Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 275–297 | Cite as

The Continuing Use of Problematic Sexual Stereotypes in Judicial Decision-Making

  • Jesse Elvin


This article examines the continuing use of problematic sexual stereotypes at appellate level in the English and Welsh legal system. Using five cases as illustrations, it argues that, notwithstanding professional training and guidance on sexual equality matters, certain senior judges in this jurisdiction still at least sometimes openly employ crude and problematic sexual stereotypes in their judgments or fail to deal appropriately with the use of these stereotypes by trial judges. The central point is that there is still a significant problem with the open use of crude sexual stereotypes in legal reasoning at a senior level in this jurisdiction, despite the pressure on all members of the legal system to appear to be ‘politically correct’.


Appellate judges England and wales Sexual stereotypes 



I am grateful to Claire de Than, the anonymous reviewers, and the editor for their comments on earlier versions of this article.


  1. Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity. 2010. The report of the Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity. Accessed 12 July 2010.
  2. Atkins, Susan, and Brenda Hoggett. 1984. Women and the law. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, Hilaire. 1998. Introduction to feminist jurisprudence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bibbings, Lois. 2000. Boys will be boys: Masculinity and offences against the person. In Feminist perspectives on criminal law, ed. Donald Nicolson, and Lois Bibbings, 231–252. London: Cavendish Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bodenhausen, Galen, and C. Neil Macrae. 1996. The self-regulation of intergroup perception: Mechanisms and consequences of stereotype suppression. In Stereotypes and stereotyping, ed. C. Neil Macrae, Charles Stangor, and Miles Hewstone, 227–253. London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burton, Mandy. 2001. Intimate homicide and the provocation defence—Endangering women? R v Smith. Feminist Legal Studies 9: 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burton, Mandy. 2003. Sentencing domestic homicide upon provocation: Still getting away with murder. Feminist Legal Studies 11: 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cain, Ruth. 2009. A view you won’t get anywhere else? Depressed mothers, public regulation and ‘private’ narrative. Feminist Legal Studies 17: 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cava, Anita. 1990. Taking judicial notice of sexual stereotyping. Arkansas Law Review 43: 27–56.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, Lucy, and Jim Bright. 2001. Individual differences in reactions to stress. In Stress: Myth, theory and research, ed. Fiona Jones, and Jim Bright, 111–133. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Creager, Angela, Elizabeth Lunbeck, and Londa Schiebinger (eds.). 2002. Feminism in twentieth-century science, technology and medicine. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  12. de Than, Claire. 2001. Equitable remedies: Cypher wives, weak women and “equity’s special tenderness”. In Feminist perspectives on equity and trusts, ed. Susan Scott-Hunt, and Hilary Lim, 197–218. London: Cavendish Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, Susan. 2007. Descent into murder: Provocation’s stricture—The prognosis for women who kill men who abuse them. Journal of Criminal Law 71: 342–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eklund, Graham. 2004. Contribution and contributory negligence with particular reference to slowly developing conditions. Journal of Personal Injury Law 2004: 270–279.Google Scholar
  15. Ellison, Louise, and Vanessa Munro. 2009. Reacting to rape: Exploring mock jurors’ assessments of complainant credibility. British Journal of Criminology 49: 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elvin, Jesse. 2006. The doctrine of precedent and the provocation defence: A comment on R v James. Modern Law Review 69: 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. English, Horace, and Ava English. 1958. A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: Langmons, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  18. Finch, Emily, and Vanessa Munro. 2006. Breaking boundaries? Sexual consent in the jury room. Legal Studies 26: 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feenan, Dermot. 2009. Editorial introduction: Women and judging. Feminist Legal Studies 17: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frazer, Elizabeth, and Nicola Lacey. 1993. The Politics of community: A feminist critique of the liberal-communitarian debate. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  21. Glick, Peter, and Susan Fiske. 2007. Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives, ed. Faye Crosby, S. Margaret Stockdale, and Ann Ropp, 155–189. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Hale, Brenda. 2005. The House of Lords and women’s rights, or, am I really a Law Lord? Legal Studies 25: 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hale, Brenda, and Rosemary Hunter. 2008. A conversation with Baroness Hale. Feminist Legal Studies 16: 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hegel, Georg, trans. 1952. Philosophy of right. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hess, Nicole, and Edward Hagen. 2006. Sex differences in indirect aggression: Psychological evidence from young adults. Evolution and Human Behaviour 27: 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunter, Rosemary. 2008. Can feminist judges make a difference? International Journal of the Legal Profession 15: 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Judicial Studies Board. 2009. Equal treatment bench book. London: Judicial Studies Board. Accessed 12 July 2010.
  28. Judicial Studies Board. 2007. Fairness in courts and tribunals: A summary of the equal treatment bench book. London: Judicial Studies Board. Accessed 12 July 2010.
  29. Law Commission. 2006. Murder, manslaughter and infanticide (Law Com No 304). London: TSO.Google Scholar
  30. Lacey, Nicola. 1998. Unspeakable subjects: Feminist essays in legal and social theory. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Levit, Nancy. 1998. The gender line: Men, women and law. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Loughnan, Arlie. 2008. Mental incapacity defences. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  33. Mackie, Diane, David Hamilton, Joshua Susskind, and Francine Rosselli. 1996. Social psychological foundations of stereotype formation. In Stereotypes and stereotyping, ed. C. Neil Macrae, Charles Stangor, and Miles Hewstone, 41–78. London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. Malleson, Kate. 1998. The new judiciary: The effects of expansion and activism. Brookfield: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  35. Malleson, Kate. 2004. Creating a judicial appointments system: Which model works best? Public Law 2004: 102–121.Google Scholar
  36. Ministry of Justice. 2008. Murder, manslaughter, and infanticide: Proposals for reform of the law (CP 19/08). London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  37. Nicolson, Donald. 2000. What the law giveth, it also taketh away: Female-specific defences to criminal liability. In Feminist perspectives on criminal law, ed. Donald Nicolson, and Lois Bibbings, 159–180. London: Cavendish Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Raitt, Fiona E., and M. Suzanne Zeedyk. 2004. Mothers on trial. Feminist Legal Studies 12: 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reddy, Rupa. 2008. Gender, culture and the law: Approaches to “honour crimes” in the UK. Feminist Legal Studies 16: 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sagrestrano, Linda. 2003. Health implications of workplace diversity. In The psychology and management of workplace diversity, ed. Margaret Stockdale, and Faye Crosby, 122–144. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Temkin, Jennifer. 2000. Prosecuting and defending rape: Perspectives from the Bar. Journal of Law and Society 27: 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Temkin, Jennifer, and Andrew Ashworth. 2004. The Sexual Offences Act 2003: (1) Rape, sexual assaults and the problems of consent. Criminal Law Review 328–346.Google Scholar
  43. Wells, Celia. 2000. Provocation: The case for abolition. In Rethinking English homicide law, ed. Andrew Ashworth, and Barry Mitchell, 85–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wilczynski, Ania, and Allison Morris. 1993. Parents who kill their children. Criminal Law Review: 31–36.Google Scholar
  45. Wilczynski, Ania. 1995. Child killing by parents: Social, legal and gender issues. In Gender and crime, ed. Rebecca Emerson Dobash, Russell P. Dobash, and Lesley Noakes, 167–180. Cardiff: Wales University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wilczynski, Ania. 1997. Mad or bad? Child-killers, gender and the courts. British Journal of Criminology 37: 419–436.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City Law SchoolCity University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations