Find out more about Judicial Institute events from 2019
Presidency and the Supreme Court: Lord Neuberger’s Legacy
A Lecture by Professor Alan Paterson OBE Strathclyde University
Monday 2 December
2019 was a year for reflection for the UK Supreme Court. It was celebrating its tenth anniversary, and witnessing a very substantial renewal of its membership from three years before. In acknowledgment of this the Court organised a number of events, including four lectures by Justices from each part of the United Kingdom and a moderated discussion with its first three Presidents. The Judicial Institute for its part invited Alan Paterson, author of Final Judgment: The Last Law Lords and the Supreme Court ( Hart Publishing, 2013 ) to give a lecture to an audience of senior judges and other stakeholders, from his ongoing project on the Presidents of the UK Supreme Court, on 2nd December 2019 entitled, “Presidency and the Supreme Court: Lord Neuberger’s Legacy”. It is reproduced here.
The Rt Hon Sir Brian Leveson President of the Queen's Bench Division Valedictory Lecture
'Criminal Trials - the human experience'
Thursday 13 June
Sentencing Discretion & Individualised Justice
Tuesday 19 March
The tension between "instinctive synthesis" and sentencing guidelines in collaboration with UCL Centre for Criminal Law
Panel discussion with The Hon Justice Christopher Maxwell President of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia
Professor Julian Roberts Professor of Criminology, University of Oxford
Chaired by Professor David Ormerod QC Law Commissioner for England & Wales Professor of Criminal Justice, UCL Faculty of Laws
In his introductory remarks, Justice Maxwell discussed the broadly instinctive approach to criminal sentencing in Australia, and discussions about reform in Australia, and more particularly in Victoria.
Professor Roberts drew on his decade long experience as a member of the Sentencing Council of England and Wales to talk about the way in which the Sentencing Council’s work has changed sentencing decision-making, and how judges have responded to the guidance provided.
These comments were followed by a lively Q&A session in which both discussants were invited to expand on their opening comments and requested to opine on areas of particular controversy.