Lawyers can’t ‘just sit in their office’ but need to interact, integrate, not be ‘too stuffy’ or ‘too hierarchical’, ‘avoid jargon’ and show ‘respect’. The type of person used in the role is key to the HJP’s success. Trust and relationships take time to demonstrate an impact and their effectiveness as they are predicated on relationships, human experience, confidence and positive interactions and cannot be driven by a ‘top down’ approach.

This article discusses the ways in which International Humanitarian Law (IHL) applies to the domain of outer space. IHL is applicable as a matter of international law, yet outer space poses some challenges when it comes to specific principles and rules. A brief outline is given of some of the kinds of weapons that have been and might be used in space, as well as the ways in which space assets are used with respect to conflicts on Earth. This is followed by an in depth analysis of the core principles of IHL and how they apply: the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution in attack. While it is imperative that States recognise that IHL is applicable to all their activities in space that involve conflicts on Earth and/or in space, care must be taken in weighing up the traditional principles and their application to this new domain. As the technology that increases war-fighting capability advances, so does the imperative to understand the applicable legal framework for the use of such technology.