Quality of Judicial Reasoning: England and Wales

  • Gar Yein NgEmail author
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 69)


This chapter looks at the theoretical and practical foundations for the quality of judicial reasoning in England and Wales. Standards can be found in theory—judges should not forget that giving reasons is a basis for their own legitimacy and accountability. These standards appear to be entirely derived from legal principles and practices. This chapter will address the question of whether there are criticisms on the quality of judicial reasoning and their source, and whether quality management can help to alleviate these critiques without being in breach of judicial independence.


Give Reasons Social Proposition Abstract Standing Dyzenhaus Results-based Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Thanks to Zenon Bankowski, Professor Emiritus, University of Edinburgh, Faculty of law, and Dr. Marjan Ajevski, Research Fellow, Open University, School of Law, for their comments. Any errors and conclusions remain my own.


  1. Andrews NH (2014) The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and English court judgements. In: headoflegal.
  2. Bingham T (2011) The business of judging: selected essays and speeches: 1985–1999. OUP OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Cane P (2009) Administrative tribunals and adjudication. Bloomsbury PublishingGoogle Scholar
  4. CEPEJ (2008) Checklist for promoting the quality of justice and the courts. CEPEJ, StrasburgGoogle Scholar
  5. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (2014) Judicial skills and abilities framework. Accessed 8 Apr 2017
  6. Cserne P (2013) Courts and expertise: consequence-based arguments in judicial reasoning. In: National legal systems and globalization. Springer, pp 89–109Google Scholar
  7. Dickson J (2010) Interpretation and coherence in legal reasoning. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophyGoogle Scholar
  8. Dworkin R (1986) Law’s empire. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyzenhaus D, Taggart M (2007) Reasoned decisions and legal theory. In: Common law theory, pp 134–170Google Scholar
  10. Eisenberg MA (2007) The principles of legal reasoning in the common law. In: Common law theory, pp 81–101Google Scholar
  11. England and Wales Court of Appeal (2003) Clark, R v [2003] EWCA Crim 1020 (11 April 2003)Google Scholar
  12. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (2014) Guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings of Council of Europe’s Member States—document adopted by CEPEJ at its 24th Plenary meeting (Strasbourg, 11–12 December 2014)Google Scholar
  13. Fielding NG (2011) Judges and their work. Soc Leg Stud 20:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner C (2014) Supreme Court judgment: R (Barkas) v North Yorkshire. In: Head Leg. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  15. Gelter M, Siems M (2014) Citations to foreign courts—illegitimate and superfluous, or unavoidable? Evidence from Europe. Am J Comp Law 62:35–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerhardt MJ (2008) The power of precedent. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. HK vs Llanarth Court Hospital (2014) HK v Llanarth Court Hospital [2014] UKUT 410 (AAC), [2014] MHLO 95Google Scholar
  18. Hutchinson T (2013) Empirical facts: a rationale for expanding lawyers’ methodological expertise. Law Method 3:53–66Google Scholar
  19. Judicial College of Victoria (2008) Framework of judicial abilities and qualities.
  20. Meek v City of Birmingham District Council (1987) Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987Google Scholar
  21. Neuberger L (2015) Sausages and the judicial process: the limits of transparency. Judicial Commission of NSW, p 131Google Scholar
  22. Ng GY (2010) Quality management in the justice system in England and Wales. CEPEJ Study 23–43Google Scholar
  23. Paterson A, Paterson C (2012) Guarding the guardians? Towards an independent, accountable and diverse senior judiciary. Centre Forum and CPLSGoogle Scholar
  24. Schauer F (1987) Precedent. Stanford Law Rev 571–605Google Scholar
  25. Thomas EW (2005) The judicial process: realism, pragmatism, practical reasoning and principles. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Ward T (2013) Expert evidence, ethics and the law. In: Harrison K, Rainey B (eds) The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of legal and ethical aspects of sex offender treatment and management. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 82–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law SchoolUniversity of BuckinghamBuckinghamUK

Personalised recommendations