Filter by
  • C Auckland and I Goold, 'Offsetting Damages in Wrongful Conception and Birth Cases: A Way Through the Post-McFarlane Mire' (2022) Law Quarterly Review (forthcoming)
  • J J W Herring, 'Relational Personhood' (2021) 1 Keele Law Review 24
    This article discusses the basis on which it is determined that something or someone has moral personhood. It rejects mainstream approaches which rely on intellectual attributes or membership of the human species as the markers of personhood. An approach based on intellectual abilities leads to a denial of the moral status of those with cognitive impairments. The emphasis on membership of the human species struggles to explain why such membership in itself generates moral status. Instead this article promotes the view that moral values is found in caring relationships. It argues that this better captures what we regard as morally valuable and reflects the true nature of what it is to be human. This approach is potentially very significant for lawyers because the law tends to promote the rights and well-being of individuals, considered in isolation. Instead we should be designing our legal system around the promotion of caring relationships.
  • J J W Herring and Charles Foster, Law as a Moral Agent (Springer 2021)
    This book examines the controversial and repercussive contention that an objective of the law should be to promote personal morality - to make people ethically better. It surveys a number of domains, including criminal law, tort law, contract law, family law, and medical law (particularly the realm of moral enhancement technologies) asking for each: (a) Does the existing law seek to promote personal morality? (b) If so, what is the account of morality promoted, and what is the substantive content? (c) Does it work? and (d) Is this a legitimate objective?
  • Beverley Clough and J J W Herring, Disability, Care and Family Law (Routledge 2021)
  • J J W Herring, Criminal Law (12th ed Red Globe Press/ Macmillan 2021)
  • Nigel Lowe, Gillian Douglas, Emma Hitchings and Rachel Taylor, Bromley's Family Law (12th OUP 2021)
    ISBN: 9780198806691
  • J J W Herring, 'Children Care' in Beverley Clough and Jonathan Herring (eds), Disability, Care and Family Law (Routledge 2021)
    A chapter discussing the legal and ethical position of "child carers".
  • J J W Herring, 'Disability and Care' (2021) 12 Journal of Indian Law and Society 35
    This article will look at the surprising tensions between those who support disability rights and those who support rights for carers. It might be thought that such well-minded people would be in agreement, but there are certainly disputes between their camps. Some disability rights activists are critical of the concept of care because it posits the disabled person as passive and needing to be looked after. The cosy language around care overlooks the power that carers have over disabled people. By contrast, carers groups often emphasise the disadvantages they suffer and wish to emphasise the high level skills they possess. However, this can easily be seen as presenting disability as a ‘problem’ and one that causes disadvantage to others. This paper will unpack that debate and explain the tensions between the concepts of disability and care. It will argue that this dispute can be overcome if we emphasise the importance of caring relationships, rather than separating the parties into “carers” and the “cared for”. In other words, care should be understood in a relational way.1 Care should not be seen as something that is done by one person to another. Indeed, it is in the nature of caring relationships that the boundaries between the parties become blurred. The lines between one who is a carer and one who is cared for; those who are disabled, and those who are non-disabled, break down. With this approach, the tension between disability activists and carers activists can be mitigated. Further, we can recognise the need for all of us to receive and give care.
  • J J W Herring, Family Law (10th ed Pearson 2021)
  • Laura Hoyano, Hoyano & Keenan's Child Abuse Law and Policy across Boundaries by Laura Hoyano (2nd edition (this edition being single authored by Laura Hoyano) Oxford University Press 2021) (forthcoming)
  • Beverley Clough and J J W Herring, 'Introduction' in Beverley Clough and Jonathan Herring (eds), Disability, Care and Family Law (Routledge 2021)
  • Laura Hoyano and John Riley, 'Making s 28 More Flexible and Effective' (2021) Council (Bar Council) 46
    Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Evidence Act 1999 provides for pre-trial cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses to permit their early exit from the criminal justice system. Thus far the provision has been rolled out across England & Wales only for child witnesses under 18, and for witnesses with a mental disability. With the pandemic increasing an already enormous backlog in the Crown Court causing vulnerable complainants and witnesses to be ensnared in the criminal justice system, potentially for years, this article puts forward proposals to reduce the attrition rate while enabling justice to be done when cases finally get to trial. In particular it argues that the statutory precondition for a pretrial videorecorded interview be removed, enabling prosecuting counsel to have control of presentation of the case, so that examination in chief may also be conducted at the pretrial s. 28 hearing. It also argues that eligibility issues be clarified, and that eligibility be extended to complainants in abusive relationship cases, as there is a high rate of pretrial attrition in these cases.
  • C Wallis, 'Making Women Powerful: What the Fight Against Gender-Based Violence in India can Teach us' (2021) Frontiers of Socio-Legal Studies University of Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies [Review]
    Poulami Roychowdhury’s Capable Women, Incapable States: Negotiating Violence and Rights in India presents a lucid and compelling reassessment of the circumstances in which disenfranchised individuals pursue and claim their legal rights. Capable Women, Incapable States provides a rich account of individuals’ attempts to live free from violence and coercive control, even when confronted by reluctant judicial officials and state malaise. The text makes an invaluable contribution to feminist Socio-Legal scholarship and to South-East Asian legal studies by interrogating how gender and cultural narratives collide within the politicised terrain of family violence. In particular, Roychowdhury’s feminist qualitative methodology positions her to recognise critical gaps between official reports and policy statements, and the reality of managing and policing gender-based violence in India.
  • Rachel Taylor, 'Raising Children in Accordance with Unorthodox Religious Beliefs ' in Ian Loveland (ed), British and Canadian Public Law in Comparative Perspective (Hart 2021)
  • I Goold, 'Recognising What is Lost in Reproductive Harms: Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14' (2021) Modern Law Review [Case Note]
    DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12672
    Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX turned on whether the courts should fund the creation of children for a woman negligently denied the ability to do so herself by awarding her the cost of pursuing surrogacy via a commercial service in California. The key issues were whether these costs should include surrogacy using donor eggs, and whether it was right for the court to agree to fund actions which, if undertaken in England, would be in violation of the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985. While the subject matter of the decision is narrow, the decision in XX has broader implications about the relevance of public policy to damages awards, both in clinical negligence itself and more generally. It also raises important questions about how the law does and should value lost reproductive capacity.
  • K Greasley, 'Review of David Boonin, Beyond Roe: Why Abortion Should be Legal Even if the Fetus is a Person' (2021) Criminal Law and Philosophy [Review]
  • Clayton O'Neill, Charles Foster, J J W Herring and John Tingle, Routledge Handbook of Global Health Rights (Routledge 2021)
  • Shona Minson and C. Flynn, 'Symbiotic Harms of Imprisonment and the Effect on Children’s Right to Family Life: Comparing the Impact of Covid-19 Prison Visiting Restrictions in the UK and Australia' (2021) 29 (2) International Journal of Children's Rights 305
    Measures taken by governments to address covid-19 in prisons, have impacted significantly on the lives and rights of children. There has been consequential interference with children’s rights to family life and to contact with a parent from whom they have been separated. Since the onset of the pandemic, prisoners in many jurisdictions have lived under restricted regimes with almost universal bans on family visits. Children have not had face-to-face contact with their imprisoned parents, and alternate forms of contact have not always been available to them. Using survey and interview data collected during lockdowns in the UK and Australia, we consider the implications of the interference with the rights of children with an imprisoned parent. Focusing on their relationships, health and wellbeing and using the concept of symbiotic harms, we note how children’s experiences of the cessation of contact interacted with parents’ and caregivers’ experiences, amplifying the harms to children.
  • J J W Herring, 'The Ethical Conflicts of the COVID Pandemic in Criminal and Medical Law' (2021) 12 Anatomia Do Crime 13
  • C Wallis, 'The hidden pandemic of domestic abuse: will criminalising coercive control in Australia protect the most vulnerable?' (2021) Oxford Human Rights Hub
    Globally, organisations supporting survivors of domestic abuse have faced unparalleled challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, with victims confronting escalations of violence while confined at home with perpetrators. Within Australia, strict lockdown regulations over the past three months have led to providers of domestic violence support services being unable to manage the sharp rise in demand for assistance. Amidst this crisis, debates continue in Australian jurisdictions over whether – following the English legislature – the proposed offence of coercive control should be criminalised, to protect those confronting abusive behaviour in the home.