Log in
This case describes Professor Moran's research on perceptions, expectations and experiences of sexual orientation discrimination and how they affect the lives of those who work in the justice and legal services sector. His impact has been two-fold. His research has informed policy development, reform initiatives and operational practice within the Judicial Appointments Committee. And he has raised the profile of sexual orientation which previously had not featured on the diversity agenda in the legal professional and justice sector. Raising awareness of sexual orientation as a diversity characteristic has led to campaigns and training initiatives to support career development for LGBT legal professionals.
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.
Research by the UCL Jury Project has directly influenced government and judicial policies and practices and public debate both in the UK and abroad. It has:
Because of the arduous nature of recruit training, high wastage (due to failure or withdrawal) has always been a problem for the Armed Services. A ten year programme of research funded by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) led to changes in the delivery of training across the three Armed Services (especially the Army), the formation of a new Army training establishment, a new tri-service monitoring and training body, better mental health in military recruits, and significant reductions in wastage rates (up to 15%). The model developed by this research has also informed training in the Canadian and United States Armed Services.
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 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.