Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice

by Rosemary Hunter (Editor), Clare McGlynn (Editor), Erika Rackley (Editor)

Overview

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.'

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781849460538
Publisher:	Bloomsbury Academic
Publication date:	09/30/2010
Pages:	504
Sales rank:	764,136
Product dimensions:	6.70(w) x 9.50(h) x 1.10(d)

About the Author

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.

Table of Contents

1 Feminist Judgments: An Introduc

Rosemary Hunter Cla

Erika Rackley 312

An Account of Feminis

Rosemary Hunter 3012 3 The Art

Erika Rackley 4411 Part II Parenting12 4 Evans v A

Commentary Sally Sheldon 5913

Sonia Harris-Short 6412 5 Re N (A Child)13 Commentary Emily Jackson 8313 Judgment Sam

8912

Re G (Children) (Residence: Same-S

Commentary Daniel

9613 Judgment Alison Diduck

10212 7 Re L (A C

Commentary Christine Piper 11

Judgment Felicity Kaganas 12012 8 Re A (Ch

Commentary Ri

13413 Judgment Geraldine Hasting

13911 Part III Property and Mar

9 Royal Bank of Scotland P

Commentary Alison Diduck 14913 Jud

Rosemary Auchmuty 15512 10

Commentary Mauree

17013 Judgment Anna Grear 17412

Baird Textile Holdings v Marks

Commentary Jo

18413 Judgment LindaMulcahy and Cathy Andre

18911 Part IV Criminal Law and Ev

12 R v A (No2)13

Louise Ellison 20513 Judgment Clare McGl

21112 13 R v Stone and Dobi

Commentary Neil Cobb 22813 Judgment

23412 14 R v Brown13

Commentary Matthe

24113

Robin Mackenzie 2471

15 R v Dhaliwal13 Comment

Mandy Burton 25513 Judg

Vanessa Munro and Sangeeta

26112 16

Commentary Susan Edwards

Judgment Samia Bano and Pr

27812 1

Attorney-General for Jersey v H

Commentary Clare Connelly 29213 Judgm

Susan Edwards 29711 Part

Public Law12 18 IT v Birmingh

Commentary Mora

31113 Judgment Helen Can and

31812 19 R (Begu

Commentary H

32913 Judgment Maleiha Malik 33

20 Sheffield City Council v E

Commentary Jonathan Herring 34613 Judgmen

Nicola Barker and Marie Fox 35112 21 R v Ports

Commentary Anne Morr

36313 Judgment Jo Bridgeman

Part VI Equality12 22 Rob

Commentary Stephanie Palmer

38113 Judgment Harriet Samuels 38712 23 Mundonv De

Commentary

40113 Judgment

Grace

40712 24 James v

Commenta

Joanne Conaghan 41413 Judgme

Aileen McColgan 42012 25 Wil

Commentary

42513 Judgment Rosie Hardi

43012 26 EM (Lebanon) v Secretary

Judy Walsh 44313 Jud

Karon Monaghan 44901

459

Editorial Reviews

"No sane person doubts that the law has been historically constructed by men and that gender equality in the law is an ongoing struggle. It's a mark, nevertheless of how well the struggle has been conducted that a series of workshops has now culminated in this highly original enterprise: a volume of leading judgments of the courts of England and Wales recast as a feminist judge might have written them." --The Association of Women Barristers Website

"What's unique about Feminist Judgments is that it does not merely criticise self-proclaimed feminist judges for not being feminist enough. It actually provides the missing judgments that the authors think a feminist judge might have written in more than 20 leading cases from England and Wales. Crucially, the authors have attempted to write rulings based in the law at the times each case was heard." --Law Society Gazette

"Within each of the chapters on the cases themselves, there is a commentary giving basic facts and important information to establish the foundations of the issues and to discuss why the case is significant. The commentary is extremely helpful, as no user is likely to be an expert in all the areas under consideration.

Penetrating analysis, with a full, detailed but clear exposition that leaves few stones unturned." --Times Higher Education

"To this editor's knowledge, no similar undertaking has been attempted. Even if there were a number of them, they would not likely compare favorably to this adept method of sensibly rewriting judicial history." --American Society of International Law Newsletter

From the Publisher