Skip to main content
Log in

A Conversation with Baroness Hale

  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. Re L (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re V (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re M (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334. The “first intimation of change”, according to Kaganas and Day Sclater (2000), was the judgment of Hale J in Re D (Contact: Reasons for Refusal) [1997] 2 FLR 48.

  2. SRJ v DWJ [1999] 2 FLR 176.

  3. White v White [2001] 1 AC 596.

  4. Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 2 AC 618.

  5. R (on the application of Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] 2 AC 246.

  6. R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L [1998] 1 All ER 634 (CA); R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L [1999] 1 AC 458 (HL).

  7. R (on the application of Wilkinson) v Broadmoor Hospital [2002] 1 WLR 419.

  8. R (on the application of Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2004] QB 395.

  9. R (on the application of Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2006] 2 AC 148.

References

  • Anonymous Grandfather. 2007. Judicial inconsistency and the Family Court system. Family Law 37: 722–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, Susan, and Brenda Hoggett. 1984. Women and the law. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainham, Andrew. 1997. Book review: From the test tube to the coffin: Choice and regulation in private life. Cambridge Law Journal 56: 431–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, Kenneth M., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Herma Hill Kay. 1974. Text, cases and materials on sex-based discrimination. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, Sian. 2007. Plenary address. Paper presented at Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference, Durham University, 11 September.

  • Hale, Brenda. 1996. From the test tube to the coffin: Choice and regulation in private life. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Brenda. 1999. The view from court 45. Child and Family Law Quarterly 11: 377–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Brenda. 2001. Equality and the judiciary: Why should we want more women judges? Public Law 2001: 489–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, Brenda. 2004. Speech at the Annual Dinner of the Association of Women Barristers, London, 4 November.

  • Hale, Brenda. 2007. Is equality the death of marriage? Australian Family Lawyer 19 (4): 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoggett, Brenda M. 1976. Mental health law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoggett, Brenda M. 1977. Parents and children: The law of parental responsibility. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoggett, Brenda M., and David S. Pearl. 1983. The Family, law and society: Cases and materials. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaganas, Felicity, and Shelley Day Sclater. 2000. Contact and domestic violence—the winds of change? Family Law 30: 630–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Commission. 1995. Mental incapacity (HC 189). London: Law Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, Anthony, and Geoffrey Bindman. 1972. Race and law. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlin, Beverly. 2003. Seminar to the Association of Women Barristers, House of Commons, 2 July.

  • Rackley, Erika. 2006. Difference in the House of Lords. Social and Legal Studies 15: 163–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rackley, Erika. 2007. What a difference difference makes: Gendered harms and judicial diversity. Paper presented at the Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference, Durham University, 11 September.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Celia Wells, then President of the SLS, for inviting us to participate in the conversation reproduced above. We would also like to thank the members of the audience for their overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic response to a conference plenary session that adopted a novel format.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosemary Hunter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hale, B., Hunter, R. A Conversation with Baroness Hale. Fem Leg Stud 16, 237–248 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-008-9090-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-008-9090-5

Keywords

Navigation