Research
You will find a complete range of our monographs, muti-authored and edited works including peer-reviewed, original scholarly research across the social sciences and aligned disciplines. We publish long and short form research and you can browse the complete Bristol University Press and Policy Press archive.
Policy Press also publishes policy reviews and polemic work which aim to challenge policy and practice in certain fields. These books have a practitioner in mind and are practical, accessible in style, as well as being academically sound and referenced.
This chapter analyses the politics of the recovery of pure economic loss in negligence. Recent critiques of the law have recognised that it sometimes comes to the aid of rich investors who have made bad business decisions. By way of contrast, the decisions of Smith v Bush and White v Jones are often portrayed as cases where the law has come to the aid of sympathetic ‘vulnerable’ claimants. Challenging this idea, this chapter assesses whether these decisions are in fact consistent with the neoliberal political ideology that was at its height in the 1980s and 1990s.
This chapter considers the gendered implications of product liability claims for injuries caused by dangerous medical devices. In recent years, women have been injured in a series of scandals involving medical devices, including Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) breast implants, the Essure permanent contraceptive device and transvaginal mesh. Further, devices that are implanted into both male and female bodies, such as joint replacements and cardiac devices, fail more frequently in women than they do in men. If women are more likely to be injured by implantable devices, they are also more likely to seek compensation for those injuries, and hence to be disproportionately affected by any defects in the product liability regime. If an effective product liability regime gives manufacturers an incentive to ensure that their products are safe, an ineffective product liability regime may do the opposite, making it more likely that dangerous devices will continue to be implanted into women’s bodies. This is exacerbated by the fact that many women who are injured by medical devices find that their symptoms are dismissed or downplayed as ‘normal’ and ‘attributable to women’s problems’.
This chapter argues that the reasonable person – as a legal standard – is essentially a queer standard. Yet, it is the very queer character of the reasonable person that places LGBTQ+ individuals at risk. First, past (and current) applications and personifications of the reasonable person into a White middle class, cisgender, heteronormative individual raises others’ standard of care while limiting the ability to hold ‘reasonable men’ liable. Second, the move from reasonable man to reasonable person, even if it signals a commitment to inclusivity, does not mean that this objective standard now has a fixed meaning. One of its core features is its ability to take on a wide range of meanings, thus creating constant uncertainty and flux as there is a risk that at any given moment the reasonable person will turn back into the reasonable man. The chapter concludes by examining several possible resolutions to the challenge posed by the reasonable man: changing his personification to a more inclusive one; eliminating the personification altogether; or diversifying the judicial composition, arguing that emphasis should be placed on the latter.
This chapter considers how developments in reproductive medicine and technology have brought new issues to bear on traditional tort law principles, by closely examining what we call ‘reproductive torts’. The following themes are considered separately, as well as the relationship between them. First, the idea of reproductive harm – what is it, who does it affect and who should pay for it when it occurs? Second, social justice and reproduction, particularly in relation to structural inequalities relating to gender, ‘race’, class and disability. Third, tort law’s response, considering its purpose and development and the extent to which it can address reproductive harm and issues of social justice. The chapter explores whether and how tortious principles could be developed differently if social justice was more of a priority. In particular, it asks whether tort law principles could be developed in a way that collectivises, rather than privatises, responsibility for health and care, and recognises and values not only the suffering, but also the experiences, transitions and adjustments that people who are injured, and those who love and care for them, make following negligent treatment.
This chapter explores the protection of autonomy interests in the context of medical negligence. It challenges the ability of the law of negligence to respond to private law rights violations, using the case law on wrongful parentage and loss of a chance to illustrate this point. This chapter then proposes moving away from the harm-based paradigm of the law of negligence, and towards an approach rooted in the law of trespass to the person. It suggests that the trespass torts are a more appropriate legal vehicle to respond to autonomy infringements, and highlights how this would work in practice.
This chapter considers the common law torts of misfeasance in public office and malicious prosecution through the lens of ‘race’ and gender to examine whether claimants from ethnically diverse backgrounds or women can achieve equitable outcomes through the use of these torts. The chapter explores whether micro-structural factors such as damages based on perceptions of morality of conduct, ill-defined terms and the use of control tests with high thresholds serve to constrain the utility of these torts for certain groups.
In addition to highlighting the non-neutrality of tort law, and its personal, real-life context, this collection brings issues of social class, ‘race’, gender, marginalisation, vulnerability and harm into conversation with core tort law topics to encourage a more critical examination of the law and its impact on different groups of people. The deliberate welcoming of both diverse topics and interpretations, alongside diverse voices, is intended to help students gain and develop further critical understanding of the goals of tort, whether they are achieved (and if so, who for, and at what cost), or whether tort law serves to perpetuate existing inequalities and division. By including a wider range of voices and views within a core tort law text, we hope to uncover the power imbalances and privileges that underpin tort law decisions and their impact on lived experiences, and provide a useful resource for those seeking to engage with more critical and diverse perspectives on tort.
Chapter 7, Access to Digital Justice, asks the central question: how accessible is online justice? This chapter explores how those who administer justice, those who provide advice and those who use the online justice system experience it. In doing so, we explore how the use of technology in the justice system is shaped by, and may reshape, people’s orientations and sensibilities towards law and technology. We use our data, in this chapter, to explore how consciousness of how people think and feel about the law relates to their capability of acting upon it.
The pandemic has significantly impacted people's engagement with the administrative justice system (AJS). As we navigate the post-pandemic era, the siloed landscape of tribunals, ombuds, advice services and NGOs face the challenge of maintaining trust in the justice system's fairness, efficacy and inclusivity.
Examining the journeys individuals undertake to seek justice in housing and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), this book sheds light on how these institutions adapted to remote service provision.
Written by key names in the field, this important contribution uncovers valuable insights for digitalization efforts and offers concrete recommendations for improving pathways to justice.
Chapter 9, Conclusion: Digital Journeys, brings together the empirical findings of the project and critically assesses what we have learned from doing research with marginalized groups and how we might rethink the approaches to understanding access to justice. We offer a more nuanced understanding of people’s digital journeys through bringing procedural justice to the concept of digital legal consciousness, as well as three dimensions that came out of our data: digital, affective and compound. This wider perspective can help identify barriers to access and inform strategies to improve access to justice. Ultimately, a more fine-grained understanding of digital legal consciousness will require ongoing research and collaboration between legal practitioners, policymakers and technology experts.
