Log in
Research in organisational decision making has led to the establishment of a Sentencing Information System for the Republic of Ireland (ISIS) which enables judges, lawyers and the public to access information on sentencing patterns within the Republic of Ireland. "ISIS enables Judges and others engaged in the sentencing process... to develop their knowledge and understanding of sentencing practices. This ...benefits the understanding of defendants and witnesses, including victims of the entire process. All of this is being done without jeopardizing judicial independence and impartiality" (Source 9). With 7000 user visits annually from 84 different countries, ISIS has international impact on increasing the transparency of judicial decision-making, is widely regarded as a particularly significant development in legal processes, has stimulated public discussion on sentencing patterns and is informing public policy in the management of the criminal justice system.
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.
Professor Julian Roberts` work on victim impact and on public attitudes towards sentencing produced empirically reliable and theoretically sophisticated findings. His victim impact research has been used by lawyers and judges across Canada, has been cited with approval by courts in Canada and England and Wales, and has formed the basis of a teaching module in the national judicial education curriculum in Canada. A second strand of his research on public attitudes to sentencing has helped to shape sentencing guidelines (sentencing ranges) in England and Wales.
In Canada and in England and Wales, those charged with sentencing offenders are now better informed about the nature of victim impact and public attitudes to mitigation. Judges and policy-makers are using this research to achieve a closer fit between sentences and community views of the seriousness of crimes. Taken together these studies helped make the practice of the courts more evidence-based.
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.
Professor Martin Wasik's research has made a significant and enduring impact on the law and practice of sentencing — the scale of which has grown from 2008 onwards. This is evidenced by the adoption in England and Wales of 23 sentencing guidelines developed by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which he chaired from 1999 to 2007, based on proportionality principles advocated in his research and publications. The work of the Panel attracted international attention, informed policy debate, and served as a model of democratic involvement in the area of sentencing. Wasik also provides national Judicial College training on sentencing, and publishes extensively for practitioners, including a monthly e-letter mailed by the College to all judges who sit in criminal cases.
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:
Organisations in the social housing sector have a model of how to use information to monitor the outcomes of their activities. Drawing on research which places information in its organisational context, the mechanism of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships has been used to enable Nottingham City Homes to pioneer the evaluation of its activities focusing on a major investment programme called Decent Homes. Cited in Parliamentary debates, not only has the impact shifted the strategic direction of the organisation's activities, but also it has been adopted as a model of best practice for the sector.
The Information Rights Research Interest Group (IRRIG) has worked with a national non-departmental public body, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO), and Durham County Council to define best practice in data handling and sharing of information. Training and consultancy based on legal regulatory doctrinal and theoretical research has led to the MMO altering its policy and procedure in relation to freedom of information legislation and data sharing practice. Durham County Council has consolidated its Environmental Information Regulation work within the Information Management Team to improve the delivery of a consistent, joined up service to all stakeholders and has prepared a revised FOIA Procedures Packet which is widely used in the local authority.