Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:44:00.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2014: Reframing the judicial diversity debate: personal values and tacit diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Rachel J Cahill-O'Callaghan
Rachel J Cahill-O'Callaghan*
Affiliation:
Cardiff University
*
Rachel J Cahill-O'Callaghan, Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University, Museum Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3AX, Wales. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has long been argued that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, now the UK Supreme Court, is characterised by Justices who are white and male, with a public school and Oxbridge education. Despite continuous debate and reflection on the lack of diversity, by academics, government and the popular press, little has changed. These debates have centred on explicit diversity, overt characteristics that are easily codified and reflect how the judiciary is seen. Drawing on the psychological theory of decision making, this paper argues that judicial decisions are subject to tacit influences that are not limited to overt characteristics. Personal values serve as one such tacit influence on decision making. Personal values are formed by life experiences and reflect many of the characteristics identified within the explicit diversity debates. However, personal values are influenced by more than simple demographic variables. This paper uses the example of personal values to highlight the fact that despite the lack of explicit diversity, there is an element of tacit diversity in the Supreme Court, which is reflected in judicial decisions. The impact of these findings serves to extend the debates surrounding diversity, highlighting the limitation of debates centred on explicit diversity alone.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 1 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2015

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.)

Footnotes

*

The author was the recipient of the 2010–2011 Cardiff Law School PhD Scholarship. The author wishes to thank her PhD supervisors, Annette Morris, Jiri Priban and Richard Moorhead, for their help and advice; Alan Paterson, Roseanne Russell and Andrew Lynch for comments on an early draft; and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This work has been presented in summary as a poster at the Socio-Legal Scholars Association Meeting 2012 and won the SLSA poster prize 2012.

References

1. Lady Hale, written evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution. ‘Judicial appointments’ (HL Paper 272, 28 March 2012) para 90.

2. Judicial appointments are governed by Pt 4 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and Sch 13 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Malleson, K ‘Justifying gender equality on the bench: why difference won't do’ (2003) 11 Feminist Legal Stud 1;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Stevens, R ‘Reform in haste and repent at leisure: Iolanthe, the Lord High Executioner and Brave New World’ (2004) 24 Legal Stud 33;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Moran, L ‘Judicial diversity and the challenge of sexuality: some preliminary findings’ (2006) 28 Sydney L Rev 565;Google Scholar Malleson, K ‘Rethinking the merit principle in judicial selection’ (2006) 33 J L Soc'y 126;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Feenan, D ‘Women judges: gendering judging, justifying diversity’ (2008) 35 J L Soc'y 490;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Malleson, K ‘Diversity in the judiciary: the case for positive action’ (2009) 36 J L Soc'y 376;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Paterson, A and Paterson, C Guarding the Guardians (2012), available at http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/guarding-the-guardians.pdf Google Scholar (accessed 9 January 2015); Rackley, E Women, Judging and the Judiciary: From Difference to Diversity (London: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar.

3. These data include Lord Hodge. At the time of writing, nine SCJs attended Oxford and nine SCJs attended Cambridge. Lord Kerr attended Queens University, Belfast and Lord Hughes, who joined the bench in April 2013, attended Durham University.

4. Lords Judge and Scott heard four cases on the Supreme Court bench. Lords Clarke and Hamilton heard two and Sir Anthony Hughes and Lord Carloway each heard one case. Of these, Lords Clarke and Hamilton both went to non-fee-paying schools. Lords Hamilton and Carloway attended the University of Glasgow and Sir Anthony Hughes attended Durham University.

5. Ball, S., Bowe, R. and Gewirtz, S. ‘School choice, social class and distinction: the realization of social advantage in education’ (1996) 11 J Educt'l Pol'y 89;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Reay, D ‘The zombie stalking English schools: social class and education inequality’ (2006) 54 Br J Educt'l Stud 288. In the absence of specific data on social class, this paper uses education as both an independent factor and an indicator of class.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Lady Hale ‘Equality in the judiciary’, Kuttan Menon Memorial Lecture (London, 21 February 2013).

7. Malleson, K. and Russell, P Appointing Judges in an Age of Judicial Power: Critical Perspectives from around the World (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006). In 2013, the US Supreme Court had three female Justices on a bench of nine, the High Court of Australia had three females on a bench of seven and the Supreme Court of New Zealand had two female Justices on a bench of five.Google Scholar

8. Rackley, above n 8; Malleson ‘Diversity in the judiciary’, above n 8. Indeed, Malleson's argument is supported by the statistics in App 2 in the Judicial Diversity Taskforce Report Improving Judicial Diversity (London: Judicial Diversity Taskforce, 2012) pp 53–56.

9. UK Human Rights Blog ‘Analysis: Supreme Court asserts its constitutional power in expenses scandal appeal’ (2 December 2010); Bowcott, O ‘Supreme Court becomes a constitutional animal’ The Guardian 28 November 2012;Google Scholar Judge, T ‘Supreme Court sits in secret for first time in history’ The Independent, available at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/supreme-court-sits-in-secret-for-first-time-in-history-8544535.html (accessed 9 January 2015).Google Scholar

10. E Rackley ‘We need a more diverse supreme court’ The Guardian 29 March 2011, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/mar/29/more-diverse-supreme-court-bench (accessed 9 January 2015); Bowcott, O ‘Uk supreme court's only female judge calls for more diversity in appointments’ The Guardian 25 October 2011.Google Scholar

11. Rackley, above n 8; Baronness Neuberger The Report of the Advisory Panel on Judicial Diversity (2010). Other sources include Feenan, above n 8.

12. Edwards, HT ‘Race and the judiciary’ (2002) 20 Yale L & Pol'y Rev 325.Google Scholar

13. Moorhead, R, Sefton, M and Scanlan, L ‘Just satisfaction? What drives public participation and satisfaction with courts and tribunals?’ (London: Ministry for Justice, 2008).Google Scholar

14. Rackley, above n 8. Indeed, central to Rackley's discussion of judicial diversity is the distinction between ‘representation’ and reflection. Rackley argues that representation carries with it the sense of speaking or acting for someone, which has a significant impact on judicial impartiality, and that the judiciary should not represent but ‘reflect’ society in a way that includes individuals from different classes, and of different educational backgrounds, gender and race.

15. Baroness Jay, Chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, commenting on the Judicial Appointments Report (2012), available at http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/news/jap-report-publication (accessed 1 July 2013).

16. Malleson, above n 8.

17. It is accepted that only 32% of the Bar, traditionally a source of the judiciary, is female, with only 10% female QCs. Rackley suggests that this percentage is due to a low application rate: Rackley, above n 8, pp 38–39.

18. Moran, above n 8; Moran, L and Winterfeldt, D ‘Barriers to application for judicial appointment research: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender experiences’, Project Report. Interlaw Diversity Forum for LGBT Networks (London: Birkbeck College, 2011);Google Scholar Judicial Appointments Commission Barriers to Application for Judicial Appointment Research (2009), available at http://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/static/documents/Barriers_to_Application_Research_report_1.pdf (accessed 1 July 2013).

19. Malleson, above n 8.

20. Ibid.

21. Polanyi, M ‘Tacit knowing: its bearing on some problems of philosophy’ (1962) 34 Rev Mod Phys 601 at 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Epstein, L, Knight, J and Martin, A ‘The norm of prior judicial experience and its consequences for career diversity on the Us Supreme Court’ (2003) 91 Cal L Rev 903 at 944 (italics added).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Cited in Stevens, above n 8, at 78.

24. Ibid.

25. An excellent review of this work can be found in Malleson, above n 8; Goldman, S ‘Should there be affirmitive action for the judiciary?’ (1979) 62 Judicature 488.Google Scholar

26. Gilligan, C ‘In a different voice: women's conceptions of self and of morality’ (1977) 47 Harv Educt'l Rev 481;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Gilligan, C In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

27. Kritzer, H and Uhlman, T ‘Sisterhood in the courtroom: sex of judge and defendant in criminal case disposition’ (1977) 14 Social Sci Q 77 at 86.Google Scholar

28. Martin, E ‘The representative role of women judges’ (1993) 77 Judicature 126;Google Scholar Resnik, J ‘Asking about gender in courts’ (1996) 21 Signs 952;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Barwick, H, Burns, J and Gray, A Gender Equality in the New Zealand Judicial System: Judges' Perceptions of Gender Issues (Wellington: Joint Working Group on Gender Equity, 1996);Google Scholar Walker, T and Barrow, D ‘The diversification of the Federal bench: policy and process ramifications’ (1985) 47 J Pol 596. There are many feminist theorists who are uncomfortable with this thesis and accuse Gilligan of essentialising women.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Parpart, J ‘Who is the “other”? a postmodern feminist critique of women and development theory and practice’ (1993) 24 Dev & Change 439;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Crawford, M ‘Agreeing to differ: feminist epistemologies and women's ways of knowing’ in Crawford, M and Gentry, M (eds) Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives (New York: Springer, 1989) pp 128–145;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Code, L What Can She Know? Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge (New York: Cornell University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

29. These studies were carried out in the USA (Gryski, G, Main, E and Dixon, W ‘Models of State High Court decision making in sex discrimination cases’ (1986) 48 J Pol 143;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Allen, D and Wall, D ‘The behaviour of women State Supreme Court Justices: Are they tokens or outsiders?’ (1987) 12 Just Syst J 727;Google Scholar Allen, D ‘Voting blocs and the freshman Justice on the State Supreme Court’ (1991) 44 W Pol Q 727;Google Scholar Davis, S, Haire, S and Songer, D ‘Voting behaviour and gender on the Us Courts of Appeals’ (1993) 77 Judicature 129;Google Scholar Songer, D, Davis, S and Haire, S ‘A reappraisal of diversification in the Federal Courts: gender effects in the Courts of Appeals’ (1994) 56 J Pol 425) and in Canada (CrossRefGoogle Scholar McCormick, P and Twyla, J ‘Do women judges make a difference? an analysis of Appeal Court data’ (1993) 8 Can J L Soc'y 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Boyd, C, Epstein, L and Martin, A ‘Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging’ (2010) 54 Am J Pol Sci 389 at 406 (emphasis added).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Peresie, J ‘Female judges matter: gender and collegial decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts’ (2005) 114 Yale L J 1759.Google Scholar

32. Ibid.

33. Moloney Smith, S ‘Diversifying the judiciary: the influence of gender and race on judging’ (1994) 28 U Rich L Rev 179 at 185; citingGoogle Scholar Lester, T ‘The reasonable woman test in sexual harassment laws – Will it really make a difference?’ (1993) 26 Ind L Rev 227.Google Scholar

34. Boyd et al, above n 37. Of note, the authors used a matching system to standardise the comparison between genders. They defined a female panel as one that had a female judge. There was insufficient data to examine the presence of two or more female judges independently.

35. Ibid, p 406 (italics added by authors).

36. Baldez, L, Epstein, L and Martin, A ‘Does the Us constitution need an equal rights ammendment?’ (2006) 35 J Legal Stud 243;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Boyd et al, above n 37; Ostberg, C and Wetstein, M Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2007).Google Scholar

37. Farhang, S and Wawro, G ‘Deliberation versus bargaining on the Us Court of Appeals’, Law and Economics Workshop, Berkeley Program in Law and Economics, UC Berkeley (2010), available at http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/1wm7t0hv (accessed 26 July 2013).Google Scholar

38. The authors applied critical mass theory to the role of gender in legal decision making in the US Federal District Courts and identified that the presence of more than one female justice did influence decision making. Again, this was, however, limited to specific areas of law, with female judges more liberal in criminal justice cases and cases concerning civil liberties and rights. Collins, P, Manning, K and Carp, R ‘Gender, critical mass and judicial decision making’ (2010) 32 Law & Pol'y 260;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kanter, R ‘Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women’ (2002) 82 Am J Sociol 965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. The statistics released on 11 July 2013 revealed that 24.3% of judges in the UK were female, of which only five sit in the higher courts where cases are heard by a panel.

40. Hunter, R, Glynn, C and Rackley, E Feminist Judgements: From Theory to Practice (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010).Google Scholar

41. Massie, T, Johnson, S and Gubala, S ‘The impact of gender and race in the decisions of judges on the United States Courts of Appeals’, Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago (25–28 April 2002).Google Scholar

42. Ibid.

43. Cameron, C and Cummings, C ‘Diversity and judicial decision making: evidence from affirmative action cases in the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1971–1999’, Working Paper, Princeton University (30 March 2003).Google Scholar

44. Katesllec, J ‘Racial diversity and judicial influence on Appellate Courts’, Working Paper, Princeton University (11 November 2011).Google Scholar

45. Chew, PK and Kelley, RE ‘Myth of the color-blind judge: an empirical analysis of racial harassment cases’ (2009) 86 Wash U L Rev 1117.Google Scholar

46. Welch, S, Combs, M and Gruhl, J ‘Do black judges make a difference?’ (1988) 32 Am J Pol Sci 126. The authors argued that ethnicity influences judicial decision making, with the black judge more even-handed with white and black defendants than the white judge, who tended to treat the white defendant more leniently.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Steffensmeier, D and Britt, C ‘Judges' race and judicial decision making: do black judges sentence differently?’ (2001) 82 Social Sci Q 749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. Moran, above n 8.

49. Wold, J ‘Political orientation, social backgrounds, and the role perceptions of State Supreme Court judges’ (1974) 27 W Pol Q 239.Google Scholar

50. Ashenfelter, O, Eisenberg, T and Schwab, S ‘Politics and the judiciary: the influence of judicial background on case outcomes’ (1995) 24 J Legal Stud 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51. Rokeach, M Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal (New York: Free Press, 1979).Google Scholar

52. Hitlin, S and Piliavin, J ‘Values: reviving a dormant concept’ (2004) 30 Ann Rev Sociol 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. Dworkin, R ‘Hard cases’ (1974) 88 Harv L Rev 1057 at 1057.Google Scholar

54. Cahill-O'Callaghan, R ‘The influence of personal values on legal judgments’ (2013) 40 J L Soc'y 596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55. Schwartz, SH ‘Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries’ (1992) 25 Adv Expt'l Social Psychol 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. Hedonism and stimulation have not been identified in judgments to date and are not included in the discussion. Definitions of both values can be found in Schwartz, ibid.

57. Davis et al, above n 36.

58. Buetel, A and Marini, M ‘Gender and values’ (1995) 60 Am Sociol Rev 436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. Schwartz, S and Rubel, T ‘Sex differences in value priorities: cross-cultural and multimethod studies’ (2005) 89 J Personality & Social Psychol 1010;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed Prince-Gibson, E and Schwartz, S ‘Value priorities and gender’ (1998) 61 Social Psychol Q 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. Schwartz, S et al ‘Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement’ (2001) 35 J Cross-Cultural Psychol 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. Watson, J and Williams, J ‘Relationship between managerial values and managerial success of black and white managers’ (1977) 62 J Appl Psychol 20;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Prince-Gibson and Schwartz, above n 67. The ethnicity classification used was based on birth country and father's ethnicity, and was divided into five groups: Israeli born/Israeli father, Israeli born/European or American father, European or American born/European or American father, Israeli born/Asian or African father, and Asian or African born/Asian or African father.

62. Adams, R and Funk, P ‘Beyond the glass ceiling: does gender matter?’ (2012) 58 Mgmt Sci 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63. Steinmetz, H et al ‘Testing measurement invariance using multigroup Cfa: differences between educational groups in human values measurement’ (2009) 43 Quantity & Quality 599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64. Caprara, G and Cervone, D Personality: Determinants, Dynamics and Potentials (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65. Schwartz, S et al ‘Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement’ (2001) 5 J Cross-Cultural Psychol 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66. Ibid.

67. Caprara, G et al ‘Personality and politics: values, traits, and political choice’ (2006) 27 Pol Psychol 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. Veroff, J, Reuman, D and Field, S ‘Motives in American men and women accross the adult life span’ (1984) 20 Dev Psychol 1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69. Schwartz et al, above n 72.

70. Rokeach, M The Nature of Human Values (New York: Free Press, 1973);Google Scholar Feather, N Values in Education and Society (New York: Free Press, 1975).Google Scholar

71. R Cahill-O'Callaghan, above n 61.

72. Majority statement in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42 at 114. Values expressed in majority statements could not be attributed to any individual Supreme Court Justice.

73. Lord Hope in HM Treasury v Al-Ghabra [2010] UKSC 2 at 15.

74. Lord Hope in Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13 at 173.

75. Lord Rodger in R (on the application of Smith) (FC) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Defence (Appellant) and another [2010] UKSC 29 at 118.

76. Of these cases, the Supreme Court Justice's heard on average 45 cases, of which 22% divided judicial opinion.

77. The average coding density was 11 value statements per individual judgment.

78. Protection of the vulnerable accounted for one fifth of the coding within Lord Kerr's expressions of universalism.

79. Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Limited and others [2011] UKSC 17 at 142.

80. Social justice and fairness also accounted for one fifth of the coding within Lord Kerr's expressions of universalism.

81. Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC13 at 94.

82. Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Limited and others [2011] UKSC 17 at 160.

83. Lord Walker in Walumba Lumba (Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department/ Kadian Delroy Mighty (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12 at 190.

84. A v Essex County Council [2010] UKSC 33.

85. Lord Phillips in A v Essex County Council [2010] UKSC33 at 80.

86. Lord Phillips in A v Essex County Council [2010] UKSC 33 at 85–86.

87. Lady Hale in A v Essex County Council [2010] UKSC 33 at 142.

88. Lady Hale in A v Essex County Council [2010] UKSC 33 at 102.

89. This figure is different from that identified by Alan Paterson in his seminal book Final Judgment, who identified 34 close call cases (minority cases). This study uses the normal language usage of ‘close call’, where a single vote makes a difference in the final decision. In contrast, due to the high level of volatility and vote switches in such cases, Alan Paterson labels close calls as ones in which at least two Justices have voted against the others. A Paterson Final Judgment: The Last Law Lords and the Supreme Court (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013) p 10.Google Scholar

90. Lord Collins dissented in R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48.

91. Phillips, Lord ‘Crime and punishment’, The High Sheriff's Law Lecture, Oxford (2006)Google Scholar. The theme of this speech was the promotion of alternatives to custodial sentences for less serious offences. Phillips, Lord ‘Youth Justice’, Royal Society of Edinburgh's Alternatives to Prison Conference (2006). In a speech delivered to the Magistrates Association Annual General Meeting 2007, Lord Phillips encouraged all magistrates to look to alternatives to the custodial sentence.Google Scholar

92. Hale, Lady ‘The quest for equal treatment’ (2005) Pub Law 571;Google Scholar idem ‘Equality in the judiciary’, Knutton Memorial Lecture (2013); idem ‘The conflict of equalities’, Alison Weatherfield Memorial Lecture at the Employment Lawyers Association (2013); idem ‘Equal access to justice in the big society’, Sir Henry Hodge Memorial Lecture (2011); idem ‘What's the point of human rights?’ Warwick Law Lecture (2013).

93. Hale, Lady ‘A minority opinion’ (2008) 154 Proc Br Acad 319;Google Scholar idem ‘Welcome to the Uk Supreme Court?’ Denning Lecture (2008).

94. Lord Walker supported conformity in 13 of the 14 cases in which it was opposed to any other value.

95. Dickson, B ‘Close calls in the House of Lords’ in Lee, J (ed) From House of Lords to Supreme Court; Judges, Jurists and the Process of Judging (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011) p 290.Google Scholar

96. The names shown in italics are those of the Justices who do not match the profile exactly.

97. Goldman, S ‘Backgrounds, attitudes and the voting behaviour of judges: a comment on Joel Grossman's Social Backgrounds and Judicial Decisions ’ (1969) 31 J Pol 214 at 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98. Paterson, above n 96.

99. It is accepted that this is a small subset of cases with low numbers of cases heard by both Justices. The data does, however, reveal differences in the pattern of agreement.

100. Of note, Lords Rodger and Hope almost always agreed on Scots Appeals. Although the Justices were more likely to disagree on English Appeals, the agreement was still above average. Paterson, above n 96.

101. Brice Dickson identified a pattern of joint dissent between Lords Scott and Mance. Indeed, he identified an agreement between Lords Scott and Mance of 93%, which is similar to the agreement identified in this case. This would suggest that Lord Scott may have shared similar values. The Supreme Court data set selected for this study did not have sufficient data to facilitate this analysis, although this may be addressed in the future using a data set from the House of Lords. Dickson, above n 102.

102. See http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications-and-reports/reports/diversity/advisory-panel-recommendations (accessed 9 January 2015).

103. Adams and Funk, above n 69.

104. Beutel, A and Marini, M ‘Gender and values’ (1995) 60 Am Sociol Rev 436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105. Kenney, S ‘Breaking the silence: gender mainstreaming and the composition of the European Court of Justice’ (2002) 10 Feminist Legal Stud 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

106. Griffith, Jag The Politics of the Judiciary (London: Fontana, 5th edn, 1997).Google Scholar