Tackling Human Trafficking [The Barrister Magazine]


[As published on The Barrister Magazine: http://www.barristermagazine.com/article-listing/current-issue/tackling-human-trafficking.html]

Recently human trafficking has returned in the UK media spotlight, as a study by the Centre of Social Justice has been published denouncing the Government’s failure to tackle this complex form of transational crime.

The internationally recognised definition of ‘human trafficking’ can be found in the Palermo Protocol (Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children) to the Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (the Protocol entered into force in 2003):

“Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs… The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth [above] shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth [above] have been used.”

This complex definition seeks to capture the chain of trafficking which includes the act, the means to carry out the act and the purpose of the act. Therefore, the definition should be understood as follows:

1) The act: “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons

2) The means:by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person

3) The purpose:for the purpose of exploitation“. “Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.

It should be noted that, in each one of the three limbs of the definition, the elements listed are alternatives to be satisfied. Therefore, contrary to popular belief, a victim of human trafficking does not necessarily need to have ‘travelled’ or have been ‘transferred’. In fact, the mere recruitment is sufficient to satisfy the first limb of the definition – provided the subsequent other two limbs are satisfied too. Similarly, in the second limb of the definition, it is not necessary to prove that the victim was subjected to violence or threat of violence: other forms of coercion which satisfy the legal threshold, which are more of a psychological nature rather than physical, include the abuse of a position of vulnerability (e.g. an individual who offers to “help” an orphan). Finally, exploitation is commonly correlated to prostitution. In reality, the variety of forms of exploitation is far wider and includes the exploitation of individuals in cannabis factories, as well as in otherwise legitimate enterprises such as the textile industry (e.g. where workers are unpaid, paid under the minimum wage or made to work in unsafe and illegal conditions).

Of course, for human trafficking to be identified, all three limbs of the definition must be satisfied. This is the most complex aspect since one or more stages of the chain of human trafficking can easily be concealed. The greatest problem of this form of crime is the difficulty posed in identifying the victims and the crime itself. Often a victim might even be confused as a perpetrator, since the police might come across them for the first time in the context of the commission of a criminal offence, such as cultivating cannabis.

On 6 April 2013, the European Directive 2011/36/EU on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and Protecting its Victims will come into force in UK, meaning that that is the deadline by which the country must fully implement it. Some of the key changes that will be brought about by this welcome piece of legislation are requirements for/to:

  • the establishment a dedicated national anti-slavery agency or Rapporteur
  • the establishment of an EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator
  • increase public awareness of human trafficking
  • set up special measures for the protection of victims and, in particular, of minors
  • the revision of definitions relating to human trafficking offences to cover a broader range of cases, to include the commission of offences within the UK territory or by UK nationals outside of the UK territory
  • the establishment of a system by which prosecution and punishment of defendants later identified as victims of human trafficking may be dropped where it is proven that their commission of criminal offences is correlated to their status as human trafficking victims.

The Crown Prosecution Service has recently published a new set of guidelines on Human Trafficking taking into account the European Directive soon coming into force. The UK needs to also work hard in cooperation with other EU Member States on raising awareness amongst officials dealing with immigrants, such as those at the UK Border Agency, as well as members of the criminal justice system including judges that all too often misunderstand the nature of this complex crime.

Advertisements

ICC’s Failure to Protect its Officials


Since 7 June 2012, four officials of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Office of Public Counsel for Defence (OPCD), including Australian lawyer Melinda Taylor, have been detained in Libya.

Image

I had the pleasure of meeting Melinda Taylor last year during the course of my LL.M. and she gave me some useful advice for my thesis.  I have always admired her competence, professionalism and commitment, therefore I was shocked to say the least when I heard the news of her detention in Zintan, near Tripoli.

She, and the other three ICC officials, have been accused of trying to pass on “dangerous” documents to Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi. Gaddafi is son of  Muammar Gaffafi and is facing ICC charges of crimes against humanity.

Under the 1998 Rome Statute and in compliance with the principles of fair trial and respect of the rule of law, each Defendant at the ICC is entitled to a number of rights deriving from his/her right of defence:

– right to appoint a counsel of his choice

– right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence

– right to communicate freely and in confidence with his lawyers

The latter includes the right to freely discuss and exchange documents with his lawyers.

This clearly shows that the detention of the ICC officials is unjustified and a violation of international law. Not only is there no legal basis for their detention, but their right to international immunity has been violated.

This situation highlights the hot topic of who should bring to justice the accused former regime figures: whether it should be a right of the newly established Libyan authority or whether it should be left to the International Criminal Court. It appears that, on top of the UN mandate deriving from the UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 allowing the ICC to open the Libyan case, under Article 17 of the Rome Statute (principle of complementarity), Libya should be considered “unable” to try individuals such as Saif Gaddafi for the simple fact that the current Libyan authorities cannot guarantee impartiality and fairness of trial.

This is hotly disputed and their conduct in respect of ICC officials clearly shows that they are prepared to overstep international law in order to affirm their independence and sovereignty. It remains unclear how they expect to claim legitimacy and credibility on the international scene whilst violating international law and not complying with the rights of the accused to a fair trial. Furthermore, this situation seems to reveal that the ICC had not made arrangements suitable to secure the safety of its officials prior to sending them to Libya and, ultimately, ensure their protection.

Age Discrimination: Too Young or Too Old?


Two major decisions handed down last week by the UK Supreme Court have brought the issue of age discrimination back under the spotlight. Mandatory retirement age was abolished in the UK in 2011, although employers can still apply it if they can justify it on the grounds of proportionality in achieving a legitimate aim.

Both cases, Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes and Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, dealt with employees being discriminated directly or indirectly in relation to their retirement age. The two situations were however rather different. In Seldon, the claimant was a solicitor required to leave the law firm Clarkson Wright & Jakes (CWJ) at the age of 65th according to the partnership agreement. This policy was justified on the basis of integrating younger people and giving partnership opportunities to young generations. In Homer, the claimant was a legal adviser with the police national legal database who alleged that he was subject to indirect age discrimination as he was ineligible for a promotion that required him to have a law degree. His argument was that, given he was aged 62; he could not obtain a law degree before the age of retirement (65) and thereby apply for the promotion.

Neither ruling determined the outcome in the specific cases, as both were sent back to the employment tribunals. However, Lady Hale delivered both principal judgments essentially concluding that both age discrimination claims had some merits but that specific circumstances had to be considered. Lady Hale concluded, in Seldon, that to justify a policy it is not sufficient for an employer to show that it has an aim that is capable of being a public interest aim (such as the aim to integrate young people thereby dismissing older partners / employees) and that it must in addition be shown that it is actually a legitimate aim in the particular circumstances of the employment. In Homer, the claimant’s appeal was dismissed and it was held that the requirement of holding a law degree could be considered indirect discrimination but that this depended upon a valid justification on the side of the employers.

These cases highlight the basic fact that age is not a condition of an individual (such as disability) nor a permanent characteristic which is subdivided into generally speaking clear-cut ‘categories’ within society (gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation): age is rather a specific situation part of human life. There is no clear boundary between one phase of life or another. The ability to work in later years really depends on the individuals’ mental and physical health. However, businesses are likely to consider that at an older age, people might be less flexible and adaptable than younger people thereby slowing down their work activity or reducing innovation. This clearly is a delicate topic, as one can see both sides easily and must be careful to argue heavily either way given the implications on society as a whole. But what, in my opinion, is the strongest argument in favour of mandatory retirement age, would be the possibility of opening up the job market to young people. Just like dignity of old workers is considered and protected, the same should apply to young people who are either struggling to find employment or, once on the job, are not given enough chances to show what they are capable of.

Michael Skapinker argued in his article on the Financial Times (The Law is a Grey Area for Employers of the Aged, Thursday 3rd May 2012) that the Supreme Court rulings made the law even more woolly that it already is, thereby leaving uncertainty amongst employers as to what they are and what they are not entitled to do in relation to retirement ages. Michael Skapinker makes the fairly obvious but excellent point that “we all start off young and, with luck and good health, end up old. If the law acts to protect the elderly, we will all benefit one day.” Yet, however tempting it might be to agree with him, I must resist this point. Society will not benefit now or tomorrow if there is no generational interchange and if older employees have no “time limitations” than enable newer generations to step in. This clearly results in older generations holding the economic and labour power, whilst being forced to support younger generations unable to sustain themselves, to repay university debts and to start-up families. Whilst Mr. Homer (Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police) might have felt that it was unfair to him to be ineligible for a position requiring a law degree, it would be equally if not more unfair to make a position for a law graduate impossible to reach because old staff – regardless of their qualifications – can have priority over them. I struggle to see how this will benefit the young a few years along the line.

The Supreme Court might be implicitly supporting this view as its rulings effectively mean that employers are entitled to require older staff to leave, provided this is justified on stronger grounds than mere cost cutting and improvement of competition. However, in considering two cases which effectively approach the issue of age discrimination from the one-sided perspective of the older staff, one should not forget, in the wake of the London riots, society’s interest in providing jobs – and dignity – to younger generations.

Behind the Bars


Although it was not my first visit to a prison, it did not feel just like any other day. It was early, still pitch dark outside. Trying to figure out what clothes to wear was rather difficult. I knew it was sensible not to wear any low cut tops or short skirts (rather obvious), but I was also advised not to wear scarves or elegant clothes. I opted for a pair of jeans and a sweater. I also knew that I could not take anything possibly relating to computers, such as USB sticks or CDs, but also I couldn’t take in chewing gums which apparently are used by inmates to force the locks open (don’t ask me how!).

Waiting at the bus stop, there I was: standing in the freezing cold on my way to HMP Pentonville Prison in London.  Some notorious inmates of this prison have been George Michael and Pete Doherty (who also wrote a song called Pentonville). When I arrived, I was surprised to find that the building is very visible from the main road and houses are built very close-by. In fact, some of the cells’ windows can be easily seen from the road. I got in through the main entrance and had to get a Visitor’s pass after having had my fingerprints and a photograph taken by security. No mobile phones could go past security, so I left mine in a locker. Clearly, no cameras could be taken inside either so the photographs in this post were found online and were not taken by me.
When I walked in, accompanied by internal staff, it was the time of what is called ‘free flow’, that is, when cells are unlocked (I think different wings are unlocked in turns and not all cells are unlocked, e.g. those with high security regime) and prisoners are moving from one wing to another heading to whichever activity they’re meant to attend. These activities can be educational or simply taking a shower. ‘Free flow’ lasts for about half an hour and it takes place about twice every day. When it ends, everything is locked up again and inmates are either back in their cells or in another space where they’re undertaking an activity such as a workshop. I couldn’t help but notice that the great majority of inmates was either black or Asian, although there were a few whites too. From what I saw, most of them were also quite young.

Pentonville was the first prison in Great Britain to put into practice the enlightened ideas of the prison reformer, John Howard. Built in 1840-42 to the designs and under the direction of Major (later Sir) Joshua Jebb, Surveyor General of Prisons, it pioneered the separate housing of inmates in wings radiating out from a central hall. (Source: http://www.elton-engineeringbooks.co.uk/highlights/jebb.htm) The only time it stopped being used as a prison for English inmates was during the Second World War, when it was used to hold German prisoners. Other than that, it’s been actively in use since it was first opened.

Source: http://www.elton-engineeringbooks.co.uk/highlights/jebb.htm

Pentonville has 7 residential wings:

  • A wing – Induction and First Night Centre. This wing has recently been refurbished to cater for new arrivals into custody.
  • B wing – Resettlement wing
  • C and G Wings are for remand and convicted prisoners and provide services including education, workshops and offending behaviour courses
  • D Wing – Is the enhanced wing
  • E Wing – Substance Misuse Unit
  • F Wing – IDTS (Stabilisation Unit)

I walked through one of the wings (I am not actually sure which one it was, but I think it must have been either C or G) and I was surprised by the brightness of the spaces. Of course, the light is not as abundant in the cells. Some of the cells, those for vulnerable inmates, are actually in the basement and have no natural light. The prison was built for around 600 prisoners, however now the prisoners are more than 1200 and all cells (intended for one individual only) host two prisoners. Although I didn’t actually walk inside a cell, I could see they were tiny and there was barely room for a bunk bed and a table where prisoners eat. In fact, they collect food and eat in their own cells rather than in a shared canteen. Breakfast is collected together with the evening meal, but most of them apparently eat it in the evening or at night because they’re hungry and end up skipping breakfast the following morning. Some cells have a TV, which the inmates pay for. I was told that, although it seems like an excessive privilege, it is actually a very good weapon to use to make sure the prisoners behave well. In fact, I understood that the threat or the actual act of taking away the TV is sometimes more effective than any other threat. Clearly, spending so many hours locked up, the worst thing is making time go by without going crazy. It is also better to let them watch TV rather than get into fights with each other or using drugs (although they probably do it anyway, although Pentonville has gone down hard on the fight against drugs given the recent scandals).

I had the opportunity to see a classroom which was actually well equipped, with some computers, a board, large tables and chairs. The computers don’t have internet connection and even the staff’s own computers, which are located in separate sections of the wings, to which prisoners have no access, have limited access to internet. Although this might sound obvious, every single space is separated by locked gates which need to be unlocked to go through and locked immediately after. Even to simply access the staff’s toilet or a staircase, there will be one or two locked gates and doors to get through. On my way out, the food was being served for lunch and the smell was absolutely unpleasant and I surely did not feel hungry after that.

 Source: The Guardian

It was a very interesting experience, because, while one can imagine what a prison is like from all the films that depict life in prison, the reality is not as ‘cool’ as television and the cinema make it appear.

A report published in June 2011 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (HMI Prisons), sadly confirms my general perception of the building’s state:

 “Pentonville is an iconic prison, but not always for the right reasons: its four central wings are over a hundred and fifty years old, it has a large and transient population drawn from some of London’s poorest boroughs, and its prisoners have amongst the highest incidence of mental ill health and substance abuse of any local prison in the country. […]Pentonville is amongst the most challenging local prisons in the country to run. Its ageing and crowded fabric offers limited scope for change or development, its population is not only transient but also hugely needy – and sometimes challenging – and resources are declining. Despite all this, managers and staff were working hard to make the prison a safer and more decent place. There was now a little more purposeful activity and some exciting, if nascent, ideas to work with local authorities to improve resettlement outcomes. It goes without saying that there is much more to do. Indeed the scale of the issues facing Pentonville means that it is also essential that the prison is supported by an effective London-wide strategy – but there is now at least a positive sense of direction.”

Source: The Guardian

The most overwhelming feeling even for someone who, like myself, knew perfectly well I’d be inside for no more than a couple of hours, is that, as you walk in, you lose control of what’s happening around you. The doors and gates rapidly being locked behind you, you realise that if – for any reason – you actually wanted to leave, you would not be able to do so without having someone able to let you out. Despite that, I actually came out feeling quite positive about the overall experience: seeing the prisoners so close-by, walking right next to them, reminded me that, even if many – if not most of them – have committed some serious crimes, they are humans. Some of them are there because they probably were unlucky enough to be born in the wrong place, to the wrong family or ended up mixing with the wrong crowds.

That is not to say that I feel sorry for them or that I would forgive the crimes they have committed and for the pain they’ve caused to others. Rather, it is to say that seeing a prison from inside has made even stronger, in my eyes, the case in favour of Article 6 (European Convention of Human Rights) rights. When you see with your own eyes what life in prison means, you understand why the criminal justice system must strive to secure convictions of the guilty and ensure acquittal of the innocent. Unfortunately, even in a perfectly well-oiled criminal justice machine, there are bound to be mistakes. This is why the importance of the right to a fair trial in full respect of the presumption of innocence, the equality of arms and the impartiality of the tribunal, must never be underestimated or taken for granted. The natural continuation of the right to a fair trial is the full compliance with human rights inside the prison, that is not to say to give unlimited privileges to prisoners but simply to remember that they are humans despite the inhumanity of some of their actions and – if we are to call ourselves a modern society – we must strive to respect their human dimension and, if possible, help them to rediscover it through rehabilitative and educational programmes.

Source: The Guardian

For anyone interested in more information on HMP Pentonville or the prison system in general, I have found this website very informative and useful: http://www.insidetime.org/info-regimes2.asp?nameofprison=HMP_PENTONVILLE.

The pictures in this post (except for the image of Jebb’s drawings of the prison plan) were all published by The Guardian online.

Tips and Tricks for Effective Advocacy


Now, I am not really a qualified person (yet!) to suggest tips and tricks for effective advocacy. But Iain Morley QC, barrister in a leading set of London criminal chambers, certainly is. His book “The Devil’s Advocate” is fun and provides a light read useful to anyone interested in practical tips for advocacy or, ignoring the strictly law-related references, for general public speaking.

While reading a book on advocacy may seem contradictory (isn’t advocacy the art of speaking?), there are nonetheless tips and tricks that can prove really helpful. Here are some that I particularly liked:

  1. The advocate must assist – not instruct – the court in its decision-making process. In other words, the tribunal has the power to decide. You don’t. No one likes being told what to do, so ensure that you are seen as someone helping out the court and not trynig to win a competition against it. Understand the tribunal’s psychology.
  2. Dress well and appropriately. Well, this one might seem obvious: you must appear formal and like you’re a winner.  However, understanding why is really useful: this goes back to understanding the tribunal’s psychology. if you wear too much colour or too much make up the tribunal will not appreciate it as it will give the impression you fancy yourself. Your clothes and appearance should not distract the court from its core purpose.
  3. Do not be afraid to occupy space in the courtroom. Don’t let your head sink into your chest, make sure your head is up to show you are attentive and in control. This is one of the hardest tips to follow, since it requires a great deal of self-confidence and good knowledge of your submission to avoid looking down to read your notes too frequently.
  4. Keep those hands still! This is my favourite tip: instead of moving your hands uncontrollably (annoying and counter-productive), furiously wiggle your toes. This will keep  you so busy that all the other parts of the body will stop fidgeting. I have personally tried this tip and I have found that it really helps (but make sure you don’t wiggle your toes so much as to lose balance on your feet!).
  5. Write the closing speech when you receive the brief. This will ensure that you know exactly what you want from each witness, although the draft speech should be flexible. According to Iain Morely QC, if you follow this tip, you will find witness handling much easier. I have yet to try this.
  6. Do not assume your judge knows all the law. It is fine to remind the judge of the law. Afterall, judges are humans not machines- they cannot know or remember everything in the law. This tip sounds very reasonable, but I cannot quite imagine myself remind a judge about the law. Somehow, I think I would always feel that the judge knows best. But it is something I will keep in mind while training.
  7. Do not be afraid of silence. This is a really good advice: silence creates tension, it allows to pause between one sentence and another, between one question to a witness and another. It shows you are in control. Most of us, while training, feel the need to fill every silence with sound – obtaining the awful result of saying a lot of unnecessary and annoying things such as “Urmm”, “Ehm”, “Right”, “Mmm”. We must learn not to do it! (note to self)
  8. Ask others what they think. This is difficult. Or rather, asking what others think may be easy, but actually listening and learning from their answers is hard. It’s not about bad intention, but about being human and finding it hard to really see the same problems others see. This week, when I watched the video of my advocacy submission, I was really surprised when noticing good and bad aspects of my submission which I had perceived entirely differently while performing. For example, the pauses I took between one sentence and another felt to me – at the time – like extremely long, and I feared they would look really bad on me. In the video, these pauses were actually hardly noticeable! On the other hand, during the submission I did not realise I appeared ‘too serious’ and this made me appear terribly insecure and nervous. Something to improve on!

This article does not intend to provide advice for advocacy or to provide an exhaustive review of the book written by Iain Morely QC, but only to highlight some aspects which – in the way I understood them – were useful and interesting to me.

If you’ve read the book, which tips did you find relevant to improve your advocacy?

What I’ve Learnt from the Moot Court / Mock Trial


Ten days after the Moot Court, I can now sit back and think of what I’ve learnt from this experience.

1. I really enjoy legal advocacy.

I guess I knew it before, but the Moot Court has really made it clear to me that I love the thrill of legal speaking in public despite the amount of stress involved beforehand. The minutes before I had to stand before the judges, my heartbeat was truly amazing me. I felt like there was a horse race going on inside me! I guess this should lead me to conclude that I should not stress so much, however this is not really something I can entirely control. I am sure that with experience, this amount of stress will decrease. Yet, I strongly believe that the stress is partially what enhances the ability to put a lot of effort into legal advocacy and increases the chances of showing the court that you are really into the part.

2. Something unforeseen will always occur.

Despite being only a mock trial, it is nonetheless impossible to foresee exactly everything that will occur. This reflects well what happens in real trials, although surely they involve a way greater amount of unpredictable circumstances. Unforseen circumstances may play in favour or against you, you never know, but the trick is theoretically to always try your best to turn them into something positive for your case.

3. Competition rules.

At the end, legal advocacy whether it is for a real or a mock trial, cannot be simply described as a ‘game’. People turn extremely competitive and they will do just about anything necessary to prove they are better than you. In other words, the trial can turn on personal competition and establishing good relations between various parties would be extremely helpful (when possible). Everyone is – at different degrees – ruled by a desire to compete.

4. You experience the Moot Court through the lenses of your role.

Depending on what role you’re covering in the Moot Court / Mock Trial, you will experience it in a totally different way to your colleagues in different roles. In my case, I was Legal Representative of Victims and this meant being something in between the Prosecution and the Defence. In a way, I was supporting the Prosecution, however my role had a completely different focus. On another day, I acted as witness for another Moot Court and this gave me an entirely different perspective yet again. As a witness (even if not a real one), you feel like you’re under the spotlight while being examined by all parties and by the judges. Moreover, it is hard to realise if your answers to questions are helpful to one side or another (unless, of course, you know the legal case). I would recommend anyone pursuing the career of lawyer to attempt taking on the role of witness during mock trials, because you will really benefit from a useful and insightful experience.

4. The end of the Moot Court is a big relief.

No matter how much I enjoyed the Moot Court experience, I can’t deny that the end of it meant coming back to life! Yet I can’t wait to do it all over again and I am sure there is still a great deal to learn in the profession, which is a never-ending learning process.

Pre-Moot Court Thoughts


So, tomorrow is the Big Day: for those of you who have trained as lawyers or are lawyers, you know perfectly well what a Moot Court is. Two simple words that mean a whole lot to lawyers and lawyers-to-be.

It is that moment that exciting moment upon which you’ve gradually built on your expectations, whether reasonable or unreasonable. It is that day when you will finally put into practice your oral skills and ability to convey your knowledge of the law and your ability to argue before a Court. Pardon me, before “this Honourable Court”!

It is the day when you’re confronted with competitive yet often aggressive or intimidating teams, who each want to shine and prove their abilities. I feel so tense yet I am also so excited. Overall, I am sure it’s going to be really fun. Sometimes I feel like I need a reality check and step back into the world to put into perspective the tensions accumulated from the preparation for the Moot Court. Afterall, it is a competion, meaning it’s only a game.

During tomorrow’s Moot Court, I’ll be a Legal Representative of Victims in an International Criminal Court Trial on war crimes (allegedly) committed in Afghanistan. I’m really excited about my role because it allows to present to the Judges a different perspective on the case to that offered by the Prosecution and Defence. It focuses on people and on their importance. It serves as a reminder to everyone that, ultimately, no matter how much the law is discussed in the Courtroom, the case still relates to real life: real people, real injuries and real suffering. On Friday, instead, I will be acting as a witness for the Defence during a different trial on similar facts (for another Moot Court team).

Looking forward to writing about this week’s experience after it’s all over and I will be able to breathe a sigh of relief ! 🙂