header-logo header-logo

The Neuberger Experiment

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

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlie Hancock

Private wealth and tax offering bolstered by partner hire

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Browne Jacobson—Matthew Kemp

Firm grows real estate team with tenth partner hire this financial year

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll