Legitimacy and empirical evidence in the UK courts

References

• Secondary Sources
   Google Scholar
• James R Acker (1993) ‘A Different Agenda: The Supreme Court, Empirical Research Evidence, and Capital Punishment Decisions, 1986–1989’ 27 Law and Society Review 65. doi: 10.2307/3053748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christopher Allen (1998) ‘Judicial Notice Extended: Mullen v Hackney London Borough Council’ 2 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 37. doi: 10.1177/136571279800200104
   Google Scholar
• John Baldwin and Gwynn Davis (2003) ‘Empirical Research in Law’ in Peter Cane and Mark V Tushnet (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Catherine Barnard and Bob Hepple (1999) ‘Indirect Discrimination: Interpreting Seymour-Smith’ 58 The Cambridge Law Journal 399.
   Google Scholar
• David Barrett and John Bingham (2013) ‘Judges Lead “Sheltered Lives”, Warns Britain’s Most Senior Female Judge’, The Telegraph, 4 June 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9976400/Judges-lead-sheltered-lives-warns-Britains-most-senior-female-judge.html
   Google Scholar
• Donald N Bersoff and David J Glass (1995) ‘The Not-So Weisman: The Supreme Court’s Continuing Misuse of Social Science Research’ 2 University of Chicago Law School Roundtable 279.
   Google Scholar
• Basil C Bitas (2011) ‘A Common Law View of Causation, Science and Statistical Evidence in the Courtroom’ 23 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 307.
   Google Scholar
• Alysia Blackham (2015) ‘Falling on Their Feet: Young Workers, Employment and Age Discrimination’ 44 Industrial Law Journal 246. doi: 10.1093/indlaw/dwv003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AR Blackshield (1987) ‘The Legitimacy and Authority of Judges’ 10 University of New South Wales Law Journal 155.
   Google Scholar
• Anthony Bradney (2010) ‘The Place of Empirical Legal Research in the Law School Curriculum’ in Peter Cane and Herbert M Kritzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eileen Braman and Beth Easter (2014) ‘Normative Legitimacy: Rules of Appropriateness in Citizens’ Assessments of Individual Judicial Decisions’ 35 Justice System Journal 295. doi: 10.1080/0098261X.2014.920649
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns (2002) ‘It’s Just Not Cricket: The High Court, Sport and Legislative Facts’ 10 Torts Law Journal 234.
   Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns (2004) ‘The Way the World Is: Social Facts in High Court Negligence Cases’ 12 Torts Law Journal 215.
   Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns (2012) ‘The Australian High Court and Social Facts: A Content Analysis Study’ 40 Federal Law Review 317.
   Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns (2013) ‘It’s Not Just Policy: The Role of Social Facts in Judicial Reasoning in Negligence Cases’ 21 Torts Law Journal 73.
   Google Scholar
• Kylie Burns and Terry Hutchinson (2009) ‘The Impact of “Empirical Facts” on Legal Scholarship and Legal Research Training’ 43 The Law Teacher 153. doi: 10.1080/03069400903004236
   Google Scholar
• Gregory A Caldeira and James L Gibson (1995) ‘The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: Models of Institutional Support’ 89 The American Political Science Review 356. doi: 10.2307/2082430
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peter Cane and Herbert M Kritzer (2010) ‘Introduction’ in Peter Cane and Herbert M Kritzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Steven L Chanenson (2003) ‘Get the Facts, Jack—Empirical Research and the Changing Constitutional Landscape of Consent Searches’ 71 Tennessee Law Review 399.
   Google Scholar
• Christina Cregan (1991) ‘Young Workers and the Job-Swapping Phenomenon’ 5 Work, Employment & Society 417. doi: 10.1177/0950017091005003006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H Kirk Dansereau (1961) ‘Work and the Teen-Ager’ 338 The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 44. doi: 10.1177/000271626133800106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris H DeGroot et al (eds) (1986) Statistics and the Law, Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Marc E Elovitz (1995) ‘Adoption by Lesbian and Gay People: The Use and Mis-Use of Social Science Research’ 2 Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 207.
   Google Scholar
• Lee Epstein and Gary King (2002) ‘The Rules of Inference’ 69 The University of Chicago Law Review 1. doi: 10.2307/1600349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll L Estes et al (2003) Social Theory, Social Policy and Ageing: A Critical Introduction, Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• John Grimley Evans (2003) ‘Age Discrimination: Implications of the Ageing Process’ in Sandra Fredman and Sarah Spencer (eds) Age as an Equality Issue: Legal and Policy Perspectives, Hart.
   Google Scholar
• Richard H Fallon (2005) ‘Legitimacy and the Constitution’ 118 Harvard Law Review 1787.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucinda M Finley (1999–2000) ‘Guarding the Gate to the Courthouse: How Trial Judges are Using Their Evidentiary Screening Role to Remake Tort Causation Rules’ 49 DePaul Law Review 335.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph L Gastwirth (1988a) Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy (Vol 1), Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph L Gastwirth (1988b) Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy (Vol 2), Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph L Gastwirth (1997) ‘Statistical Evidence in Discrimination Cases’ 160 Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 289. doi: 10.1111/1467-985X.00063
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hazel G Genn et al (2006) Law in the Real World—Improving Our Understanding of How Law Works: Final Report and Recommendations, Nuffield Foundation, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/socio-legal/empirical/docs/inquiry_report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• James L Gibson (1989) ‘Understandings of Justice: Institutional Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Political Tolerance’ 23 Law & Society Review 469. doi: 10.2307/3053830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James L Gibson (2012) Electing Judges: The Surprising Effects of Campaigning on Judicial Legitimacy, University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• James L Gibson and Gregory A Caldeira (1998), ‘Changes in the Legitimacy of the European Court of Justice: A Post-Maastricht Analysis’ 28 British Journal of Political Science 63. doi: 10.1017/S0007123498000106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard Goldberg (2011) ‘Using Scientific Evidence to Resolve Causation Problems in Product Liability: UK, US and French Experiences’ in Richard Goldberg (ed), Perspectives on Causation, Bloomsbury Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Nienke Grossman (2012) ‘Sex on the Bench: Do Women Judges Matter to the Legitimacy of International Courts?’ 12 Chicago Journal of International Law 647.
   Google Scholar
• Sarah Harper and Sue Marcus (2006) ‘Age-Related Capacity Decline: A Review of Some Workplace Implications’ Ageing Horizons 20.
   Google Scholar
• MH Hoeflich and Jan G Deutsch (1977–1978) ‘Judicial Legitimacy and the Disinterested Judge’ 6 Hofstra Law Review 749.
   Google Scholar
• Caroline Hunter (2012) ‘Introduction: Themes, Challenges and Overcoming Barriers’ in Caroline Hunter (ed) Integrating Socio-Legal Studies into the Law Curriculum, Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Jonathan Jackson et al (2012) ‘Why Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions’ 52 British Journal of Criminology 1051. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azs032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devon Johnson et al (2014) ‘Public Perceptions of the Legitimacy of the Law and Legal Authorities: Evidence from the Caribbean’ 48 Law & Society Review 947. doi: 10.1111/lasr.12102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph B Kadane (2008) Statistics in the Law, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dan M Kahan (2007) ‘The Cognitively Illiberal State’ 60 Stanford Law Review 101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Per Laleng (2011) ‘Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd and Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: A Material Contribution to Uncertainty?’ 74 The Modern Law Review 777. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.2011.00871.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law Commission (UK), Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (Law Com No 325, 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Kathy Mack and Sharyn Roach Anleu (2010), ‘Performing Impartiality: Judicial Demeanor and Legitimacy’ 35 Law & Social Inquiry 137. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01180.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerry Maher (2001) ‘Judicial Notice and Statute Law’ 117 Law Quarterly Review 71.
   Google Scholar
• Claire McIvor (2013) ‘Debunking Some Judicial Myths about Epidemiology and Its Relevance to UK Tort Law’ 21 Medical Law Review 553. doi: 10.1093/medlaw/fwt017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tracey L Meares (2002) ‘Three Objections to the Use of Empiricism in Criminal Law and Procedure—And Three Answers’ Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 517. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/517.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker (1994) ‘On the Legitimacy of European Law’ 58 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht/The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 615.
   Google Scholar
• Michael I Meyerson and William Meyerson (2009–2010) ‘Significant Statistics: The Unwitting Policy Making of Mathematically Ignorant Judges’ 37 Pepperdine Law Review 771.
   Google Scholar
• Chris Miller (2006) ‘Causation in Personal Injury: Legal or Epidemiological Common Sense?’ 26 Legal Studies 544. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2006.00029.x
   Google Scholar
• Chris Miller (2012) ‘Epidemiology in the Courtroom: Mixed Messages from Recent British Experience’ 11 Law, Probability and Risk 85. doi: 10.1093/lpr/mgs001
   Google Scholar
• John Monahan and Laurens Walker (1991) ‘Judicial Use of Social Science Research’ 15 Law and Human Behavior 571. doi: 10.1007/BF01065853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeffery J Mondak (1993) ‘Institutional Legitimacy and Procedural Justice: Reexamining the Question of Causality’ 27 Law & Society Review 599. doi: 10.2307/3054106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard Moorhead et al (2008) Just Satisfaction?: What Drives Public and Participant Satisfaction with Courts and Tribunals: A Review of Recent Evidence, Ministry of Justice (UK).
   Google Scholar
• Richard Moorhead and Mark Sefton (2005) ‘Litigants in Person: Unrepresented Litigants in First Instance Proceedings’, DCA Research Series 2/05, March 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Graham Mullane (1998) ‘Evidence of Social Science Research: Law, Practice and Options in the Family Court of Australia’ 72 Australian Law Journal 434.
   Google Scholar
• Oren Perez (2015) ‘The Hybrid Legal-Scientific Dynamic of Transnational Scientific Institutions’ 26 European Journal of International Law 391. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chv024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phipson on Evidence (2015) Sweet & Maxwell, 18th edn.
   Google Scholar
• Garfield Potter and Catherine Williams (2007) ‘Two Birds, One Stone: Combining Student Assessment and Socio-Legal Research’ 41 The Law Teacher 1. doi: 10.1080/03069400.2007.9959722
   Google Scholar
• Jeffrey J Rachlinski (2011) ‘Evidence-Based Law’ 96 Cornell Law Review 901.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richard E Redding (1998–1999) ‘Reconstructing Science through Law’ 23 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 585.
   Google Scholar
• Mike Redmayne (2011) Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice, Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• David Rosenberg (1984) ‘The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A “Public Law” Vision of the Tort System’ 97 Harvard Law Review 849. doi: 10.2307/1341021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penelope Russell (2012) ‘Innovations in Assessment: Family Law at Sheffield’ in Caroline Hunter (ed) Integrating Socio-Legal Studies into the Law Curriculum, Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wojciech Sadurski (2006) ‘Law’s Legitimacy and ‘Democracy-Plus’’ 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 377. doi: 10.1093/ojls/gql008
   Google Scholar
• Bradley Selway (2001) ‘The Use of History and Other Facts in the Reasoning of the High Court of Australia’ 20 University of Tasmania Law Review 129.
   Google Scholar
• James Shanteau (1992) ‘Competence in Experts: The Role of Task Characteristics’ 53 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 252. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(92)90064-E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthur B Smith Jr and Thomas G Abram (1981) ‘Quantitative Analysis and Proof of Employment Discrimination’ 1981 University of Illinois Law Review 33.
   Google Scholar
• Jane Stapleton (2012) ‘Factual Causation, Mesothelioma and Statistical Validity’ 128 Law Quarterly Review 221.
   Google Scholar
• Gunther Teubner (1989) ‘How the Law Thinks: Toward a Constructivist Epistemology of Law’ 23 Law & Society Review 727. doi: 10.2307/3053760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunther Teubner (1993) Law as an Autopoietic System, Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Tom R Tyler and Kenneth Rasinski (1991) ‘Procedural Justice, Institutional Legitimacy, and the Acceptance of Unpopular U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: A Reply to Gibson’ 25 Law & Society Review 621. doi: 10.2307/3053729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• William Twining (1992) ‘Preparing Lawyers for the Twenty-First Century’ 3 Legal Education Review 1.
   Google Scholar
• Peter Vincent-Jones and Sarah Blandy (2012) ‘Applied Research Methods and Law Reform: The Leeds Experience’ in Caroline Hunter (ed) Integrating Socio-Legal Studies into the Law Curriculum, Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mike Vuolo (2014) ‘Incorporating Consensus and Conflict into the Legitimacy of Law’ 62 Crime, Law and Social Change 155. doi: 10.1007/s10611-014-9533-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurens Walker and John Monahan (1987) ‘Social Frameworks: A New Use of Social Science in Law’ 73 Virginia Law Review 559. doi: 10.2307/1072923
   Google Scholar
• Michael L Wells (2007) ‘Sociological Legitimacy in Supreme Court Opinions’ 64 Washington and Lee Law Review 1011.
   Google Scholar
• Kim Williams (2011) ‘Litigants in Person: A Literature Review’, Research summary 2/11, June 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Primary Legal Sources
   Google Scholar
• Cases
   Google Scholar
• BHP Billiton Petroleum Ltd v Dalmine SpA (2003) EWCA Civ 170, (2003) BLR 271.
   Google Scholar
• British American Tobacco (Brands) Inc v KT&G Corp (Intellectual Property Office, 22 March 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Edwards v Jerman (2004) CLY 2743.
   Google Scholar
• Engel v Transports and Environment Committee of London Councils (UKET, 26 April 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Harooni v Rustins Ltd (2011) EWHC 1632 (TCC).
   Google Scholar
• Galt v National Starch & Chemical Ltd (UKET, 2 November 2007).
   Google Scholar
• Gregg v Scott (2005) UKHL 2, (2005) 2 AC 176.
   Google Scholar
• Lockwood v Department of Work and Pensions (2014) EWCA Civ 1195; (2014) 1 All ER 250.
   Google Scholar
• MacCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries plc (UKET, 22 November 2007).
   Google Scholar
• MacCulloch v Imperial Chemical Industries plc (2008) ICR 1334.
   Google Scholar
• Mullen v Hackney LBC (1997) 1 WLR 1103.
   Google Scholar
• Odukwe v The Partners of Hoare Lea Consulting Engineers (UKEAT, 27 January 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Rajaratnan v Care UK Clinical Services Ltd (UKEAT, 2 July 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford (2006) UKHL 19, (2006) 4 All ER 577.
   Google Scholar
• Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (2009) 3 All ER 435.
   Google Scholar
• Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (2014) ICR 1275.
   Google Scholar
• Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd (2011) UKSC 10, (2011) 2 AC 229.
   Google Scholar
• Stanley v Rawlinson (2011) EWCA Civ 405.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson v Glasgow Corp 1908 SC 1034.
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2004) UKHL 47, (2004) 1 AC 46.
   Google Scholar
• White v Ministry of Justice (LCET, 24 November 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Legislation
   Google Scholar
• Equality Act 2010 (UK).
   Google Scholar
• Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 (UK).
   Google Scholar
• Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (UK).
   Google Scholar