Not an Impartial Tribunal? English Courts and Barristers' Negligence
Legal Ethics 13 (2):113-139 (2011)
| Abstract | A decade has now passed since the House of Lords removed the immunity from suit in negligence previously enjoyed by advocates in England and Wales. The small number of cases decided against barristers since the removal of the immunity indicates that the closeness of the relationship between barristers and the judiciary may give rise to issues of perceived judicial impartiality. This paper argues that the standard of care applied to barristers may be more generous than that applied to other professions. This is because the courts emphasise the importance of barristers' independence and the judiciary also have a direct interest in avoiding defensive practices on the part of barristers. Expert evidence is uncommon in negligence claims against barristers, placing the judge in the dual role of expert and adjudicator. The paper also considers the principles developed to address actual, apparent and presumed bias on the part of judges and the principles enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . In concluding, possibilities are explored for redressing the balance in barristers' negligence claims and removing the perception of bias which may currently taint such claims | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesOri J. Herstein (2010). Responsibility in Negligence: Why the Duty of Care is Not a Duty “To Try”. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):403-428.
Alfred R. Mele (2012). Crimes of Negligence: Attempting and Succeeding. Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (3):387-398.
Toby Handfield & Trevor Pisciotta (2005). Is the Risk–Liability Thesis Compatible with Negligence Law? Legal Theory 11:387-404.
Randall R. Curren (1992). A Causal Theory of Negligence. Social Philosophy Today 7:111-124.
Douglas Husak (2011). Negligence, Belief, Blame and Criminal Liability: The Special Case of Forgetting. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):199-218.
Matt King (2009). The Problem with Negligence. Social Theory and Practice 35 (4):577-595.
Ernest J. Weinrib (1983). Toward a Moral Theory of Negligence Law. Law and Philosophy 2 (1):37 - 62.
Michael L. Corrado (2001). Egalitarianism and the Problem of Tort Liability. Noûs 35 (s1):388-419.
Michael Moore & Heidi Hurd (2011). Punishing the Awkward, the Stupid, the Weak, and the Selfish: The Culpability of Negligence. Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):147-198.
Willard Downs & Kelley Ann Newton (1989). Legal Implications in Development and Use of Expert Systems in Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (1):53-58.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-24Total downloads10 ( #106,239 of 549,069 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,069 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
