Graduation Speech -- Graduation Speech, Commencement Address

Ladies, gentlemen, parents, friends, family, staff, fellow students: Instead of taking up more time and reading my speech, it is available to you at http://www.olen’s_speech.com. Thank you. No, just kidding. But seriously folks... Today we are gathered here to celebrate our graduation from 12 long years of schooling. The education granted to us has been a privilege. One so graciously given to us by the citizens of our state, by our community, and by our parents. Today would not be possible without them. So far this evening we have looked back over the many past memories of our school years, remembering the good times and the bad, talking about the fun times, and so on. Now I would like to bring your focus to the present, and make a challenge for us for the future. The ceremony tonight is a very old and traditional one. In past, such a graduation meant not only the completion of a school career, but also a step into adulthood, into society, into the world. With this came many duties and responsibilities. This still applies to today. I’m sure many of you have heard the â€Å"going into the real world† speech as often quoted at high school graduations. You know, the one outlining the responsibilities of living on your own: cooking your own meals, balancing a checkbook, doing your own laundry, etc. Those are all well and good, but I’m talking about something a little different — responsibilities which go beyond those — the duties and rights of citizenship. Most of you are 18 already, or will be very soon, this is the age at which we can vote. As full citizens, it is now our right, and one which we should not let pass by. Our country is founded upon a democracy, and all democracies have one integral part: power b... ...hould in the future suffer what they did — to save freedom by bloodshed. We owe it to them to prevent wars, and to know, to understand, to teach, and to learn from our neighbors around the world, so that we might learn to live in peace. I am saying all of this tonight as a challenge to us as we venture forth this day. It is tempting for us as graduating seniors to treat this moment as one of reveling in our independence from high school. But this night is not just for the moment; it is also for our futures to look back to. Let’s celebrate the new privilege and responsibility which will be given to us as the class of the new millennium: to make it better than the past. For we should all be concerned with the future, because that is where we will all spend the rest of our lives. Thank you, everyone. And the best of luck to the future of the Class of 2006!

Change and Culture Essay

To adjust to greater competition and pressures of obtaining increased organizational efficiency and cost containment, many organizations have begun to examine strategies related to restructuring and downsizing to maintain organizational viability. These processes have included mergers and acquisitions, and redefining occupational roles of workers within the organization. Consequently, successful management of the structural change process can be daunting and overwhelming if not handled in an organized and thoughtful process. Those who are responsible for the process must recognize the barrier that may be hindrances to conception and implementation of the change process These barriers include: (a) lack of concise and coordinated planning/goals, (b) resistance to change within the organizational workforce, (c) failure to consistently evaluate the progress of the proposed change within context of the entire system, and adjust methodology as necessary. Thus, in order to achieve a balance between achieving organizational goals and addressing the uncertainty that may occur in the workforce, organizational leaders are tasked with the responsibilities of finding creative means to facilitate the mandated objectives while at the same time finding vehicles to maintain adequate levels of employee satisfaction and productivity in order to facilitate the ability to service their respective consumer base. It is the purpose of this paper to re-examine the fictional organization created in the week number four Culture Case Study I, and determine the means to facilitate a redesign in workforce brought on by a mandated reduction in work force. This paper will examine the concept of the universal worker as part of the proposed redesign, with further evaluation of the communications and organizational process that will have to be implemented in order to facilitate successful achievement of administrative goals and employee adoption of their new roles. Case Study In an attempt to achieve increased cost containment, six months after the merger of Charles Drew and Florence Nightingale Hospitals, the managerial hierarchy has proposed a significant reduction in workforce. Subsequently, a decision was made that the best way to facilitate continued safe patient care was to redesign the patient care delivery workforce. As recommended by the administration, the initial proposal for redesign was that of the universal worker. As understood, the paradigm of the universal worker would allow remaining employees to be cross trained in different job duties; thus, allowing more flexibility in staffing and personnel assignments (web. Answers. com, 2011). Through examination and implementation of the concepts of the universal worker, along with consideration of other strategies, the thought is that assigning additional duties to remaining personnel would allow continued adequate delivery of many support services. Past experiences in attempt to implement this type of change has proven to be met with resistance by personnel, and difficult to implement when introduced at other organizations; nevertheless, the administration has charged the mid-level management team with successful achievement of the proposed redesign in order to meet organizational objectives. The Change Process When beginning the process of job redesign within this organization, it will be important for those who are responsible for implementation of the change to understand the overall mission and goals of the organization and the global ramification of the change within the institution. It will be important to understand that a change in one area can have either a positive or negative impact on other areas within the organization (Leadership and Motivational Training, 2012). Thus, in viewing the potential upheaval that a reduction in workforce can create, and the subsequent potential for feelings of job insecurity that may be experienced by the remaining workforce, it will be important to allay these fears and allow enhanced empowerment of employees being affected by this process. This can be facilitated through inclusion of employees in the redesign process (i. e. implementation of work teams) and establishment of clear channels of communication within the system. Managing this process of job redesign and change can be successfully implemented through the initiation of a defined process to guide the change and an assigned change leadership team (Resnick, 2012). Through this process not only will the affected employees be allowed to have input to the process that will affect the their individual stake in the organization, they will also have the opportunity to implement substantial and lasting change for the overall system and the culture of then organization. As described by Peter Senge in his postulates regarding organizational culture, this inclusion, empowerment and open communication among those in leadership and front-line employees will work to facilitate what he described as the learning organization and systems thinking (Smith, 2001). Inclusion of work teams into the change process, and the subsequent implementation of the cross training of employees into various departmental roles, the concept of the universal worker among the care provision staff will allow the reshaping of the organization into one that has the flexibility to adapt to the rapid change that may be incurred, and foster an atmosphere of collegiality – where people are continually learning to see the whole together (Smith, 2001). Measuring Processes and Expectations Post Redesign  Once the redesign process has been completed it will be very important to implement measures to review the process of performance and if the predetermined goals of the change are being met. Since employees will potentially be relied on to increase performance and acquire additional employment duties, it will be important to examine how the implementation of change will impact employee satisfaction. It can be said that if an organization can meet the need for a satisfying work environment, then the employee will have a greater propensity to be more motivated and productive. As a consequence the satisfaction will have a greater correlation to improved outcomes and patient satisfaction. Examination of outcomes can be achieved through the â€Å"utilization of the creation of a balanced scoreboard-or dashboard- of the key internal and external measures that provide a comprehensive view of the organizations performance, with as much insight as possible regarding the implication of the change for the future† (Resnick, 2012). Examples of these tools could include utilization of employee satisfaction surveys, provision of strategically placed employee eedback boxes to solicit employee input to parameters for ongoing improvement, and implementation of employee councils to examine how to best meet the needs for improving overall workplace satisfaction and employee morale. With completion of the tools for review of performance, the organization will have a balanced understanding as to how the implementation of the job redesign has impacted organizational goals and desired outcomes -i. e. decreased attrition rates of employees, decreased sick leave utilized, increased patient safety and patient satisfaction scores – (Ugboro, 2006) . Creation of a Learning Organization As the paradigm begins to change in the organization, and implementation of change becomes manifest within the organization, it will be important to foster structures that will provide for a cohesive and well-rounded workforce. As a result, it will be important that all employees have a thorough understanding of what is meant by a learning organization, and how this concept will be imperative e to the ongoing success of current and future change. As described by Peter Senge, the learning organization can be viewed as a structural environment in which the employee is empowered to create the outcomes that they truly desire. In this type of environment, the employee is allowed the room of creativity to redefine not only themselves within their organizational role, but also the organization itself. This paradigm shift differs from the previous downstream constricted organizational structures in that it moves the process for acquiring new organizational traits and skills from learning a means of survival to one that embraces learning that enhances the capacity to create and innovate (Smith, 2001). As such, this paradigm allows progress of the employee to have a greater role in obtaining self-actualization through growth of objectively understanding how change and the end-results of proposed change will affect the organization and the system as a whole. Additionally, it changes the view of management from one of overseer, to one of fostering learning opportunities and helping employees develop systemic understanding (Smith, 2001). In relation to the mandated job restructuring that will take place within this merged organization this change will be facilitated through the creation of interdisciplinary teams of care providers that will comprise the teams that will be responsible for the redesign of the care delivery model. In context of the proposed reduction of staff, it can be assumed that the employees affected by the ensuing change will be instrumental in facilitating this change if allowed to be part of the redesign of priorities and duties. Consequently, with each group bringing their individual and collective spheres of knowledge, there will facilitation of the exchange of ideas, expansion of personal mastery, enhancement of mental models, and a building of a shared vision. All of which are characteristic of the described learning organization. In this case, enactment of the concept to the universal worker will require cross training of employees into potentially new areas of responsibility, or areas in which personal mastery has not been achieved. As such, training can be perceived by employees as a measure of the organizations commitment to them. Subsequently, training is one of the most powerful vehicles for an organization to create change. As stated by Resnick (2012), â€Å"First, it builds alignment to the desired change. Second, it provides individuals with the knowledge and skills to implement the change. Third, it creates the opportunity for cross-functional communication in the implementation of company-wide initiatives†. As this process evolves, management can ensure that continual educational opportunities exist for employees to grow technically and professionally in their respective duties. As these opportunities are allowed, evaluation of individual mastery should be evaluated and opportunities for individual employees to become mentors or resources for fellow employees should be encouraged. By facilitation of this process of collaborative self-management, satisfaction within the process will be enhanced and peer-to-peer sharing can take place. This will allow greater cohesiveness among the teams and a greater sense of inclusion among all team members. As stated by Smith (2001), â€Å"when teams learn together, not only can there be good results for the organization, members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise†. Measurement of Individual Satisfaction Measurement of individual employee satisfaction can be facilitated through many means. Standard traditional measurement tools could include employee surveys, employee feedback solicitation, and input gained during annual performance reviews. Although these means may allow the management team to gain greater insight to employee satisfaction with change, they are primarily founded in anecdotal response, and may be difficult of quantify. Thus, alternative measurements of satisfaction can be employed. These include monitoring of employee retention rates, review of utilization unscheduled employee leave, and patient provided satisfaction surveys. As indicated by Plowman (2009), â€Å"many studies suggest that the cost of turnover is on-and-a-half times an employee’s salary, when considering recruitment, selection, and training costs. Therefore, to monetarily measure the impacts of reduced turnover, one can calculate the expected cost of replacing employees who chose not to leave as a result of increased employee satisfaction†. Furthermore, enhanced patient satisfaction and outcomes may have a direct correlation to enhanced satisfaction in that increased individual productivity may be a sign of an employee who has taken ownership of his or her role in relation to change. Conclusion In today’s environment of organizational change, and redefining of traditional job functions and roles, it is imperative to create new paradigms within the organizational structure. Along with the changing responsibilities for employees, management must provide the means to promote atmospheres of renewed learning and assist the empowerment of employees in actualizing the larger systemic needs of the organization, and their role in the facilitation of making lasting change. Successful implementation of these concepts, along with meeting the needs for maintaining employee fulfillment and satisfaction will be essential for the economic longevity of all business organizations that provide essential services to the public. Change and Culture Essay When two companies merge, upper management has many decisions to make about the organization, from what the mission statement will be, to what type of goals they have in mind to how many employees will be necessary to accomplish the goals. In the beginning, it is important to blend the two cultures and create the new organization. Six months after the merger of Cypress Creek Hospital and Clovis Community hospital, it was important to determine if the goals are met or if changes need to be made. In the instance of the organization from the first case study, it was decided that further change had to be made. To make the desired changes, administration has decided to reduce the current workforce significantly and to change how patients are tended to. Because the change is so detailed, the administration has recommended that a new position of a universal worker be created. The term â€Å"universal worker† generally refers to a person who is trained in multiple positions in the workplace and therefore has a little more assignments flexibility. Universal workers are often used in call centers and hospitals to alleviate staff shortages and provide better service without the difficulties of processing so many referrals or dealing with call transfers (webAnswers. com2013). It is imperative that in the role of universal worker, ways are found to redesign the current set up of the organization and make the necessary changes within the organization to meet the needs of the administration. Historically, organizations were set up where each person had a set task. When an organization incorporates universal workers in the workplace, it creates an environment in which few do a variety of tasks. In health care, this means that patients deal with fewer faces, and get used to their caregivers. For the organization, it means that a staff that can perform different roles and are even more valuable than they would be in traditional roles. Process of Redesigning Because the organization has decided that patients care delivery needs to be redesigned, it must be determined how to begin that process. The first thing that must be taken into account is that change in an organization often disrupts operation. In the instance were significant changes will be made in the size of the staff, adding more change typically will not be received well in the beginning. It is very important to plan accordingly so that productivity is not affected for a long time. One way to accomplish this is to make changes with staff involvement. If staff is allowed to give ideas and be part of the changes, it will fill their needs for learning, change, and variety. One way to do this is create different committees so that staff could be part of an even smaller team and be able to express their ideas and contribute to the change. Encouraging staff participation in planning how change is to take place, and the timing of that change appeals to the need for control that people innately have. â€Å"Organizations that regularly assess the person-job fit of their employees may in turn, experience important benefits from these healthy, thriving and motivated employees who individually redesign their own jobs if necessary† (Tims, 2010). Redesigning in this way, by allowing staff to assist in it, allows the organization to go from being a series of smaller fragmented parts to being a group of fewer parts that function well together. In creating universal workers, the new management needs to go among the staff and see what each employee excels in and in what areas need further training if necessary. Management needs to get an idea of what the pulse is within the organization, have an idea of who is good at what, what jobs are not as necessary, what can be consolidated, what new positions need to be added and feel confident in his or her decisions so that the job redesign can be put into place. Work Processes and Performance Expectations When redesigning is done, the organization can expect to have their employees more satisfied in their work. People are more satisfied internally with their new responsibilities and are more satisfied in general. However, it sometimes makes people more dissatisfied with their current pay and benefits because they believe that they are doing more and that their pay and benefits should reflect those changes. Also the negative is that because people are given so much say in what they are doing when redesigning the workplace, they often become dissatisfied with their direct supervisors and management if something is not done to continue the autonomy that employees achieved with assisting in the redesigning. Job productivity goes up and goods produced tend to be better quality the pride that staff has in what they do. To ensure a more satisfied staff after redesign is complete, it is important not only to change the jobs of subordinates but even those in middle management so that everyone feels more satisfied and angry feelings do not develop among staff. If change happen were people are more satisfied, the organization will better for it. Further, change cannot happen and just come to a halt. Change is never constant; it has to continue to keep a learning organization on track. Steps and Structure to Change a Learning Organization Peter Senge, (1990), a learning organization is organization â€Å"where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expensive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspirations is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together† (Senge,P. , 1990). According to Senge (1990), a learning organization excels in five different disciplines. A learning organization looks at long-term solutions, not necessarily the first solution that comes to their head. This is important because often organizations think of short-term benefits, and do not consider what changes will do to the organization long term. Because of this, a universal worker would do best to keep from making hasty decisions, and rather would create groups where people gather and look at things more on a long-term direction and see how the organization could be affected. Another thing that can assist in change would be encourage workers to continue learning, whether it be a seminar held for staff or encouraging people to continue with their education on their own time. In workplace today teamwork is encouraged in the workplace. People are no longer given tasks, and expected to do them on their own. Rather, working together, sharing ideas and being a team help an organization to grow. Another step that needs to occur is that leadership roles need to be looked at differently. Instead of leaders being seen in the traditional role of being â€Å"better than† their subordinates or thinking for the staff, upper management roles need to changed to suit the changes in staff. Management needs to encourage learning, share the vision that leaders of the organization have. Management also needs to â€Å"create and manage creative tension especially around the gap between vision and reality. Mastery or such tension allows for a fundamental shift. It enables the leader to see the truth in changing situations† (Smith, 2001). To create change, the entire organization needs to change, not just the subordinates. Change takes time but the benefits long-term are well worth the efforts. Satisfaction for Universal Worker The universal worker approach seems to enhance job satisfaction. Feedback from the staff indicates that they enjoy being responsible for the patients as whole rather than one aspect of care. It is a feeling that undoubtedly enhances the caregiver’s sense of job importance (Widdes, 1996). Training staff to assume responsibilities across departments and even more challenging, reshaping their attitudes and approach to care is an undertaking that requires a commitment to training, retaining and diligent follow up. To keep a universal worker happy would require giving such staff opportunities to continue growing. In healthcare, allowing staff to be responsible for different aspects of patient care, rather than doing just one simple, respective role brings satisfaction. People get bored doing the same thing day in day out. Allowing staff to do different things, creates an excitement for the job that they are doing and creates a feeling of responsibility, and pride in their job. However, because a universal worker does so many different tasks, the staff should be given incentives be it through raise or benefits or other methods, it is imperative that management be very much in tune with this philosophy. Otherwise, staff will begin to feel overworked, and underappreciated. Conclusion In conclusion, merging of two organizations into one organization can be a very difficult undertaking. If not done correctly, it can fail completely. Even if a merger is successful, it does not mean that changes will not have to be made to operations to bring further success down the line. Sometimes, staff needs to be cut, and new positions be created. This can create some turmoil within the organization if not handled right. It is important to communicate with everyone throughout, and allow staff to assist in building ideas, and making the changes, allowing them to share in some of the responsibilities that the organization will undertake. Creating autonomy, particularly when creating universal workers, is important to keep staff satisfied. Along with bonus, raise, benefits, or other incentives would be wise. If staff is satisfied, the organization runs smoother and is more profitable. Satisfaction from employees radiates onto the customers and creates the type of environment that one would prefer to do business with. Change can work correctly if the needs of staff throughout the change are kept in mind.

The Section 41 Approach In Sexual Offence Trials Law Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2324 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Historically, the prejudicial effect of rape myths and sexual history evidence has been problematic for the courts in sexual offence trials. In 1999, Parliament enacted s.41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act to place stringent restrictions on sexual history evidence. However, these provisions have caused some difficulties for the courts. While the landmark case of A(2) resolved some of the issues, it will be put that the law remains vexed and, once again, in dire need of reform. A new approach is required which does not exclude evidence from consideration by the jury. Instead, rape myths need to be attacked directly, so they can be eradicated, and their impact neutralized. This discourse will be prefaced by a discussion of the events leading up the 1999 Act, followed by a cursory overview of the approach taken by s.41 in order to highlight some of the primary problems with the legislation. Subsequently, the House of Lords decision in A(2) will b e scrutinized, followed by consideration of some suggestions for reforming the law. Traditionally, the investigation and prosecution of rape and other sexual offences has been rife with difficulties, especially in the area of evidential requirements. Aggressive questioning of female complainants about personal sexual matters was commonplace, and sexual history evidence was considered relevant to consent and credibility. Over time, myths and stereotypes developed which exerted prejudicial effects on the fairness of trials. In R v Riley, evidence of previous voluntary sexual relations with the accused was admissible in order to assert that it was more likely that the complainant consented to the incident in question.  [2] In 1975, the Heilbron Committee considered legislative reforms, examining the impact of sexual history evidence. Their report recommended that it should only be admissible in very limited circumstances, that there should be some limited judicial discretion along with an inclusionary rule based on striking similarity. Unfortunately, when drafting s.2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1976, these proposals were largely ignored. The complainants sexual behaviour with someone other than the defendant should only be referred to when it would be unfair to exclude it, based on the judges discretion.  [3] However, the practical application by the courts was too permissive with too much judicial discretion, resulting in sexual history evidence being admitted too freely.  [4] Amidst growing disquiet, in 1998 the Home Office scrutinized the practical application and the failures of the 1976 Act. The White Paper Speaking Up for Justice exposed numerous inherent weaknesses which necessitated reform.  [5]  This report was criticized by Diane Birch and Neil Kibble for contributing to the shortcomings of Parliaments response in 1999. The YJCEA debates on the draft bill reflected a lack of consensus on the ideal approach to rape shield l egislation, including prevalent concerns about over-restrictiveness and the dangers of excluding relevant evidence.  [6]  The wider jurisprudence was surveyed, including approaches in Australia, Canada, and Michigan. The landmark Canadian case R v Seaboyer  [7]  , where McLachlin J. coined the term twin myths, challenged the provisions of s.276 of the Criminal Code composed of a rule of exclusion with three exceptions.  [8]  Resultantly, the Canadian Supreme Court held that s.276 unconstitutionally violated the right to a fair trial. The impact of these developments played a central role in the YJCEA debates in the UK, as ÃÆ' ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ¦they were cited as evidence that legislative straitjackets had been attempted and failed.  [9] Parliaments response was s.41 YJCEA 1999, which engendered a more restrictive and structured approach to attacking the twin myths that sexual experience may indicate a propensity to consent and a lack of veracity.  [10]  The aim of the legislation was to strike a balance between protecting claimants from the prejudice of sexual history evidence while securing the defendants right to a fair trial. The blanket rule of exclusion under 41(1) restricts evidence or questions about any sexual behaviour without leave of the court, which will only be granted where both conditions of the two-part test are satisfied; under s.41(2)(a) where either ss.(3) or (5) applies, and the unsafe verdict test, under s.41(2)(b). Any questions or evidence pertaining to the actual incident can be adduced, such as questions about what the complainant said or did before or during the incident, including humiliating questions. Also, anything not about sexual behaviour, and not including sexual history evidence can be adduced. The rape shield legislation targets other sexual behaviour outside the charge, legitimately seeking to exclude sexual history evidence that is not related to the incident. There is a closed list of four narrow gateways (or exceptions) within which evidence may be regarded as critical. Notably, within a matter of days of coming into effect, the legislation warranted a challenge to the House of Lords to consider whether they were broad enough to prevent injustice.  [11] The non-consent gateway may admit evidence pursuant to s.41(3)(a), if it is not an issue of consent, such as mistaken identity  [12]  , honest belief in consent, motive to fabricate, or alternative explanation. The consent gateway, may admit evidence about an issue of consent, which is about sexual behaviour which took place at or about the same time as the subject matter of the charge (res gestae)  [13]  , or it is so similar to behaviour that took place as part of the incident that it cannot be explained as coincidence (similar fact). The fourth gateway applies only when the prosecution has adduced evidence about the sexual behaviour of the complainant, whereby the defence can only go as far as is necessary to enable that evidence to be rebutted or explained.  [14] Upon passing through a gateway and surmounting the two-part test, two further requirements arise. Under s.41(4), questions or evidence intended to impugn the credibility of the complainant are restricted. As well, under s.41(6) evidence or questions must relate to a specific instance of sexual behavior.  [15] These provisions have raised numerous fundamental concerns. Unlike other jurisdictions, the leave requirement does not apply to the prosecution, making s.41 a one-sided rule of exclusion that only applies to the defence.  [16]  Lord Hope recognized the dangerous threat this posed to the equality of arms principle enshrined in Article 6(3)(d) of the Convention.  [17]  For instance, under s.41, the prosecution would be permitted to adduce evidence of the complainants virginity to illustrate that it was unlikely that she consented to the alleged acts. On the other hand, the defence is prev ented from adducing contrary evidence that the she has experience with multiple partners to show that she is more likely to have consented. Allowing one but not the other seems imbalanced, and raises the broader question whether the true rationale for s.41 is on excluding irrelevant evidence or protecting against humiliation of complainants in cross-examination.  [18] The vague definition of sexual behaviour under s.42(1)(c) has resulted in some difficulties,  [19]  though it is considered controversially wider now, since it covers evidence of previous or subsequent sexual behaviour with the accused and with third parties. As will be seen, this was a fair trial flashpoint in A(2).  [20]  Professor Birch has argued that equating the accused with third parties creates the danger of redefining the defendant as a stranger, thereby giving potency to the old myth that real rape is committed by strangers.  [21]  For example, relevant evidence of a previous romantic relatio nship between the defendant and the accused which included sexual relations a few days before the incident in question may be excluded unless it can pass through the narrowly drawn res gestae gateway. If it cannot (and does not satisfy the unsafe test), Thre is no discretion to include it even though it may be highly relevant to the defence case. The restrictive gateways approach has created integral concerns regarding the exclusion of relevant evidence, where its prejudicial effects compromises the fairness of trials. Combined with restrictions on judicial discretion, the shortcomings of using only three fixed exceptions to try and predict every eventuality is exacerbated further. Neil Kibble, in his 2004 report, stated that other jurisdictions like Canada and Australia have already rejected this pigeon-holing approach on the ground that even if judges get it wrong you cant address the problem effectively by eliminating their discretion.  [22] The shortcomings of s.41 reach ed critical mass in the landmark case of A(No.2) which involved a rape trial, where the accused alleged an ongoing sexual relationship with the complainant three weeks prior to the incident in question, with the last occasion being one week prior. The trial judge had sought to admit evidence of the previous relationship as relevant to consent, but was unable to do so through one of the gateways. Thus, following the decision of the Court of Appeal,  [23]  the House of Lords intervened, to examine whether excluding such evidence under s.41 would contravene the defendants right to a fair trial pursuant to Article 6(3)(d) ECHR. One of the touchstone issues identified included the extent to which the defence could refer to matters outside the central facts in order to provide the court with fundamental evidence, the absence of which may result in an unjust verdict. Lord Hutton stated that the right of a defendant to call relevant evidence, where the absence of such evidence may gi ve rise to an unjust conviction, is an absolute right which cannot be qualified by considerations of public interest, no matter how well-founded that public interest may be.  [24] Their Lordships contemplated whether a sexual relationship between the accused and the complainant was relevant to the issue of consent such that to exclude it under s.41 would contravene the defendants right to a fair trial. Reaching a decision required the importation of a residual discretion to decide whether leave should be granted to the defence to adduce evidence of the relationship if it was so central to the issue of consent, that to exclude it would threaten the Article 6 Right to a fair trial. This was achieved by employing s.3 HRA 1998 by reading and giving effect to the similarity exception within s.41(3)(c) in a way that was compatible with Convention rights. Their Lordships qualified their decision by stating that while the aims of the provisions were legitimate, the approach raise d questions about proportionality regarding sexual behaviour with the accused. Thus, it was agreed that such evidence could be sufficiently relevant to necessitate its admission in the interests of fairness. Thus, s.41 was rescued from the clutches of repeal, some residual discretion for trial judges was restored, and the gateways relaxed in the interests of fairness. In some respects, the law seemed come back around full circle to where it was before the 1999 Act, based on fairness tempered with judicial discretion.  [25] However, along with this flexibility came a degree of uncertainty, as it created the danger that the rationale could be broadly applied in any case where the judge adopted the view that fairness under Article 6 may be threatened. Cases such as R v Rooney,  [26]  R v Martin,  [27]  R v R (2),  [28]  and R v White  [29]  indicate how the courts have struggled in the aftermath of A(2). In 2006, a Government White Paper looked at the effecti veness of s.41, whereby National statistical data revealed that s.41 had little or no effect on attrition, while rape conviction rates continued to fall. The report also found that the Crown Court Rules regarding s.41 were frequently ignored or avoided, and recommended that reforms were necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of the legislation.  [30] A way needs to be found to bring rape myths out in the open so they can be eradicated, and their impact neutralized. Diane Birch stated that if juries can only be trusted to adjudicate on cases of rape within relationships by being kept in the dark about the relationship, there is something fundamentally wrong with jury trial.  [31] The law should equip judges and juries with the tools needed to effectively attack rape myths in order to mitigate the prejudice of sexual history evidence, like other areas of law such as bad character have done, with enhanced judicial training and jury directions. Interestingly, Vera Ba ird, QC, the Solicitor-General, recently announced that jury directions are being developed that would instruct juries to ignore rape myths in an effort to increase conviction rates in the UK (amongst the lowest in Europe).  [32] Consideration should be given to amending the current gateways to widen the scope of factors considered, and additional gateways should be added such as implementing a safety-valve type of residual discretion in order to admit evidence falling outside of the exceptions, similar to the approach taken by s.276 of Canadian Criminal Code after the ruling in R v Seaboyer.  [33]  This should reflect a recognition of the value of contextual factors as explanatory evidence, in line with Lord Huttons mindset argument approach in A(2). The culmination of what has been discussed thus far establishes that the aims of s.41 YJCEA 1999 are legitimate, as rape myths have threatened the fairness of trials for centuries. However, it has been argued that the appro ach taken by s.41 does not strike an effective balance between protecting the complainant from the ravages of sexual history evidence versus securing the defendants right to a fair trial under the Convention. The restrictive gateways are incapable of foreseeing every eventuality, and thus create the potential for relevant evidence to be excluded from consideration by the jury. The House of Lords decision in A(2) addressed this issue, and was required to import in some residual judicial discretion in order to resolve the dilemma and prevent repeal of the Act. However, this decision created some uncertainty, which has left the law unresolved and in a muddle. The suggestions for reform center around one underlying theme: the law needs to move towards enabling judges and juries to squarely attack the rape myths, and be able to handle sexual history evidence with the sensitivity required so as to mitigate prejudice while not risking the fairness of trials. A fine balance must be st ruck between the flexibility of some limited judicial discretion and the certainty provided by the legislative restrictions of s.41 in order for the law to operate effectively. The former must not come at the expense of the latter. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Section 41 Approach In Sexual Offence Trials Law Essay" essay for you Create order