- Alice Margaria, ‘Trans Men Giving Birth and Reflections on Fatherhood: What to Expect?’ (2020) 34(3) International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 225–246
J3: Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42. A landmark case providing guidance on how much weight is given to a nuptial agreement in financial remedy proceedings following a domestic divorce. This ruling can give rise to various feminist or other critical projects that might explore nuptial agreements, contributions, gendered construction and value of (domestic) labour, or any other issues raised by the ruling.
J4: Wachtel v Wachtel [1973] Fam 72. The first time that the Court of Appeal had considered the new (and, essentially, still current) regime for deciding financial settlements, following the major reform of the divorce law at the end of the 1960s. This ruling can give rise to various feminist or other critical projects that might explore financial relief, changing societal views on marriage and divorce, or any other issues raised by the ruling. This is an opportunity to rewrite an older case, demonstrating the impact it would have had on the trajectory of settlements in the decades to come.
- Gillian Douglas, Bringing an End to the Matrimonial Post Mortem. Wachtel v Wachtel and its Enduring Significance for Ancillary Relief, in (eds) Gilmore and others, Landmark Cases in Family Law (Bloomsbury 2011) chapter 8 / pp 148-166
Criminal Law
J5: R v BKY and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 1095 This case concerns joint enterprise and highlights the continued need for clarity in joint enterprise cases. In BKY and Others, an 18-year-old man was stabbed to death after a festival. The principal offender, CM, had struck all the fatal blows with a large, sharp blade. Nine other boys, aged 14-17, were involved in the incident in various ways. Some shouted encouragements, others kicked and stamped on the victim. The 10 defendants were jointly charged with murder (count 1) and manslaughter in the alternative (count 2), and each of the 10 boys were convicted of murder. They appealed to the Court of Appeal, based on fairness, adequacy, and impartiality of the trial judge’s summing up. Their appeal was unsuccessful. Court of Appeal declared all the ten convictions safe and said there was sufficient evidence of intention to kill in all their cases, as per Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. Yet, the court did not clarify what constitutes sufficient evidence in such cases, and the law still lacks clarity on this point. BKY and Others is significant as it shows the continued use of the joint enterprise doctrine despite repeated calls to abolish it, and raises concerns in particular around over-criminalisation of gangs, and racial bias in the legal system.
J6: R v BM [2018] EWCA Crim 560. On harm and consent, the case applies and confirms the Brown principle, the CA held that the defence of consent does not apply to actual bodily harm in the form of body modification. Those interested in this ruling can also revisit the related case of R. v Brown [1994] 1 A.C. 212 and its codification in Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (s. 71). This ruling can give rise to various feminist, queer theory or other critical projects that might explore bodily autonomy, consent, or heteronormativity of law.
- Clement, R,Link opens in a new window ‘Consent to Body Modification in Criminal Law’ (2018) 77(3) Cambridge Law Journal 451-454.
- Ramanauskas, B, ‘BDSM, Body Modification, Transhumanism, and the Limits of Liberalism’ (2020) 40(1) Economic Affairs 85-92
J7: R (Monica) v DPP [2019] 2 WLR 722. A judicial review challenge on the CPS decision not to prosecute a former undercover officer for rape, indecent assault, procurement of a woman by false pretences, and misconduct in public office after it transpired that he had three long-term sexual and romantic relationships whilst undercover. This case is closely related to other deception cases such as Lawrance or McNally that focus on reproduction, sexuality, and gender identity. This ruling can give rise to various feminist or other critical projects that might explore rape, consent, deception, the limits of the Sexual Offences Act, or any other issues raised by the ruling.
- Kennedy, CLink opens in a new window, ‘Criminalising Deceptive Sex: Sex, Identity and Recognition’ (2021) 41(1) Legal Studies 91-110
- Clement, R, Deception and consent to sex (2019) 78(2) Cambridge Law Journal 264-267.
J8: R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2Link opens in a new window. In this case, a husband killed his wife, from whom he had separated from, claiming he lost control after being triggered by her taunts. A landmark case from the Court of Appeal allowed sexual infidelity to be introduced to the jury in such cases of loss of control defence, despite it being explicitly excluded in the wording of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This ruling can give rise to various feminist or other critical projects that might explore gendered presumptions about homicide, emotions, anger, and excusable violence, or any other issues raised by the ruling.
J9: Attorney General’s Reference No. 1 of 2022 Link opens in a new window[2022] EWCA Crim 1259. This case was an appeal relating to the Colston Four, who toppled the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in 2020 during a Black Lives Matter protest. The appeal point focused on whether the ECHR provides protection to those who cause criminal damage during protests that are violent or not peaceful. This ruling can give rise to various race theory-based or other critical projects that might explore race, colonial legacies, the right to protest and its relation to criminal offences, or any other issues raised by the ruling.
J10: R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093. In Broughton, the defendant (D) had supplied the victim, his girlfriend, with ‘pumped up’ drugs on which she fatally overdosed. He failed to call for assistance as she became increasingly unwell, despite pleas from her family with whom he was in contact. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction for gross negligence manslaughter on the basis that the prosecution had not met the criminal standard for causation. An expert testimony stated that she had a 90 per cent chance of survival had he called for help. The Court of Appeal held that this significant chance of survival had she received assistance was not sufficient, and the prosecution needed to show that medical attention would have saved the person’s life. This ruling forms part of a long line of cases involving drugs, death, and the responsibility of others - the case of Evans is a particularly important precedent. This case can be taken in several directions, considering the potential over-criminalisation of drug dealing or perhaps a critical, feminist analysis of duty of care.
- Case comment on Broughton Crim. L.R. 2021, 10, 869-872 (link to Westlaw)
- Hunter and others, Feminist Judgments: from Theory to Practice (Hart 2010), chapter 13 R v Stone and Dobinson (another gross negligence case re-considered) (link to our library)
This list has been updated in January 2025.
