Below you can read the editorial of the latest edition of our journal Briefings - also in the attachment together with the table of contents - the whole journal is available here to DLA members only (how to join)
Editorial
Structural barriers and the illusion of equality
Welcome to the July edition of Briefings. This month, we explore the theme of deeply embedded historical inequalities that are often woven into institutional design, creating a self-perpetuating cycle.
Our first article by Elaine Banton provides a searing analysis of how deep-seated attitudes toward women’s health in a male-dominated society have manifested as a form of ‘medical misogyny’. This is particularly acute when dealing with invisible health conditions predominantly suffered by women. Whilst the law courts are only now, haltingly, beginning to recognise the issues, Elaine warns that it remains frustratingly uneven. She advocates for her ‘Equality by Design’ approach, which calls for a proactive overhaul of workplace sickness policies that currently penalise the chronically ill. But Elaine goes even further. Using Personal Independence Payments (PIP) as a case study for systemic failure, she demonstrates how this same bias infects decision-making in our disability benefit system.
In our next article, ‘Doing Justice to Justice’, Rohini Jana turns the lens on the machinery of the law itself. Picking up the theme of dwindling access to justice from the March Briefings, Rohini reveals a broken civil legal aid system in which funding has effectively stood still for decades. She describes how this has driven out many legal aid providers, carving out vast ‘legal aid deserts’ across the UK. This shortsighted false economy by the government creates a catastrophic knock-on effect on an already clogged judicial system, causing further delays and a near-collapse in case administration. Far from saving money, it merely passes the financial buck further down the line, where ultimately the cost must be absorbed by public services such as the NHS, housing, and the benefits system.
Our final feature examines the Labour government’s landmark Employment Rights Act 2025. Whilst applauding the intention, Sally Robertson and I ask whether this legislation can truly redress the systemic discrimination that women, ethnic minorities, and disabled individuals face in the precarious employment sector. The pervasive nature of this problem is starkly illustrated later in this edition by the report on Alpha Anne v Great Ormond Street Hospital. This case highlights a profound structural failure: how the outsourcing of essential services – such as cleaning, security and catering – actively reinforces race and sex discrimination within corporate and public pay structures. By contracting out workers who are likely to be disadvantaged already, institutions frequently insulate themselves from pay equity. Unfortunately, this is something that the recent employment law reforms completely fail to address.
Following our main features, our casenotes continue to highlight the ongoing, conflicts between religion and belief, women’s rights, and gender identity. Alongside these cultural touchstones, there remains a heavy emphasis on disability and mental health litigation. Fittingly, our news section complements these case accounts with a report from the recent Legal Action Group mental health conference.
The theme of institutional bias is also mirrored in this issue’s book review by Cara Hall. Jo Delahunty KC’s book, ‘We Set the Bar’, is an uncomfortable but necessary text that serves as a stark reminder that our legal profession is far from immune to the structural prejudices we fight in the courts.
So, are we facing an insurmountable gap between paper and practice? On paper, it is easy to argue that the law is moving in the right direction. The ERA 2025 reforms, for instance, introduce crucial advancements, such as granting statutory rights to trade union equality representatives. But rights on paper are meaningless without a genuine commitment from the government, yet the state refuses to prioritise funding for implementation. Nor does it appear to value the professionals who deliver these crucial, frontline services. Perhaps this political apathy reflects a darker, wider societal moral view that blames the victim, and classifies the poor as undeserving of public investment.
The Discrimination Law Association continues to do extraordinary work campaigning, educating, and championing rights across the equality sphere. If you are not already a member, join us today. Help us turn rights on paper into justice in practice.
Lisa Crivello
Editor, Briefings