Feminist Judgments

While feminist legal scholarship has thrived within universities and in some sectors of legal practice, it has yet to have much impact within the judiciary or on judicial thinking. Thus, while feminist legal scholarship has generated comprehensive critiques of existing legal doctrine, there has been little opportunity to test or apply feminist knowledge in practice, in decisions in individual cases. In this book, a group of feminist legal scholars put theory into practice in judgment form, by writing the 'missing' feminist judgments in key cases. The cases chosen are significant decisions in English law across a broad range of substantive areas. The cases originate from a variety of levels but are primarily opinions of the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords. In some instances they are written in a fictitious appeal, but in others they are written as an additional concurring or dissenting judgment in the original case, providing a powerful illustration of the way in which the case could have been decided differently, even at the time it was heard. Each case is accompanied by a commentary which renders the judgment accessible to a non-specialist audience. The commentary explains the original decision, its background and doctrinal significance, the issues it raises, and how the feminist judgment deals with them differently.

The books also includes chapters examining the theoretical and conceptual issues raised by the process and practice of feminist judging, and by the judgments themselves, including the possibility of divergent feminist approaches to legal decision-making.

From the foreword by Lady Hale
'Reading this book ought to be a chastening experience for any judge who believes himself or herself to be both true to their judicial oath and a neutral observer of the world... If lawyers and judges like me have so much to learn from reading this book, then surely other, more sceptical, lawyers and judges have even more to learn...other scholars, and not only feminists, must also be fascinated by the window it opens onto the process of judicial reasoning: not the straightforward, predetermined march from A to B of popular belief, but something altogether more complicated and uncertain. And anyone will find it a very good read.'

Auteur

Rosemary Hunter is a Professor at the University of Kent.
Clare McGlynn is a Professor at Durham University.
Erika Rackley is a Senior Lecturer in Law at Durham University.

Contenu

Part I Introduction and Overview
1 Feminist Judgments: An Introduction
Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn and Erika Rackley
2 An Account of Feminist Judging
Rosemary Hunter
3 The Art and Craft of Writing Judgments: Notes on the Feminist Judgments Project
Erika Rackley
Part II Parenting
4 Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd
Commentary: Sally Sheldon
Judgment: Sonia Harris-Short
5 Re N (A Child)
Commentary: Emily Jackson
Judgment: Samantha Ashenden
6 Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-Sex Partner)
Commentary: Daniel Monk
Judgment: Alison Diduck
7 Re L (A Child) (Contact: Domestic Violence)
Commentary: Christine Piper
Judgment: Felicity Kaganas
8 Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)
Commentary: Richard Huxtable
Judgment: Geraldine Hastings
Part III Property and Markets
9 Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2)
Commentary: Alison Diduck
Judgment: Rosemary Auchmuty
10 Porter v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
Commentary: Maureen O'Sullivan
Judgment: Anna Grear
11 Baird Textile Holdings v Marks & Spencer Plc
Commentary: John Wightman
Judgment: Linda Mulcahy and Cathy Andrews
Part IV Criminal Law and Evidence
12 R v A (No 2)
Commentary: Louise Ellison
Judgment: Clare McGlynn
13 R v Stone and Dobinson
Commentary: Neil Cobb
Judgment: Lois Bibbings
14 R v Brown
Commentary: Matthew Weait and Rosemary Hunter
Judgment: Robin Mackenzie
15 R v Dhaliwal
Commentary: Mandy Burton
Judgment: Vanessa Munro and Sangeeta Shah
16 R v Zoora (Ghulam) Shah
Commentary: Susan Edwards
Judgment: Samia Bano and Pragna Patel
17 Attorney-General for Jersey v Holley
Commentary: Clare Connelly
Judgment: Susan Edwards
Part V Public Law
18 YL v Birmingham City Council and Others
Commentary: Morag McDermont
Judgment: Helen Carr and Caroline Hunter
19 R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School
Commentary: Holly Cullen
Judgment: Maleiha Malik
20 Sheffield City Council v E
Commentary: Jonathan Herring
Judgment: Nicola Barker and Marie Fox
21 R v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, ex parte Glass
Commentary: Anne Morris
Judgment: Jo Bridgeman
Part VI Equality
22 Roberts v Hopwood
Commentary: Stephanie Palmer
Judgment: Harriet Samuels
23 Mundon v Del Monte Foods Ltd
Commentary: Gwyneth Pitt
Judgment: Rachel Horton and Grace James
24 James v Eastleigh Borough Council
Commentary: Joanne Conaghan
Judgment: Aileen McColgan
25 Wilkinson v Kitzinger
Commentary: Karon Monaghan
Judgment: Rosie Harding
26 EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Commentary: Judy Walsh
Judgment: Karon Monaghan