Analysing Judgments from a Feminist Perspective

This article, by Rosemary Hunter, is based on a presentation given at the national training day on Law, Gender and Sexuality: Sources and Methods in Socio-Legal Research in May 2014, jointly sponsored by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, the Socio-Legal Studies Association and the British Library. She begins by describing the uses of judgments as sources within feminist research on judging, and then outlines three different methods of analysis employed within this research: quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis, and the newest method, that of rewriting judgments. Rosemary Hunter is Professor of Law and Socio-Legal Studies at Queen Mary, University of London, where she teaches family law, feminist jurisprudence and research methods. Her research focuses on family law processes, access to justice, and feminist judging. She was one of the organisers of the UK Feminist Judgments Project, and is the current chair of the Socio-Legal Studies Association

The Power of Feminist Judgments?

Recent years have seen the advent of two feminist judgment-writing projects, the Women’s Court of Canada, and the Feminist Judgments Project in England. This article analyses these projects in light of Carol Smart’s feminist critique of law and legal reform and her proposed feminist strategies in Feminism and the Power of Law (1989). At the same time, it reflects on Smart’s arguments 20 years after their first publication and considers the extent to which feminist judgment-writing projects may reinforce or trouble her conclusions. It argues that both of these results are discernible—that while some of Smart’s contentions have proved to be unsustainable, others remain salient and have both inspired and hold important cautions for feminist judgment-writing projects

Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases: Final Report

This is the final report of the expert panel appointed by the Ministry of Justice to assess how effectively the family courts identify and respond to allegations of domestic abuse and other serious offences, in cases involving disputes between parents about the arrangements for their children, known as ‘private law children proceedings’. It reflects the findings from the call for evidence, following over 1,200 responses from individuals and organisations across England and Wales, together with roundtables and focus groups held with professionals, parents and children with experience of the family courts. Most of the evidence received focused on domestic abuse. The report makes findings in relation to both the processes and the outcomes for parties and children involved in such proceedings The panel makes several recommendations for next steps to be taken forward by the family justice system

A Conversation with Lady Hale about Feminism, Law and Citizenship

This is the video and transcript of a conversation between Erika Rackley and Rosemary Hunter and Lady Hale, which formed one of the plenary sessions at the conference on ‘Feminism, Law and Citizenship’ held in Paris in July 2022. The conference was organised by Rosemary Auchmuty and Alexandrine Guyard-Nedelec

More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making

This article addresses a key question in debates around judicial diversity: what evidence is there that a more diverse judiciary will make a difference to substantive decision-making? The article begins by outlining the range of arguments for a more diverse judiciary which include, but are not confined to, making a difference to substantive decision-making. It then turns to consider the considerable evidence which now exists both to refute and to support the existence of substantive differences in decision-making following the appointment to the judiciary of women and others from non-traditional backgrounds. On the basis of this evidence, it draws conclusions as to the kinds of differences in decision-making which might be expected, and the circumstances under which different approaches to decision-making are likely to flourish

Comment: Diversity and Legal Reasoning

This short comment was originally delivered as part of the workshop on Diversity and Legal Reasoning held at Queen Mary University of London on 23 November 2016, sponsored by the Centre for Research on Law, Equality and Diversity and the Centre for Law and Society in a Global Context. Hunter engages with Karin Van Marle's call for a radically disruptive diversity, but argues that it is too early to conclude that legal reasoning which destabilises current systems and norms is an impossibility. Providing examples from the feminist judgment projects and her research on feminist judges, she suggests that the exploration of what might be possible within law still has a long way to go

Feminist Judging in the Real World

The various feminist judgment projects (FJPs) have explored through the imagined rewriting of judgments a range of ways in which a feminist perspective may be applied to the practice of judging. But how do these imagined judgments compare to what actual feminist judges do? This article presents the results of the author’s empirical research to date on ‘real world’ feminist judging. Drawing on case study and interview data it explores the how, when and where of feminist judging, that is, the feminist resources, tools and techniques judges have drawn upon, the stages in the hearing and decision-making process at which these resources, tools and techniques have been deployed, and the areas of law in which they have been applied. The article goes on to consider observed and potential limits on feminist judicial practice, before drawing conclusions about the comparison between ‘real world’ feminist judging and the practices of FJPs. Los proyectos de sentencias feministas, a través de la reelaboración imaginaria de sentencias judiciales, han explorado multitud de vías en las que las perspectivas feministas se podrían aplicar a la práctica judicial. Pero ¿qué resulta de la comparación entre dichas sentencias y la práctica real de las juezas feministas? Este artículo presenta los resultados de la investigación empírica de la autora. Se analiza el cómo, el cuándo y el dónde de la labor judicial feminista, es decir, los recursos, herramientas y técnicas feministas que las juezas han utilizado, las fases de audiencia y toma de decisión en las que se han utilizado y las áreas del derecho en que se han aplicado. Además, se toman en consideración los límites observados y potenciales de la práctica judicial feminista, y se extraen conclusiones sobre la comparación entre la labor judicial feminista en el “mundo real” y la práctica de los proyectos de tribunales feministas

Feminist Judgments on the UK Supreme Court

Prompted by two of the premises of feminist judgment-writing projects – that feminist judgments are relatively rare in the ‘real world’, and that they make a valuable contribution to jurisprudence and to the quality of justice – this article explores feminist judgment writing on the UK Supreme Court. Drawing on a database of over 570 cases, the article investigates who writes feminist judgments on the UK Supreme Court, what kind of feminist judgments they write, and what the feminist judgments add to the Court’s jurisprudence and the quality of justice it dispenses. It finds that among judges employing feminist reasoning, Lady Hale was by far the most active, but she was not alone, with Lords Kerr and Wilson also writing several feminist judgments. A range of different type of feminist reasoning was deployed and feminist judgments generally did constitute better judging, although their impact tended to be more discursive than substantive. The article concludes by considering the implications of these findings for both feminist debates and for the UK Supreme Court and the litigants appearing before it