header-logo header-logo

14 August 2013 / Erika Rackley , Erika Rackley
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

The Neuberger Experiment

manwoman

Do female judges change the substance of decision-making, asks Erika Rackley

Is it possible to isolate the potential impact of gender, as distinct from any other identity characteristic, in any given judgment?

While few would argue against the importance of a diverse judiciary, the view that the inclusion of different perspectives on the bench would alter—let alone enrich—the substance and quality of judicial decision-making, remains controversial.

One reason for this is that there have been doubts as to how, if at all, the identity characteristics of any given judge affect how they judge, and still less whether any potential differences can be correlated and corroborated across gender, ethnicity, etc. Even if we are agreed that, on balance, it is likely that gender makes some difference to judicial decision-making, we might think that until we can demonstrate how women and men differ in their judging, arguments for increasing diversity on this basis cannot get off the ground. But how might we prove this?

The Neuberger Experiment

In May 2013, BBC Radio 4’s

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll