What is it about?
Governments complain, bitterly, when they lose cases in court. I looked to some of the most controversial cases in Britain -- immigration cases -- and tried to work out why governments have been losing such cases at an increased rate. My findings suggest that it's not because judges are becoming soft liberals. Rather it's down to language, and specifically knotty legislative language.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Judges have been attacked by government and media for being anti-democratic in supporting immigrants rather than the state. In counter-terrorism and criminal justice related cases, verdicts are especially controversial. So, it is important to provide clear evidence that judges are acting appropriately, not personally. The law they are having to interpret is simply of insufficient clarity to achieve what the government wants.
Perspectives
In this age of attacks on judges by politicians and media, it's about time for a fight back. Reason and evidence must, of course, be the weapons for any such fight. Judges are not well-placed to defend themselves, and my findings suggest their jobs are becoming more difficult, as law becomes more indeterminate in meaning. This paper marks several years of my work with computer-assisted analysis of legislation, and careful statistical modelling. It is a nuanced, yet firm, rebuttal to those who would bash our judges in this anti-system climate.
Matthew Williams
University of Oxford
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Legislative language and judicial politics: The effects of changing parliamentary language on UK immigration disputes, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, May 2017, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/1369148117705272.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
