Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality of Judicial Reasoning: England and Wales

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 69))

  • 759 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter looks at the theoretical and practical foundations for the quality of judicial reasoning in England and Wales. Standards can be found in theory—judges should not forget that giving reasons is a basis for their own legitimacy and accountability. These standards appear to be entirely derived from legal principles and practices. This chapter will address the question of whether there are criticisms on the quality of judicial reasoning and their source, and whether quality management can help to alleviate these critiques without being in breach of judicial independence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also Eisenberg (2007), 81.

  2. 2.

    Ibid. 1.

  3. 3.

    Ibid. 2, see also Dyzenhaus and Taggart (2007).

  4. 4.

    Ibid. 25.

  5. 5.

    Ibid. 25.

  6. 6.

    Ibid. 27 citing Lord Reid.

  7. 7.

    Ibid. 27.

  8. 8.

    Ibid. citing Dworkin (1986).

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    Ibid. 152.

  11. 11.

    Ibid. 152–153.

  12. 12.

    Ibid. 159.

  13. 13.

    See e.g. Dickson (2010) and Schauer (1987).

  14. 14.

    However, many more authors have looked at these aspects of common law methods such as Baghoomians and Schauer (2009) or Gerhardt (2008).

  15. 15.

    Ibid. 88.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Ibid.

  18. 18.

    Ibid. 89.

  19. 19.

    Ibid. 92.

  20. 20.

    Ibid. 92–93; For a deeper discussion on consequence based decision making, its conceivability, feasibility and desirability, see Cserne (2013), 89–109.

  21. 21.

    Ibid. 93.

  22. 22.

    Ibid. 94.

  23. 23.

    Ibid. 96.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    Ibid. 106.

  27. 27.

    Ibid. 111–112.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.; and Judical College of Victoria 2008 Framework of Judicial Abilities and Qualities.

  29. 29.

    See http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/communities/women-lawyers-division/features/day-in-the-life-of-a-supreme-court-judicial-assistant/.

  30. 30.

    Ibid. 6.

  31. 31.

    Ibid. 46.

  32. 32.

    Ibid. 47.

  33. 33.

    Ibid. 48.

  34. 34.

    Ibid. 48.

  35. 35.

    Ibid. 48.

  36. 36.

    Ibid. 49.

  37. 37.

    Ibid. 49.

  38. 38.

    Ibid. 50.

  39. 39.

    Ibid. paras. 4–5.

  40. 40.

    Ibid. para. 17.

  41. 41.

    Ibid. para. 18.

  42. 42.

    Ibid. para. 18.

  43. 43.

    Ibid. para. 19.

  44. 44.

    Ibid. para. 20.

  45. 45.

    Ibid. para. 30.

  46. 46.

    Ibid. 8.

  47. 47.

    This means a case which is unlikely to win, but the client or prosecutor continues to go to court anyway.

  48. 48.

    Ibid. para. 29.

  49. 49.

    Ibid. para. 25.

  50. 50.

    Ibid. para. 26.

  51. 51.

    Ibid. paras. 35–36.

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    See also Andrews (2014), 11–13.

  54. 54.

    Ibid. 69.

  55. 55.

    Ibid. 69–70.

  56. 56.

    Ibid. 69.

  57. 57.

    Ibid. 70.

  58. 58.

    Ibid. 71.

  59. 59.

    Ibid. 71.

  60. 60.

    Ibid. 71–72.

  61. 61.

    Ibid. 72.

  62. 62.

    Ibid.

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Andrews also implies that reasoning in lower courts is connected directly with promotion, and this is a standard that must be met Andrews (2014), 9.

  65. 65.

    Ibid. para. 12.

  66. 66.

    Ibid. paras. 13 and 16.

  67. 67.

    Ibid. para. 14.

  68. 68.

    Ibid. para. 12.

  69. 69.

    See for example the tragic case of Sally Clark, the solicitor convicted of murdering her children, where the conviction was eventually overturned due to problematic expert testimony: (England and Wales Court of Appeal 2003) R. v Clark, [2003] EWCA Crim 1020, 11 April 2003, from BAILII.

  70. 70.

    Ibid. 39.

  71. 71.

    Ibid. 74.

  72. 72.

    Ibid. 65.

  73. 73.

    Ibid. 40–41.

References

  • Andrews NH (2014) The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and English court judgements. In: headoflegal. http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/05/22/supreme-court-judgment-r-barkas-v-north-yorkshire/

  • Bingham T (2011) The business of judging: selected essays and speeches: 1985–1999. OUP Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane P (2009) Administrative tribunals and adjudication. Bloomsbury Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • CEPEJ (2008) Checklist for promoting the quality of justice and the courts. CEPEJ, Strasburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (2014) Judicial skills and abilities framework. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/framework-of-judicial-abilities-and-qualities/. Accessed 8 Apr 2017

  • Cserne P (2013) Courts and expertise: consequence-based arguments in judicial reasoning. In: National legal systems and globalization. Springer, pp 89–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson J (2010) Interpretation and coherence in legal reasoning. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1986) Law’s empire. Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D, Taggart M (2007) Reasoned decisions and legal theory. In: Common law theory, pp 134–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg MA (2007) The principles of legal reasoning in the common law. In: Common law theory, pp 81–101

    Google Scholar 

  • England and Wales Court of Appeal (2003) Clark, R v [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 (11 April 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2014) Guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings of Council of Europe’s Member States—document adopted by CEPEJ at its 24th Plenary meeting (Strasbourg, 11–12 December 2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding NG (2011) Judges and their work. Soc Leg Stud 20:97–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner C (2014) Supreme Court judgment: R (Barkas) v North Yorkshire. In: Head Leg. http://www.headoflegal.com/2014/05/22/supreme-court-judgment-r-barkas-v-north-yorkshire/. Accessed 17 Dec 2015

  • Gelter M, Siems M (2014) Citations to foreign courts—illegitimate and superfluous, or unavoidable? Evidence from Europe. Am J Comp Law 62:35–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardt MJ (2008) The power of precedent. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • HK vs Llanarth Court Hospital (2014) HK v Llanarth Court Hospital [2014] UKUT 410 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 95

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson T (2013) Empirical facts: a rationale for expanding lawyers’ methodological expertise. Law Method 3:53–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Judicial College of Victoria (2008) Framework of judicial abilities and qualities. http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/2009JCVFramework-JCVsite_0.pdf

  • Meek v City of Birmingham District Council (1987) Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger L (2015) Sausages and the judicial process: the limits of transparency. Judicial Commission of NSW, p 131

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng GY (2010) Quality management in the justice system in England and Wales. CEPEJ Study 23–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson A, Paterson C (2012) Guarding the guardians? Towards an independent, accountable and diverse senior judiciary. Centre Forum and CPLS

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer F (1987) Precedent. Stanford Law Rev 571–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas EW (2005) The judicial process: realism, pragmatism, practical reasoning and principles. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward T (2013) Expert evidence, ethics and the law. In: Harrison K, Rainey B (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of legal and ethical aspects of sex offender treatment and management. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 82–96

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Zenon Bankowski, Professor Emiritus, University of Edinburgh, Faculty of law, and Dr. Marjan Ajevski, Research Fellow, Open University, School of Law, for their comments. Any errors and conclusions remain my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, University of Buckingham, Buckingham, UK

    Gar Yein Ng

Authors
  1. Gar Yein Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gar Yein Ng .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Lawt, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary

    Mátyás Bencze

  2. School of Law, University of Buckingham, Buckingham, UK

    Gar Yein Ng

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ng, G.Y. (2018). Quality of Judicial Reasoning: England and Wales. In: Bencze, M., Ng, G. (eds) How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 69. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97316-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97316-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97315-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97316-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation