Here you can review all the available judgments with a short summary and links to further reading. You will need to choose one of these judgments. All reading is available through the library.
The aim is not to rewrite the whole judgment. Because of the word count, you can just focus on particular aspect of it. Once you made a shortlist or found a judgment you want to rewrite, please do Exercises 1 and 2 to help you find the focus and perspective for your rewriting. As there are multiple perspectives that can be taken, several students can choose the same judgment.
International law
J1: The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen ICC-02/04-01/15. A former child soldier, later a commander in the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, Ongwen was convicted of some of the most serious crimes under international and international criminal law rape, sexual slavery, torture, recruitment of child soldiers. This ruling can give rise to various feminist or other critical projects focusing on issues such as child soldiering, forced marriage, sexual slavery / offences in international law.
Family Law
J2: Re TT v YY [2019] EWHC 1823 (Fam). An assisted reproduction case where a trans man could not be named as the mother on the birth certificate as he had given birth. This ruling can give rise to various feminist or other critical projects that might explore parenthood, motherhood, gender identity or legal recognition, or any other issues raised by the ruling.
- 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: SA v PA [2014] EWHC 392 (Fam). A financial remedies case concerning two points: (1) whether a pre-nuptial agreement should be upheld; (2) whether the wife should be compensated for giving up her career in a magic circle firm. This ruling can give rise to various feminist or other critical projects that might critically explore compensation, ways in which courts make rewards, value of (domestic) labour, gendered labour divisions, or any other issues raised by the ruling.
J5: 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.
- 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
J6: R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. A Supreme Court ruling reversing previous case law on joint enterprise, cementing that if the crime requires a particular intent, the defendant must intend to assist or encourage the principal offender to act with such intent. The SC admitted that law was incorrectly applied previously when it had allowed accomplices to be convicted of murder on foresight alone, yet the SC did not address the racial disparity in those earlier rulings. This ruling can give rise to various race theory based or other critical projects that might explore race, over-criminalisation of gang activities or any other issues raised by the ruling.
J7: 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
J8: R v Monica [2019] 2 WLR 722. A judicial review challenge on CPS decision not to prosecute a former undercover office 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 whist 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, limits of 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.
J9: R v Clinton [2012] EWCA Crim 2Link opens in a new window. Husband killed his wife, claiming he lost control having been triggered by her taunts. Landmark case from Court of Appeal allowed sexual infidelity to be introduced to jury in such cases of loss control defence, despite explicitly excluded in the wording of 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.
J10: 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, when in the course of a Black Lives Matter protest. The appeal point focused on whether ECHR provides protection to those cause criminal damage during protest which is violent or not peaceful. This ruling can give rise to various race theory based or other critical projects that might explore race, colonial legacies, right to protest and its relation to criminal offences, or any other issues raised by the ruling.
