Alternative Judgment

What is a alternative judgment?

This stream provides students with the opportunity to rewrite an existing judgment, providing an alternative perspective on the judgment. While the project requires legal research and critical thinking, this stream allows students to embark on a practice, ‘real world’ exercise of judgment-writing. Students will only have the option of doing this as a 5,000-word piece taken in Term 2 (15 CAT).The methodology for the alternative judgment is drawn from the methodology of the feminist judgment projects. The aims of those projects has been to imagine how important legal cases might have been decided differently if the judge had adopted a feminist perspective. The alternative judgments students produce must follow the facts and legal constraints of the original judgment, but bring to the process of judging a feminist, race, colonial or disability studies perspective.

What are alternative judgments?

Watch: Professor Nuno Ferreira introduces The Queer Judgments Project

You can view the existing academic projects through our library:

English feminist judgments

Northern/Irish feminist judgments

International law judgments

Rewriting children's rights judgments

Which judgment?

In this stream, you will be rewriting an existing judgment, not an imaginary one.

You will need to choose from a list of 10 judgments. Head to the section below to see available judgments in international law, family law and criminal law.

What kind of support will you receive?

Teaching support is delivered in streams and through supervision. In streams, you will have workshop style lectures that provide training and guidance on getting started, research methods, ethics, and writing.

All students will also be supported by a supervisor. Supervision will mainly consist of regular group meetings that will focus on proposals, literature, writing, and reviewing past work. In addition, there will be termly individual supervision to discuss draft written work.

Do you have questions about this stream? Contact the stream lead: Dr Laura Lammasniemi

Working towards a project proposal: step by step guidance

You can download the timeline and all exercises as a word document here if you wish to use it as a worksheet.

Timeline

When?	I need to attend	By the end of the week, I should have..
Week 2 Term 2	One of the project information sessions	Read about different project options to decide on a stream
Week 3 Term 2		Decided on the stream I want to do my research in Read blurbs of all available judgments and begun exploring options Completed Exercise 1
Week 5 Term 2	A stream specific session on developing proposal
Week 6 Term 2		Completed Exercise 2 and in particular, started considering the chosen judgment in more detail and exploring what kind of perspectives and ideas I want to explore in my rewriting. Identified 5 sources through Warwick library that are relevant to my chosen judgment
Week 8 Term 2	If I have any questions, attend one of the drop-in sessions	Read further into the readings identified
Week 10 Term 2	If I have any questions, attend one of the drop-in sessions
March 20th 2025		Final deadline for submission of my proposal

Available judgments

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.

Clare Frances Moran, Dominic Ongwen: how the case of a former child soldier exposed weaknesses in international criminal law (The Conversation)
Steflja, I., Trisko Darden, J., & Wintersieck, A., 'Breaking through the legal binary: Media labelling of dominic ongwen as a Victim–Perpetrator; (2023) Social & Legal Studies

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.

Andrew Hayward, ‘The Gender Dimension of Prenuptial Agreements: Radmacher v Granatino [2010]’ (Inherently Human, 2010)
Sharon Thompson, Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice: Issues of Power in Theory and Practice (Bloomsbury 2015) Hardcopy available at the library

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.

Spitz and others, Link opens in a new window‘Nuptial agreements: does the gender of the wealthy spouse affect the award?’ (2016) 46(Sep) Family Law 1147-1151

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.

Carvalho, H, Link opens in a new window'Dangerous Patterns: Joint Enterprise and the Culture of Criminal Law' (2023) 32(3) Social & Legal Studies 335-355. Access through library
Clarke, B., & Williams, P,Link opens in a new window ‘(Re)producing guilt in suspect communities: The centrality of racialisation in joint enterprise prosecutions’ (2020) 9(3) International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 116-129.

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.

Stark, F,Link opens in a new window 'Killing the Unfaithful' (2012) 71(2) Cambridge Law Journal 260-263.
Wake, NLink opens in a new window, 'Loss of Control beyond Sexual Infidelity: R v Clinton (Jon-Jacques) [2012] EWCA Crim 2' (2012) 76(3) Journal of criminal law 193-197

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.

Hayers and others, We attended the trial of the Colston four: here’s why their acquittal should be celebrated Link opens in a new window(The Conversation 2022)
Benn, A, Case note: Criminal damage: Attorney General's Reference on a Point of Law (No.1 of 2022) Court of Appeal (2023)Link opens in a new window 1 Criminal Law Review 58-62.

Exercise 1: Brainstorming

This exercise is designed to help you to get started.

Consider all the judgments that are available to rewrite. Choose 1-3 judgments you are interested in, and begin to explore what aspects you want to rewrite, and how. Start by listing all of the perspectives and ideas for rewriting them you can think of in about 10 minutes.
List as many pros and cons as you can think of for each item.
After all pros and cons have been identified, rank each item based on the idea, the pros, and the cons.

Exercise 2: Finding focus

EXERCISE 2: Finding focus

Answer the questions on the right in 1-2 sentences per topic you are contemplating.

These questions are designed to help you crystallise your ideas and to find your focus as you are preparing for the proposal.

Questions to consider

What am I actually interested in finding out the most?
What do I hope to learn or gain by choosing this topic?
What do I want the rewritten judgment to show readers?
Do I want to challenge the outcome or the reasoning?
Do I want to reach the same or a different conclusion to the original?
Are there ways of interpreting legal principles that I want to challenge?
Are there contexts or experiences I want to feature more prominently?
Are there changes to the language or the tone of the judgment I'd prefer to use in my judgment?
What kind of research or data would help me answer the questions I am interested in?
Using the Online Library search function, identify and write down 5 potential sources
Which one(s) of these sources is the most helpful and why? You can just read the abstracts for now, and save the most helpful ones to later to read in full.