IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v62y2014i3p686-697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Haves and Have-Nots before the Law Lords

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Hanretty

Abstract

type="main"> One important characteristic of justice, and thus of our judicial system, is impartiality. One type of judicial impartiality is impartiality between litigants who command status and material resources (‘haves’) and those who do not (‘have-nots’). I investigate the success of ‘haves’ in appeals to the House of Lords between 1969 and 2003. I investigate two separate paths by which ‘haves’ might succeed more: relative status advantage over other litigants, and being able to hire more experienced and more successful counsel. My innovative operationalisation of relative status advantage shows that while relative status advantage does exist, it is largely a matter of governmental actors having significant advantages over all others; businesses and associations have no advantages over individual litigants. Instructing more experienced counsel also increases the chances of a litigant succeeding. This effect holds when accounting for the relative number of counsel and their relative win rates in previous cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Hanretty, 2014. "Haves and Have-Nots before the Law Lords," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(3), pages 686-697, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:62:y:2014:i:3:p:686-697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9248.12041
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sofia Amaral-Garcia & Lucia Dalla Pellegrina & Nuno Garoupa, 2020. "Consensus and Ideology in Courts: an Application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council," Working Papers 430, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2020.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:62:y:2014:i:3:p:686-697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.