Final judgment revisited

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Not many authors have the good fortune to have their work examined by their peers in a special issue of a journal to which they themselves are permitted to contribute. I have been doubly fortunate in the calibre of the commentators and the strength of their contributions. By the time I had completed Final Judgment it was already clear that decision-making in the Supreme Court had departed significantly from the practice in the House of Lords. Teamwork had arrived – evidenced by more meetings before and especially, after, the hearings, and many more exchanges between the Justices. These changes brought unintended consequences: a loss of transparency in the Court, an exacerbation of power differentials between the Justices and ambiguities over the utility of the power to dissent. In this short piece I explore these developments and what has happened in the two years since the manuscript was completed.
LanguageEnglish
JournalEuropean Journal of Current Legal Issues
Volume21
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

justice
teamwork
transparency
Supreme Court
decision making
time

Keywords

  • Supreme Court
  • law
  • judgements

Cite this

@article{2ce1e95ea8f04e8aad2153af8d117fcf,
title = "Final judgment revisited",
abstract = "Not many authors have the good fortune to have their work examined by their peers in a special issue of a journal to which they themselves are permitted to contribute. I have been doubly fortunate in the calibre of the commentators and the strength of their contributions. By the time I had completed Final Judgment it was already clear that decision-making in the Supreme Court had departed significantly from the practice in the House of Lords. Teamwork had arrived – evidenced by more meetings before and especially, after, the hearings, and many more exchanges between the Justices. These changes brought unintended consequences: a loss of transparency in the Court, an exacerbation of power differentials between the Justices and ambiguities over the utility of the power to dissent. In this short piece I explore these developments and what has happened in the two years since the manuscript was completed.",
keywords = "Supreme Court, law, judgements",
author = "Alan Paterson",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
journal = "European Journal of Current Legal Issues",
issn = "2059-0881",
number = "1",

}

Final judgment revisited. / Paterson, Alan.

In: European Journal of Current Legal Issues, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Final judgment revisited

AU - Paterson, Alan

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Not many authors have the good fortune to have their work examined by their peers in a special issue of a journal to which they themselves are permitted to contribute. I have been doubly fortunate in the calibre of the commentators and the strength of their contributions. By the time I had completed Final Judgment it was already clear that decision-making in the Supreme Court had departed significantly from the practice in the House of Lords. Teamwork had arrived – evidenced by more meetings before and especially, after, the hearings, and many more exchanges between the Justices. These changes brought unintended consequences: a loss of transparency in the Court, an exacerbation of power differentials between the Justices and ambiguities over the utility of the power to dissent. In this short piece I explore these developments and what has happened in the two years since the manuscript was completed.

AB - Not many authors have the good fortune to have their work examined by their peers in a special issue of a journal to which they themselves are permitted to contribute. I have been doubly fortunate in the calibre of the commentators and the strength of their contributions. By the time I had completed Final Judgment it was already clear that decision-making in the Supreme Court had departed significantly from the practice in the House of Lords. Teamwork had arrived – evidenced by more meetings before and especially, after, the hearings, and many more exchanges between the Justices. These changes brought unintended consequences: a loss of transparency in the Court, an exacerbation of power differentials between the Justices and ambiguities over the utility of the power to dissent. In this short piece I explore these developments and what has happened in the two years since the manuscript was completed.

KW - Supreme Court

KW - law

KW - judgements

UR - http://webjcli.org/index

M3 - Article

VL - 21

JO - European Journal of Current Legal Issues

T2 - European Journal of Current Legal Issues

JF - European Journal of Current Legal Issues

SN - 2059-0881

IS - 1

ER -