Who gets heard? The permission to appeal decisions to the UK Supreme Court

The University and College Union has called for strike action over pension overhaul, with the exceptionally strong support of its membership. Out of respect for this industrial action, both the speaker and host have decided to cancel this lecture with a view to reschedule this at a later date. We will update this page as soon as we have confirmed date.

Co-sponsored by the UCL Judicial Institute, UCL Centre for Ethics and Law and UCL Faculty of Laws

Speaker: Professor Chris Hanretty (Royal Holloway, University of London)
Chair: Dr Steven Vaughan (University College London)

About the lecture:

This lecture examines the success rates of those seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court between 2009 and the summer of 2016. It tests three groups of factors capable of explaining success at this stage of the court’s decision-making process: legal factors (the “arguability” of the case; the importance of the case); organisational factors (the workloads and specialisms of panel members), and political factors (specifically whether governmental actors are seeking permission to appeal). I find that governmental actors are around one and a half times more likely to be granted permission to appeal than are other actors, even when controlling for the arguability of the case and its importance. There is little evidence that panel members’ workloads or specialisms affect the success of applications.

About the speaker:

Chris Hanretty is Professor of Politics at Royal Holloway, University of London. His research interests run from representation and public opinion to judicial and regulatory decision-making. Chris tweets (@chrishanretty) and blogs (medium.com/@chrishanretty/) regularly. He is currently working on a book about decision making on the UK Supreme Court.