Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T15:29:02.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2022

Jaime Lindsey
Jaime Lindsey
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Reimagining the Court of Protection
Access to Justice in Mental Capacity Law
 , pp. 227 - 240
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aitken, M., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Pagliari, C. ‘Moving from trust to trustworthiness: experiences of public engagement in the Scottish Health Informatics Programme’ (2016) 43 Science and Public Policy 713.Google Scholar
Allan Lind, E., Kanfer, R. and Early, C. ‘Voice, control and procedural justice’ (1990) 59 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 952.Google Scholar
American Bar Association. Report of the Taskforce on Research on Mediator Techniques (2017), www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/dispute_resolution/materials/2019-mediation-research-task-force-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. ‘Autonomy and vulnerability entwined’ in Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W. and Dodds, S. (eds.), Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Arstein-Kerslake, A. Restoring Voice to People with Cognitive Disabilities: Realizing the Right to Equal Recognition before the Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Avraham, R. Hubbard, W. H. J. and Lipschits, I. ‘Procedural flexibility in three dimensions’, Coase–Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics, No. 843 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggs, A. M. ‘In my language’ (2007), www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnylM1hI2jc.Google Scholar
Banakar, R. and Travers, M. ‘Law, sociology and method’ in Banakar, R. and Travers, M. (eds.), Theory and Method in Socio-Legal Research (Oxford: Hart, 2005).Google Scholar
Banks, L. M., Davey, C., Shakespeare, T. and Kuper, H. ‘Disability-inclusive responses to COVID-19: lessons learnt from research on social protection in low- and middle-income countries’ (2021) 137 World Development 105178.Google Scholar
Banner, N. F. ‘Unreasonable reasons: normative judgements in the assessment of mental capacity’ (2012) 18 Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 1038.Google Scholar
Barad, K. ‘Posthumanist performativity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter’ (2003) 28 Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 801.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. ‘An ethical agenda in disability research: rhetoric or reality?’ in Mertens, D. M. and Ginsberg, P. E. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Research Ethics (London: Sage, 2008).Google Scholar
Barry, L. ‘Elder mediation: what’s in a name?’ (2015) 32 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 435.Google Scholar
Bens, J. ‘The courtroom as an affective arrangement: analysing atmospheres in courtroom ethnography’ (2018) 50 Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 336.Google Scholar
Berger-Walliser, G., Barton, T. D. and Haapio, H. ‘From visualization to legal design: a collaborative and creative process’ (2017) 54 American Business Law Journal 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blader, S. L. and Tyler, T. ‘A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a “fair” process’ (2003) 29 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 747.Google Scholar
Blakey, R. ‘Cracking the code: the role of mediators and flexibility post-LASPO’ (2020) 32 Child and Family Law Quarterly 53.Google Scholar
Bondy, V., Mulcahy, L., Doyle, M. and Reid, V. (2009) ‘Mediation and judicial review: an empirical research study’ (London: The Public Law Project), www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/MediationandJudicialReview.pdf.Google Scholar
Brammer, A. and Cooper, P. ‘Still waiting for a meeting of minds: child witnesses in the criminal and family justice systems’ (2011) 12 Criminal Law Review 925.Google Scholar
Brazier, M. and Miola, J. ‘Bye-bye Bolam: a medical litigation revolution?’ (2000) 8 Medical Law Review 85.Google Scholar
Breden, T. M. and Vollmann, J. ‘The cognitive based approach of capacity assessment in psychiatry: a philosophical critique of the MacCAT-T’ (2004) 12 Health Care Analysis 273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burchell, K. ‘Empiricist selves and contingent “others”: the performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy’ (2007) 16 Public Understanding of Science 145.Google Scholar
Burton, M., Evans, R. and Sanders, A. ‘Vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and the adversarial process in England and Wales’ (2007) 11 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1.Google Scholar
Butler, -Cole, V. and Hobey-Hamsher, L. ‘The assessment of capacity by judges of the Court of Protection’ (2016) 6 Elder Law Journal 145.Google Scholar
Byrom, N. ‘Measuring success in online courts: an empirical challenge’ (October 2018), https://research.thelegaleducationfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Measuring-Success-in-Online-Courts-Briefing-Paper.pdf.Google Scholar
Byrom, N. ‘Digital justice: HMCTS data strategy and delivering access to justice’ (October 2019), https://research.thelegaleducationfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/DigitalJusticeFINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Carney, T. and Tait, D. The Adult Guardianship Experiment: Tribunals and Popular Justice (Sydney: Federation Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Case, P. ‘Dangerous liaisons? Psychiatry and law in the Court of Protection – expert discourses of “insight” (and “compliance”)’ (2016) 24 Medical Law Review 360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, P. ‘Negotiating the domain of mental capacity: clinical judgement or judicial diagnosis?’ (2016) 16 Medical Law International 174.Google Scholar
Case, P. ‘When the judge met P: the rules of engagement in the Court of Protection and the parallel universe of children meeting judges in the Family Court’ (2019) 39 Legal Studies 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cermele, J. A., Daniels, S. and Anderson, K. L. ‘Defining normal: constructions of race and gender in the DSM-IV Casebook’ (2001) 11 Feminism & Psychology 229.Google Scholar
Charles, Mr Justice. ‘Facilitating participation of “P” and vulnerable persons in Court of Protection Proceedings’ (2016), www.familylaw.co.uk/system/froala_assets/documents/1334/Practice_Guidance_Vulnerable_Persons.pdf.Google Scholar
Clough, B. ‘Vulnerability and capacity to consent to sex: asking the right questions?’ (2014) 26 Child and Family Law Quarterly 371.Google Scholar
Clough, B. ‘“People like that”: realising the social model in mental capacity jurisprudence’ (2015) 23 Medical Law Review 53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clough, B. ‘Disability and vulnerability: challenging the capacity/incapacity binary’ (2017) 16 Social Policy and Society 469.Google Scholar
Clough, B. ‘New legal landscapes: (re)constructing the boundaries of mental capacity law’ (2018) 26 Medical Law Review 246–275.Google Scholar
Coggon, J. and Miola, J. ‘Autonomy, liberty, and medical decision-making’ (2011) 70 Cambridge Law Journal 523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, H. and Evans, R. ‘The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience’ (2002) 32 Social Studies of Science 235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. and Evans, R. Rethinking expertise (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Cooper, P. and Wurtzel, D. ‘A day late and a dollar short: in search of an intermediary scheme for vulnerable defendants in England and Wales’ (2013) 1 Criminal Law Review 4.Google Scholar
Crampton, A. ‘Escape from the laboratory: ethnographic methods in the study of elder and family court mediation’ (2016) 32 Negotiation Journal 191.Google Scholar
Cunningham-Hill, S. and Elder, K. Civil Litigation 2019–20 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
David, A. and Ariyo, K. ‘Insight is a useful construct in clinical assessments if used wisely’ (2021) 47 Journal of Medical Ethics 185.Google Scholar
De Girolamo, D. ‘The mediation process: challenges to neutrality and the delivery of procedural justice’ (2019) 39 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 834.Google Scholar
Delgado, R., Dunn, C., Brown, P. and Lee, H. ‘Fairness and formality: minimizing the risk of prejudice in alternative dispute resolution’ (1985) 1985 Wisconsin Law Review 1359.Google Scholar
Dennis, D. and Monahan, J. (eds.). Coercion and Aggressive Community Treatment: A New Frontier in Mental Health Law (New York: Plenum Press, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devaney, S. and Holm, S. ‘The transmutation of deference in medicine: an ethico-legal perspective’ (2018) 26 Medical Law Review 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, M. ‘Best interests, patient participation and the Mental Capacity Act 2005’ (2009) 17 Medical Law Review 1.Google Scholar
Donnelly, M. ‘Capacity assessment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005: delivering on the functional approach?’ (2009) 29 Legal Studies 464.Google Scholar
Donnelly, M. Healthcare Decision-Making and the Law: Autonomy, Capacity and the Limits of Liberalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Donnelly, M. ‘Best interests in the Mental Capacity Act: time to say goodbye?’ (2016) 24 Medical Law Review 318.Google Scholar
Donnelly, M. and Kilkelly, U. ‘Child-friendly healthcare: delivering on the right to be heard’ (2011) 19 Medical Law Review 27.Google Scholar
Douglas, K. and Hurley, J. ‘The potential of procedural justice in mediation: a study into mediators understandings’ (2017) 29 Bond Law Review 69 . Google Scholar
Dwyer, D. The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Edmond, G. ‘After objectivity: expert evidence and procedural reform’ (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 131.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, Z. The Female Body and the Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).Google Scholar
Fabre, C. Whose Body Is It Anyway? Justice and the Integrity of the Person (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Fairclough, S. ‘“It doesn’t happen … and I’ve never thought it was necessary for it to happen”: barriers to vulnerable defendants giving evidence by live link in Crown Court trials’ (2017) 21 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 209.Google Scholar
Fallon-Kund, M., Coenen, M. and Bickenbach, J. E. ‘Balancing autonomy and protection: a qualitative analysis of court hearings dealing with protective measures’ (2017) 53 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 69.Google Scholar
Fineman, M. ‘The vulnerable subject and the responsive state’ (2010) 60 Emory Law Journal 251.Google Scholar
Fletcher, R., Fox, M. and McCandless, J. ‘Legal embodiment: analysing the body of healthcare law’ (2008) 16 Medical Law Review 321.Google Scholar
Flynn, E. Disabled Justice? Access to Justice and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (London: Routledge, 2015).Google Scholar
Flynn, E. and Arstein-Kerslake, A. ‘Legislating personhood: realising the right to support in exercising legal capacity’ (2014) 10 International Journal of Law in Context 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, C. and Miola, J. ‘Who’s in charge? The relationship between medical law, medical ethics, and medical morality?’ (2015) 23 Medical Law Review 505.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (London: Peregrine, 1979).Google Scholar
Fox, M. and Murphy, T. ‘The body, bodies, embodiment: feminist legal engagement with health’ in Munro, V. and Davies, M. (eds.), Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013).Google Scholar
Fox, M. and Thomson, M. ‘Bodily integrity, embodiment, and the regulation of parental choice’ (2017) 44 Journal of Law and Society 501.Google Scholar
Fricker, M. ‘Epistemic justice as a condition of political freedom?’ (2013) 190 Synthese 1317.Google Scholar
Garland-Thomson, R. ‘Misfits: a feminist materialist disability concept’ (2011) 26 Hypatia 591.Google Scholar
Genn, H. Paths to Justice (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1999).Google Scholar
Genn, H. ‘Civil mediation: a measured approach?’ (2010) 32 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genn, H. Judging Civil Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Gráinne, M. ‘A ladder of legal participation for tribunal users’ (2013) Public Law 575.Google Scholar
Green, S. ‘Sarah’s story: being “P” – the importance of rule 3A’ (2016) 6 Elder Law Journal 168.Google Scholar
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. and Graham, W. F. ‘Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs’ (1989) 11 Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 255.Google Scholar
Hall, K. Q. ‘Feminism, disability, and embodiment’ (2002) 14 NWSA Journal vii.Google Scholar
Halliday, S. Autonomy and Pregnancy: A Comparative Analysis of Compelled Obstetric Intervention (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016).Google Scholar
Harding, R. Regulating Sexuality: Legal Consciousness in Lesbian and Gay Lives (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011).Google Scholar
Harding, R. ‘The rise of statutory wills and the limits of best interests decision‐making in inheritance’ (2015) 78 Modern Law Review 945.Google Scholar
Harding, R. ‘Safeguarding Freedom: the Liberty Protection Safeguards, Social Justice and the Rule of Law’, Current Legal Problems lecture, 4 March 2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, R. and Tascioglu, E. Everyday Decisions Project Report: Supporting Legal Capacity through Care, Support and Empowerment (2017), https://legalcapacity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Everyday_Decisions_Project_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Harding, R., Taşcıoğlu, E. and Furgalska, M. ‘Supported will‐making: a socio‐legal study of experiences, values and potential in supporting testamentary capacity’ (2019), www.legalcapacity.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SupportedWillMaking_FinalReport_2019_web.pdf.Google Scholar
Harnacke, C. ‘Disability and capability: exploring the usefulness of Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach for the UN Disability Rights Convention’ (2013) 41 Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 768.Google Scholar
Harrington, J. Towards a Rhetoric of Medical Law (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016).Google Scholar
Harrington, J., Series, L. and Ruck-Keene, A. ‘Law and rhetoric: critical possibilities’ (2019) 46 Journal of Law and Society 302.Google Scholar
Harris, M. ‘Anthropology and postmodernism’ in Murphy, M. F. and Margolis, M. L. (eds.), Science, Materialism and the Study of Culture (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1995).Google Scholar
Hayden, Mr Justice. Third COVID guidance, 23 March 2020, www.mentalcapacitylawandpolicy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/VP-COP-Third-COVID-19-Guidance-23-March-2020.pdf.Google Scholar
Hayden, Mr Justice. Remote access to the Court of Protection guidance, 31 March 2021, www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/20200331-Court-of-Protection-Remote-Hearings.pdf.Google Scholar
Henderson, E. ‘Taking control of cross-examination: judges, advocates and intermediaries discuss judicial management of the cross-examination of vulnerable people’ (2016) 3 Criminal Law Review 181.Google Scholar
HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Reform Programme Projects explained (2018), www.gov.uk/guidance/the-hmcts-reform-programme.Google Scholar
HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Court and Tribunal Design Guide (2019), www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-and-tribunal-design-guide.Google Scholar
Herring, J. Commentary on: Sheffield City Council v E (Oxford: Hart, 2010).Google Scholar
Herring, J. and Wall, J. ‘Autonomy, capacity and vulnerable adults: filling the gaps in the Mental Capacity Act’ (2015) 35 Legal Studies 698.Google Scholar
Hildreth, J. A. D., Moore, D. A. and Blader, S. L. ‘Revisiting the instrumentality of voice: having voice in the process makes people think they will get what they want’ (2014) 27 Social Justice Research 209.Google Scholar
Hopt, K. J. and Steffek, F. (eds.). Mediation: Principles and Regulation in Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Hull, R. J. ‘Cheap listening – reflections on the concept of wrongful disability’ (2006) 20 Bioethics 55.Google Scholar
Hunter, G., Jacobson, J. and Kirby, A. Out of the Shadows: Victims’ and Witnesses’ Experiences of Attending the Crown Court (London: Victim Support, 2013).Google Scholar
Huxtable, R., Law, Ethics and Compromise at the Limits of Life (London: Routledge, 2013).Google Scholar
Hynes, J., Gill, N. and Tomlinson, J. ‘In defence of the hearing? Emerging geographies of publicness, materiality, access and communication in court hearings’ (2021) n/a Geography Compass e12499.Google Scholar
Ipsos Mori. Trust: The Truth (2019), www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2019-09/ipsos-thinks-trust-the-truth.pdf.Google Scholar
Irvine, C. ‘What do “lay” people know about justice? An empirical enquiry’ (2020) 16 International Journal of Law in Context 146.Google Scholar
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P. and Tyler, T. ‘Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions’ (2012) 52 British Journal of Criminology 1051.Google Scholar
Jacob, M.-A. Matching Organs with Donors: Legality and Kinship in Transplants (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012).Google Scholar
James, A. L. ‘Children, the UNCRC, and family law in England and Wales’ (2008) 46 Family Court Review 53.Google Scholar
James, A. L., James, A. and McNamee, S. ‘Turn down the volume: not hearing children in family proceedings’ (2004) 16 Child and Family Law Quarterly 189.Google Scholar
Judicial College. Equal Treatment Bench Book (2021), www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book-February-2021-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Kaganas, F. ‘Justifying the LASPO Act: authenticity, necessity, suitability, responsibility and autonomy’ (2017) 39 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 168.Google Scholar
Kane, N. B., Ruck Keene, A., Owen, G. S. and Kim, S. Y. H. ‘Applying decision-making capacity criteria in practice: a content analysis of court judgments’ (2021) 16 Plos One e0246521.Google Scholar
Kant, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
Katsh, E. and Rabinovich-Einy, O. Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Keeling, A. ‘“Organising objects”: adult safeguarding practice and article 16 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ (2017) 53 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 77.Google Scholar
Kinchin, N. Administrative Justice in the UN: Procedural Protections, Gaps and Proposals for Reform (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2018).Google Scholar
Kong, C. Mental Capacity in Relationship: Decision-Making, Dialogue, and Autonomy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Kong, C., Coggon, J., Dunn, M. and Ruck Keene, A. ‘An aide memoire for a balancing act? Critiquing the “balance sheet” approach to best interests decision-making’ (2020) 28(4) Medical Law Review 753.Google Scholar
Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (Los Angeles: Sage 2009).Google Scholar
Langdon-Down, G. ‘Facts of life’, Law Gazette, 26 November 2018, www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/facts-of-life/5068423.article.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. ‘Accessibility obligations in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Nyusti & Takacs v. Hungary special issue on disability’ (2014) 30 South African Journal on Human Rights 380.Google Scholar
Lee, M. ‘Knowledge and landscape in wind energy planning’ (2017) 37 Legal Studies 3.Google Scholar
Le Sueur, A., Sunkin, M. and Murkens, J. Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. ‘Developing vulnerability: a situational response to the abuse of women with mental disabilities’ (2016) 24 Feminist Legal Studies 295.Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. ‘Streamlining the approach to depriving a person of their liberty: the Re X litigation’ (2016) 38 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 79.Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. ‘Testimonial injustice and vulnerability: a qualitative analysis of participation in the Court of Protection’ (2019) 28 Social & Legal Studies 450.Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. ‘Competing professional knowledge claims about mental capacity in the Court of Protection’ (2020) 28 Medical Law Review 1.Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. ‘Protecting vulnerable adults from abuse: under-protection and over-protection in adult safeguarding and mental capacity law’ (2020) 32 Child and Family Law Quarterly 157.Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. The Role of Mediation in the Court of Protection: A Roundtable Report (2020), http://repository.essex.ac.uk/28658/1/Mediation%20roundtable%20report_2020.pdf.Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. ‘Protecting disabled adults from abusive family relationships: mental capacity, autonomy and vulnerability’ in Clough, B. and Herring, J. (eds.), Disability, Care and Family Law (Abingdon: Routledge, 2021).Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. ‘Best interests and relationality in reproductive healthcare’ in Davey, S. and Lindsey, J. (eds.), Grandparents and the Law: Rights and Relationships (Abingdon: Routledge, in press).Google Scholar
Lindsey, J. and Loomes-Quinn, G., Evaluation of Mediation in the Court of Protection Report, (forthcoming 2022).Google Scholar
Lord, J., Guernsey, K. N., Balfe, J. M., Karr, V. L. and Flowers, N. (eds.). Human Rights: Yes! Action and Advocacy on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Human Rights Resource Center, 2009), https://hpod.law.harvard.edu/pdf/Human-Rights-Yes.pdf.Google Scholar
Lucy, W. ‘The normative standing of access to justice: an argument from non-domination’ (2016) 33 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 231.Google Scholar
Lucy, W. ‘Access to justice and the rule of law’ (2020) 40 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 377.Google Scholar
MacCoun, R. J. ‘Voice, control, and belonging: the double-edged sword of procedural fairness’ (2005) 1 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 171.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, C. ‘Embodied agents, narrative selves’ (2014) 17 Philosophical Explorations 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackenzie, C. and Rogers, W. (2013) ‘Autonomy, vulnerability and capacity: a philosophical appraisal of the Mental Capacity Act’ 9 International Journal of Law in Context 37.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, C. and Stoljar, N. (eds.). Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Mant, J. ‘Neoliberalism, family law and the cost of access to justice’ (2017) 39 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 246.Google Scholar
Martin, W., Michalowski, S., Jutten, T. and Burch, M. Achieving CRPD Compliance (Colchester: Essex Autonomy Project, 2014), http://repository.essex.ac.uk/13624/1/EAP-Position-Paper-FINAL-copy.pdf.Google Scholar
Martin, W., Michalowski, S., Stavert, J., Ward, A., Ruck Keene, A., Caughey, A., Hempsey, A. and McGregor, R. Three Jurisdictions Report: Towards Compliance with CRPD Art. 12 in Capacity/Incapacity Legislation across the UK (Colchester: Essex Autonomy Project, 2016), https://autonomy.essex.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/EAP-3J-Final-Report-2016.pdf.Google Scholar
May, C. ‘Elder and guardianship mediation: a review of the Canadian EGM report and its relevance in the UK’ (2012) 4 Elder Law Journal 12.Google Scholar
May, C. ‘Court of Protection mediation research: where are we in the UK?’ (2019), www.adultcaremediation.co.uk/Court_of_Protection_Mediation_Research_190531.pdf.Google Scholar
Mayo, M., Koessl, G., Scott, M. and Slater, I. Access to Justice for Disadvantaged Communities (Bristol: Policy Press, 2015).Google Scholar
McKenna, B. J. and Graham, P. ‘Technocratic discourse: a primer’ (2000) 30 Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 223.Google Scholar
McKimmie, B. M., Hays, J. M. and Tait, D. ‘Just spaces: does courtroom design affect how the defendant is perceived?’ (2016) 23 Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 885.Google Scholar
McNay, L. ‘Suffering, silence and social weightlessness: Honneth and Bourdieu on embodiment and power’ in Gonzalez-Arnal, S., Jagger, G. and Lennon, K. (eds.), Embodied Selves (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. J. Mediation, Arbitration, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (New York: Elsevier, 2015).Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. J. ‘The evolving complexity of dispute resolution ethics 30th anniversary commemorative issue: commemorative contributions’ (2017) 30 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 389.Google Scholar
Menkel-Meadow, C. J. (ed.). Mediation: Theory, Policy and Practice (Abingdon: Routledge 2018).Google Scholar
Merry, S. E. Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness among Working-Class Americans (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1990).Google Scholar
Meyerson, D. and Mackenzie, C. ‘Procedural justice and the law’ (2018) 13 Philosophy Compass e12548.Google Scholar
Meyerson, D., Mackenzie, C. and MacDermott, T. (eds.). Procedural Justice and Relational Theory: Empirical, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives (Abingdon: Routledge, 2021).Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice. Family Court Statistics Quarterly: October to December 2020 (2020), www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-october-to-december-2020.Google Scholar
Minkowitz, T. ‘CRPD and transformative equality’ (2017) 13 International Journal of Law in Context 77.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J., Jones, C. and Biggs, H. ‘Hidden law-making in the province of medical jurisprudence’ (2014) 77 Modern Law Review 343.Google Scholar
Mulcahy, L. ‘The unbearable lightness of being? Shifts towards the virtual trial’ (2008) 35 Journal of Law and Society 464.Google Scholar
Mulcahy, L. Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law (Abingdon: Routledge, 2011).Google Scholar
Mulcahy, L. and Rowden, E. The Democratic Courthouse: A Modern History of Design, Due Process and Dignity (Abingdon: Routledge, 2020).Google Scholar
Murris, K. ‘The epistemic challenge of hearing child’s voice’ (2013) 32 Studies in Philosophy and Education 245.Google Scholar
Naffine, N. Law’s Meaning of Life: Philosophy, Religion, Darwin and the Legal Person (Oxford: Hart, 2009).Google Scholar
Naffine, N. and Owens, R. (eds.). Sexing the Subject of Law (North Ryde, NSW: LBC Information Services and Sweet and Maxwell, 1997).Google Scholar
Nedelsky, J. ‘Law, boundaries, and the bounded self’ (1990) 30 Representations 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedelsky, J. Law’s Relations: A Relational Theory of Self, Autonomy, and Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Nicolson, D. Evidence and Proof in Scotland: Context and Critique (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality and Species Membership (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. ‘The capabilities of people with cognitive disabilities’ in Kittay, E. F. and Carlson, L. (eds.), Cognitive Disability and Its Challenge to Moral Philosophy (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010).Google Scholar
Oliver, M. The Politics of Disablement (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1990).Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Oorschot, I., Mascini, P. and Weenink, D. ‘Remorse in context(s)’ (2017) 26 Social & Legal Studies 359.Google Scholar
Oshana, M. Personal Autonomy in Society (Farnham: Ashgate, 2006).Google Scholar
Paul, S., Nakhost, A., Stergiopoulos, V., Matheson, F. I., Simpson, A. I. F. and Guimond, T. ‘Perceptions of key stakeholders on procedural justice in the Consent and Capacity Board of Ontario’s hearings’ (2020) 68 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1.Google Scholar
Peeples, R. A., Reynolds, S. and Harris, C. T. ‘It’s the conflict, stupid: an empirical study of factors that inhibit successful mediation in high-conflict custody cases’ (2008) 43 Wake Forest Law Review 505.Google Scholar
Penney, J. N. ‘The biopsychosocial model: redefining osteopathic philosophy?’ (2013) 16 International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine 33.Google Scholar
Perry, A. ‘The flexibility rule in administrative law’ (2017) 76 Cambridge Law Journal 375.Google Scholar
Perry-Kessaris, A. ‘The pop-up museum of legal objects project: an experiment in socio-legal design special issue’ (2017) 68 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 225.Google Scholar
Perry-Kessaris, A. ‘Legal design for practice, activism, policy, and research’ (2019) 46 Journal of Law and Society 185.Google Scholar
Perry-Kessaris, A. ‘Work in progress: doing socio-legal research in design mode’ (2019), www.amandaperrykessaris.org/2019/11/28/work-in-progress-doing-socio-legal-research-in-design-mode/.Google Scholar
Petersen, A. C. and Olsson, J. I. ‘Calling evidence-based practice into question: acknowledging phronetic knowledge in social work’ (2015) 45 British Journal of Social Work 1581.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. ‘The cunning of trust’ (1995) 24 Philosophy and Public Affairs 202.Google Scholar
Pincock, H. ‘Does mediation make us better? Exploring the capacity-building potential of community mediation’ (2013) 31 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 13.Google Scholar
Pritchard-Jones, L. ‘The good, the bad, and the “vulnerable older adult”’ (2016) 38 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 51.Google Scholar
Pruitt, D. G., Peirce, R. S., McGillicuddy, N. B., Welton, G. L. and Castrianno, L. M. ‘Long-term success in mediation’ (1993) 17 Law and Human Behavior 313.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Rhode, D. ‘Access to justice’ (2000–2001) 69 Fordham Law Review 1785.Google Scholar
Richardson, G. ‘Existing approaches to process in administrative law: the legal regulation of process’, in Richardson, G. and Genn, H. (eds.), Administrative Law and Government Action (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Riles, A. ‘Anthropology, human rights, and legal knowledge: culture in the iron cage’ (2006) 108 American Anthropologist 52.Google Scholar
Rock, P. The Social World of an English Crown Court: Witnesses and Professionals at the Crown Court Centre at Wood Green (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Roelofs, P. ‘Transparency and mistrust: who or what should be made transparent?’ (2019) 32 Governance 565.Google Scholar
Romelli, K., Frigerio, A. and Colombo, M. ‘DSM over time: from legitimisation of authority to hegemony’ (2016) 11 BioSocieties 1.Google Scholar
Roosevelt, E. ‘The great question. Remarks delivered at the United Nations in New York on March 27, 1958’ (New York: United Nations, 1958).Google Scholar
Rossner, M., Tait, D., McKimmie, B. and Sarre, R. ‘The dock on trial: courtroom design and the presumption of innocence’ (2017) 44 Journal of Law and Society 317.Google Scholar
Ruck Keene, A., Bartlett, P. and Allen, N. ‘Litigation friends or foes? Representation of “P” before the Court of Protection’ (2016) 24 Medical Law Review 333.Google Scholar
Ruck Keene, A., Edwards, K., Eldergill, A., Mackintosh, N. and Miles, S. Court of Protection Handbook (Legal Action Group, 2020).Google Scholar
Ruck Keene, A., Kane, N. B., Kim, S. Y. H. and Owen, G. S. ‘Taking capacity seriously? Ten years of mental capacity disputes before England’s Court of Protection’ (2019) 62 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 56.Google Scholar
Sandland, R. ‘Concubitu prohibere vago: sex and the idiot girl’ (2013) 21 Feminist Legal Studies 81.Google Scholar
Sandland, R. ‘Sex and capacity: the management of monsters?’ (2013) 76 Modern Law Review 981.Google Scholar
Scherpe, J. and Marten, B. ‘Mediation in England and Wales: regulation and practice’ in Hopt, K. J. and Steffek, F. (eds.), Mediation: Principles and Regulation in Comparative Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Scully, J. L. ‘Disability and the thinking body’ in Gonzalez-Arnal, S., Jagger, G. and Lennon, K. (eds.), Embodied Selves (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).Google Scholar
Scully, J. L. ‘Disability and vulnerability: on bodies, dependence and power’ in Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W. and Dodds, S. (eds.), Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Sen, A. Commodoties and Capabilities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
Sen, A. Development as Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
Sen, A. The Idea of Justice (London: Allen Lane, 2009).Google Scholar
Series, L. ‘Relationships, autonomy and legal capacity: mental capacity and support paradigms’ (2015) 40 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 80.Google Scholar
Series, L., Fennell, P., Clements, L. and Doughty, J. Transparency in the Court of Protection (Cardiff: Cardiff University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Series, L., Fennell, P. and Doughty, J. The Participation of P in Welfare Cases in the Court of Protection (Cardiff: Cardiff University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Series, L., Mercer, A., Walbridge, A., Mobbs, K., Fennell, P., Doughty, J. and Clements, L. Use of the Court of Protection’s Welfare Jurisdiction by Supervisory Bodies in England and Wales (Cardiff: Cardiff University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Shakespeare, T. Disability Rights and Wrongs (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006).Google Scholar
Shogren, K., Wehmeyer, M., Martinis, J. and Blanck, P. Supported Decision-making: Theory, Research, and Practice to Enhance Self-determination and Quality of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
Simmons, M. B. and Gooding, P. M. ‘Spot the difference: shared decision-making and supported decision-making in mental health’ (2017) 34 Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 275.Google Scholar
Skowron, P. ‘The relationship between autonomy and adult mental capacity in the law of England and Wales’ (2019) 27 Medical Law Review 32.Google Scholar
Smart, C. Feminism and the Power of Law (London: Routledge, 1989).Google Scholar
Stebbings, C. ‘Protecting the property of the mentally ill: the judicial solution in nineteenth century lunacy law’ (2012) 71 Cambridge Law Journal 384 . Google Scholar
Steup, Matthias and Ram, Neta, ‘Epistemology’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 edition), Zalta, E. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/.Google Scholar
Susskind, R. Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
Tait, D. ‘Rituals and spaces in innovative courts’ (2018) 27 Griffith Law Review 233.Google Scholar
Tallodi, T. How Parties Experience Mediation: An Interview Study on Relationship Changes in Workplace Mediation (London: Springer, 2019).Google Scholar
Taylor, H. J. ‘What are “Best Interests”? A critical evaluation of “Best Interests” decision-making in clinical practice’ (2016) 24 Medical Law Review 176.Google Scholar
Thibault, J. and Walker, L. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975).Google Scholar
Thirty-Nine Essex Chambers. Mental Capacity Report: Health, Welfare and Deprivation of Liberty (December 2019), www.39essex.com/mental-capacity-report-december-2019/.Google Scholar
Trevithick, P. ‘Revisiting the knowledge base of social work: a framework for practice’ (2008) 38 British Journal of Social Work 1212.Google Scholar
Twining, W. Evidence and Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Tyler, T. ‘Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law’ (2003) 30 Crime and Justice 283.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. ‘Procedural justice’ in Sarat, A. (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004).Google Scholar
Tyler, T. ‘Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation’ (2006) 57 Annual Review of Psychology 375.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. Why People Obey the Law (Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Tyler, T., Degoey, P. and Smith, H. ‘Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: a test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model’ (1996) 70 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 913.Google Scholar
Umbreit, M., Coates, R. B. and Kalanj, B. Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation (New York: Criminal Justice Press, 2010).Google Scholar
UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The System of Guardianship in Practice in the Republic of Moldova: Human Rights and Vulnerability of Persons Declared Incapacitated (UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2013), www.un.md/key_doc_pub/STUDY_The_System_of_Guardianship_in_Practice_in%20_Republic_of_Moldova.pdf.Google Scholar
Unsworth, C. ‘Law and lunacy in psychiatry’s “Golden Age”’ (1993) 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 479.Google Scholar
Walklate, S., Maher, J., McCulloch, J., Fitz-Gibbon, K. and Beavis, K. ‘Victim stories and victim policy: is there a case for a narrative victimology?’ (2019) 15 Crime, Media, Culture 199.Google Scholar
Wanderer, J. ‘Addressing testimonial injustice: being ignored and being rejected’ (2012) 62 The Philosophical Quarterly 148.Google Scholar
Westlund, A. C. ‘Rethinking relational autonomy’ (2009) 24 Hypatia 26.Google Scholar
Weston, J. ‘Managing mental incapacity in the 20th century: a history of the Court of Protection of England & Wales’ (2020) 68 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 101524.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, D., Barclay, S. and Savulescu, J. ‘Disagreement, mediation, arbitration: resolving disputes about medical treatment’ (2018) 391 The Lancet 2302.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Gill, C., Creutzfeldt, N. and Vivian, N. ‘Participation as a framework for analysing consumers’ experiences of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)’ (2020) 47 Journal of Law and Society 271.Google Scholar
Winick, B. J. ‘On autonomy: legal and psychological perspectives’ (1992) 37 Villanova Law Review 1765.Google Scholar
Winick, B. J. ‘The right to refuse mental health treatment: a therapeutic jurisprudence analysis’ (1994) 17 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 99.Google Scholar
Wissler, R. L. ‘The effectiveness of court-connected dispute resolution in civil cases’ (2004) 22 Conflict Resolution Quarterly 55.Google Scholar
Wong, S. and Cain, R. ‘The impact of cuts in legal aid funding of private family law cases’ (2019) 41 Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law.Google Scholar
Woolf, L. ‘Are the courts excessively deferential to the medical profession?’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review 1.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Jaime Lindsey, University of Essex
  • Book: Reimagining the Court of Protection
  • Online publication: 17 September 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993203.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Jaime Lindsey, University of Essex
  • Book: Reimagining the Court of Protection
  • Online publication: 17 September 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993203.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Jaime Lindsey, University of Essex
  • Book: Reimagining the Court of Protection
  • Online publication: 17 September 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108993203.010
Available formats
×