Log in
Judicial studies is a new research field in the UK and operates in the highly confidential arena of judicial policy and practice, where the impact of research in producing change is often not publicly stated. But pioneering empirical work by UCL's Judicial Institute (UCLJI) and Centre for International Courts and Tribunals (CICT) has had tangible and acknowledged impacts on judicial selection and training policies and practices in the UK, Europe and at the international court level. The research impacts include:
Olowofoyeku's research on judicial accountability challenges long-established norms in the Anglo- American legal traditions. These challenges have been recognised by judicial authorities at the highest levels and have influenced and informed practitioner and judicial debates on the matter. While no changes have yet been made to the law as a result of this research, the limits of the current principles, as highlighted in Olowofoyeku's research, particularly in respect of the flaws of the common law construct of the informed observer, have been confronted and recognised by judges in their decisions, and also by practitioners.
The Feminist Judgments Project put theory into practice by engaging in a real world exercise of writing feminist judgments in leading cases in English law. In doing so it demonstrated the value of judicial diversity, the extent to which women's experiences and concerns continue to be poorly reflected in law, and the contingency of appellate decision-making. It has had a significant impact in three major ways. First, it has made an important contribution to policy debates regarding the value of judicial diversity; second, it has raised awareness and understanding among judges, legal professionals, NGOs and the wider public of the contribution of a feminist approach to judicial decision-making; and, third, it has had far-reaching benefits for teachers and students, both in the UK and internationally. While the FJP was a highly collaborative project (deriving much strength from this fact), Professor Hunter's research played a distinct and major role in shaping it and she jointly led and co-ordinated its activities from Kent. Other Kent scholars contributed judgments and commentaries.
In 2010 a Sentencing Information System (ISIS) for the Republic of Ireland was launched. Its development was partly based on an earlier system developed for use in Scotland, and the ISIS project was informed by the research which underpinned the Scottish system. The experience of this Scottish-based research informed advice given by Tata to the Judiciary and Court Service of the Republic of Ireland; a key recommendation was the need for public accessibility of the system to ensure maximum utility. The Irish system was launched in 2010 is now in use by judges and other practitioners as well as the wider public. ISIS assists judicial decision-making through the provision of meaningful, systematic information about sentencing; and its public availability has helped to shape and inform public discourse about sentencing and wider issues of justice.
Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal can be constituted by a professional judge sitting alone or by a professional judge with lay members depending primarily on the type of complaint. In 2011 the government proposed to limit dramatically the type of complaint where lay members could sit. This research provided empirical, timely evidence on the positive contribution that lay members make to the adjudicatory process. It provided an evidential basis for a keen public policy debate, was used by stakeholders responding to the government's proposal and was cited by the Minister and his shadow in the parliamentary debate.
Professor Maurice Sunkin's research on judicial review (JR) has established a comprehensive independent evidence base on the use, impact and operation of JR in England and Wales. This research has been used to inform policy debate, in some instances influencing policy decisions. The research was seminal to 2009 reforms enabling regional access to JR and has influenced the work of the English Law Commission, the Review of Civil Courts in Scotland and Lord Justice Jackson's report on Costs in Civil Litigation. Most recently it has informed multiple responses to the UK Government's proposals to reform JR and legal aid, and influenced the Ministry of Justice's report on those responses.
Bangor Law School's research into the work of the Administrative Court and the regional market for legal services in public law has challenged the orthodox view that public law is the preserve of London. It has; 1. Provided evidence that regional Administrative Courts are at least equal to the Royal Courts of Justice in terms of their service to users. 2. Influenced the National Assembly for Wales in assessing the case for establishing a separate legal jurisdiction. 3. Influenced solicitors' instruction patterns in the English regions and Wales, leading to the direction of more work to regional courts and more local solicitors instructing local counsel. 4. Informed national debate about the constitutional role of judicial review. 5. Influenced the Administrative Court/ Public Law Project in developing training opportunities outside London.
The statutory definition of "insolvency" involves proving a debtor's "inability to pay debts." In corporate insolvency, this definition is found in s123 Insolvency Act 1986. Although s123 has existed for over a hundred years (in various forms), its meaning has not been fully understood. The historical explanation of this definition, found in the underpinning research, as to the true meaning of the definition, has been adopted by the Supreme Court (in May 2013) in BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited v Eurosail [2013] UKSC 28 in overruling the Court of Appeal's "point of no return" interpretation of s123.