Abstract
In this article, we study judicial behavior at the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). British judges in general, and British high court judges in particular, are perceived to be independent and isolated from political pressure and interference. Furthermore, these judges tend to show a particularly high rate of consensus. This has led many scholars to consider that, contrarily to what holds for several other courts around the world (such as the US Supreme Court), the attitudinal model does not find support when British higher court judges are considered. In this paper we assess whether similar conclusions might be drawn from the JCPC, another British court of last resort. We create a unique dataset to study empirically decisions of the JCPC and investigate the extent to which judges exhibit different judicial behavior depending on the type of appeal being brought to the court, i. e., Commonwealth, devolution and domestic appeals. Our results indicate a higher polarization of judicial behavior in the context of devolution appeals (as measured by separate opinions). We discuss these results in the context of the comparative judicial behavior literature and the role of courts in the common law world (with particular reference to human rights).
Acknowledgements
We are indebted to three anonymous referees, Anthony Niblett, Jurgen Goossens, Dennis Quinn, Sung-in Jun, Ted Eisenberg, seminar participants at the Annual Conference of the International Society for New Institutional Economics (Durham, 2014), Annual Meeting of the American Law and Economics Association (Chicago, 2014), Conference of Empirical and Legal Studies (Philadelphia, 2013), ETH Zurich (Center for Law & Economics), Spanish Law and Economics Conference (Granada, June 2013), Korean Association of Law and Economics (2013), Italian Society of Law and Economics (Lugano, 2013) and European Conference of Law and Economics (Warsaw, 2013). We are particularly indebted to Andrew Le Sueur, to the Registrar of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council & The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Louise di Mambro, and to the Head of Communications of The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Ben Wilson. Sóm Datye, Daswell Davis and Joanna Yu Wang have provided valuable research assistance. Theusual disclaimer applies. Previous title: “Judicial Politics at the Privy Council: Empirical Evidence”.
References
Alarie, B., and A.J. Green. 2008. “Should They All Just Get Along? Judicial Ideology, Colle- Giality, and Appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada,” 53 University of New Brunswick Law Journal 73–91.Search in Google Scholar
Alder, J. 2000. “Dissents in Courts of Last Resort: Tragic Choices,” 20(2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 221–246.10.1093/ojls/20.2.221Search in Google Scholar
Arvind, T., and L. Stirton. 2012. “Lawyers and the Legal Model: Judicial Ideology, Judicial Professionalism and Institutional Strategy Among the Law Lords,” mimeograph in file with authors.Search in Google Scholar
Amaral-Garcia, S., G. Nuno, and V. Grembi. 2009. “Judicial Independence and Party Politics in the Kelsenian Constitutional Courts the Case of Portugal,” 6 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 383–404.10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01147.xSearch in Google Scholar
Baum, C.F. 2008. “Stata Tip 63: Modeling Proportions,” 8(2) Stata Journal 299–303.10.1177/1536867X0800800212Search in Google Scholar
Beth, L. 1975. “The Judicial Committee: Its Development, Organisation and Procedure,” 3/4 Public Law 219–241.Search in Google Scholar
Blanes, I., J. Vidal, and C. Leaver. 2011. “Are Tenured Judges Insulated from Political Pres- Sure?,” 95 Journal of Public Economics 570–586.10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.004Search in Google Scholar
Brenner, S., and H.J. Spaeth. 1988. “Ideological Position as a Variable in the Authoring of Dissenting Opinions on the Warren and Burger Courts,” 16 American Politics Quarterly 317–328.10.1177/004478088016003005Search in Google Scholar
Breton, A., and A. Fraschini. 2003. “The Independence of the Italian Constitutional Court,” 14 Constitutional Political Economy 319–333.10.1023/B:COPE.0000003861.45073.45Search in Google Scholar
Brodie, P.H. 2009. “From Scotland and Ireland,” in L. Blom-Cooper, G. Drewry and B. Dickson eds. The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, p. 279. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cameron, C.M., and L.A. Kornhauser. 2010. “Modeling Collegial Courts III: Adjudicatioequilibria,” SSRN Working-paper.10.2139/ssrn.2153785Search in Google Scholar
Carroll, R., and A.N.D.L. Tiede. 2011. “Judicial Behavior on the Chilean Constitutional Court,” 8 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 856–877.10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01243.xSearch in Google Scholar
Chávez, R.B. 2004. The Rule of Law in Nascent Democracies: Judicial Politics in Argentina. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dalla Pellegrina, L., N. Garoupa, and S. Lin. 2012. “Judicial Ideal Points in New Democra- Cies: The Case of Taiwan,” 7(1) National Taiwan University Law Review 123–165.Search in Google Scholar
Dalla Pellegrina, L., and N. Garoupa. 2013. “Choosing between the Government and the Regions: An Empirical Analysis of the Italian Constitutional Court Decisions,” 52(4) European Journal of Political Research 431–480.10.2139/ssrn.1635174Search in Google Scholar
Delaney, E.F. 2014. “Judiciary Rising- Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom,” 108(2) North- Western University Law Review 534–605.Search in Google Scholar
Edelman, P.H., D. Klein, and S.A. Lindquist. 2012. “Consensus, Disorder, and Ideology on the Supreme Court,” 9 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 129–148.10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01249.xSearch in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., T. Fisher, and I. Rosen-Zvi. 2013. “Group Decision Making on Appellate Panels: Presiding Justice and Opinion Justice Influence in the Israel Supreme Court,” 19(3) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 282–296.10.1037/a0033565Search in Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., T. Fisher, and I.R.O.S.E.N. Rosen-Zvi Zvi. 2011. “Israel’s Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdic- Tion an Empirical Study,” 96 Cornell Law Review 4.Search in Google Scholar
Epstein, L., and J. Knight. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Epstein, L., W.M. Landes, and R.A. Posner. 2011. “Why (And When) Judges Dissent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis,” 3(1) Journal of Legal Analysis 101–137.10.1093/jla/3.1.101Search in Google Scholar
Epstein, L., J.A. Segal, and H.J. Spaeth. 2001. “The Norm of Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court,” 45 American Journal of Political Science 362–377.10.2307/2669346Search in Google Scholar
Escresa, L., and N. Garoupa. 2012. “Judicial Politics in Unstable Democracies: The Case of the Philippine Supreme Court, 1986–2010,” 3(1) Asian Journal of Law and Economics.10.1515/2154-4611.1068Search in Google Scholar
Fiorino, N., F. Padovano, and G. Sgarra. 2007. “The Determinants of Judicial Independence: Evidence from the Italian Constitutional Court (1956–2002),” 163 Journal of Institutional and The- Oretical Theoretical Economics 683–705.10.1628/093245607783242927Search in Google Scholar
Fischman, J.B. 2013. “Interpreting Circuit Court Voting Patterns: A Social Interactions Framework,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. doi:10.1093/jleo/ews042.Search in Google Scholar
Franck, R. 2009. “Judicial Independence under A Divided Polity: A Study of the Rulings of the French Constitutional Court, 1959–2006,” 25 Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 262–284.10.1093/jleo/ewn001Search in Google Scholar
Franck, R. 2010. “Judicial Independence and the Validity of Controverted Elections,” 12 American Law and Economics Review 394–422.10.1093/aler/ahq011Search in Google Scholar
Garoupa, N., M. Gili, and F. Gómez-Pomar. 2012. “Political Influence and Career Judiciary: An Empirical Analysis of Administrative Review by the Spanish Supreme Court,” 9(4) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 795–826.10.1111/j.1740-1461.2012.01270.xSearch in Google Scholar
Garoupa, N., F. Gómez-Pomar, and V. Grembi. 2013. “Judging under Political Pressure: An Empirical Analysis of Constitutional Review Voting in the Spanish Constitutional Court,” 29(3) Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 513–534.10.1093/jleo/ewr008Search in Google Scholar
Garoupa, N., V. Grembi, and S. Lin. 2011. “Explaining Constitutional Review in New Democ- Racies: The Case of Taiwan,” 20 Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 1–40.Search in Google Scholar
Gely, R., and P.T. Spiller. 1990. “A Rational Choice Theory of Supreme Court Statutory Decisions with Applications to the State Farm and Grove City Cases,” 6 Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 263–300.Search in Google Scholar
George, T.E., and L. Epstein. 1992. “On the Nature of Supreme Court Decision Making,” 86 American Political Science Review 323–337.10.2307/1964223Search in Google Scholar
Ginsburg, T. 2003. Judicial Review in New Democracies: Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511511189Search in Google Scholar
Goff, B. 2006. “Supremer Court Consensus and Dissent: Estimating the Role of the Selection Screen,” 127 Public Choice 367–383.10.1007/s11127-006-8290-2Search in Google Scholar
Green, A.J., and B. Alarie. 2009. “Policy Preference Change and Appointments to The Supreme Court of Canada,” 47 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1–46.Search in Google Scholar
Griffith, J.A.G. 1997. The Politics of the Judiciary. London: Fontana Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hanretty, C. 2013. “The Decisions and Ideal Points of British Law Lords,” 43(03) British Journal of Political Science 703–716.10.1017/S0007123412000270Search in Google Scholar
Hansford, T.G., and J.F. Springgs II. 2006. The Politics of Precedent on the US Supreme Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691188041Search in Google Scholar
Helmke, G. 2004. Courts under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511510144Search in Google Scholar
Het Tinger, V.A., S.A. Lindquist, and W.L. Martinek. 2003. “Separate Opinion Writing on the United States Courts of Appeals,” 31(3) American Politics Research 215–250.10.1177/1532673X03251196Search in Google Scholar
Hilbink, L. 2007. Judges beyond Politics in Democracy and Dictatorship: Lessons from Chile. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511511509Search in Google Scholar
Iaryczower, M., P.T. Spiller, and M. Tommasi. 2002. “Judicial Independence in Unstable Environments, Argentina 1935–1998,” 46 American Journal of Political Science 699–716.10.2307/3088428Search in Google Scholar
Iaryczower, M., P.T. Spiller, and M. Tommasi. 2006. “Judicial Lobbying: The Politics of Labor Law Constitutional Interpretation,” 100 American Political Science Review 1–13.10.3386/w11317Search in Google Scholar
Jones, G. 1982. “Should Judges Be Politicians?: The English Experience,” 57(2) Indiana Law Journal 211–233.Search in Google Scholar
Kapiszewski, D., and M.M. Taylor. 2008. “Doing Courts Justice? Studying Judicial Politics in Latin America,” 64 Perspectives in Politics 741–767.10.1017/S1537592708081899Search in Google Scholar
Keith, K. 2009. “The Interplay with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” in L. Blom-Cooper, G. Drewry and B. Dickson, eds. The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009, p. 315. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199532711.003.0020Search in Google Scholar
Lax, J.R., and C.M. Cameron. 2007. “Bargaining and Opinion Assignment on the US Supreme Court,” 23 Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 276–302.10.1093/jleo/ewm023Search in Google Scholar
Le Sueur, A. 2001. “What is the future for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council?,” TheConstitution Unit, UCL.Search in Google Scholar
Le Sueur, A. 2008. “A Report on Six Seminars about the UK Supreme Court,” 1 Queen Mary University of London, School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper 2–60.10.2139/ssrn.1324749Search in Google Scholar
Le Sueur, A. 2009. “From Appellate Committee to Supreme Court: A Narrative,” in L. Blom-Cooper, G. Drewry and B. Dickson, eds. The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, J. 2009. “A Defence of Concurring Speeches,” 2 Public Law 305–331.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, J., ed. 2011. From House of Lords to Supreme Court: Judges, Jurists and the Process of Judging. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore (8 October 2012): “Dissenting judgments – self indulgence or self sacrifice?,” The Birkenhead Lecture.Search in Google Scholar
Malleson, K. 2009. “Appointments to the House of Lords: Who Goes Upstairs,” in L. Blom-Cooper, G. Drewry and B. Dickson, eds. The Judicial House of Lords: 1876–2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Massie, T., K.A. Randazzo, and D.R. Songer. 2014. “The Politics of Judicial Retirement in Canada and the United Kingdom,” 2(2) Journal of Law and Courts 273–299.10.1086/677057Search in Google Scholar
Munday, R. 2002. “Judicial Configurations – Permutations of the Court and Properties of Judgment,” 61(3) Cambridge Law Journal 621–656.Search in Google Scholar
Neuberger, L. 2012. “No Judgment – No Justice,” First annual BAILII Lecture.Search in Google Scholar
O’Neill, A. 2001. “Judicial Politics and the Judicial Committee: The Devolution Jurisprudence of the Privy Council,” 64 Modern Law Review 603–617.10.1111/1468-2230.00341Search in Google Scholar
O’Neill, A. 2004. “Building the UK’s New Supreme Court: National and Comparative Per- Spective,” in A. Le Sueur, eds. Judging Democracy: The Devolutionary Settlement and the Scottish Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199264629.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Padovano, F. 2009. “The Time-Varying Independence of Italian Peak Judicial Institutions,” 20 Constitutional Political Economy 230–250.10.1007/s10602-008-9067-zSearch in Google Scholar
Paterson, A. 2013. Final Judgment – the Last Law Lords and the Supreme Court. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Poole, T., and S. Shah 2011. “The Law Lords and Human Rights,” The Modern Law Review, 74(1), 79–105.10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00837.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J.M., and E.B. Rasmusen. 2003. Measuring Judicial Independence: The Political Economy of Judging in Japan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226703879.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Ramseyer, J.M., and E.B. Rasmusen. 2006. “The Case for Managed Judges: Learning from Japan after the Political Upheaval of 1993,” 154 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1879–1930.10.2307/40041354Search in Google Scholar
Robertson, D. 1982. “Judicial Ideology in the House of Lords: A Jurimetric Analysis,” 12(1) British Journal of Political Science 1–25.10.1017/S0007123400002799Search in Google Scholar
Salzberger, E., and P. Fenn. 1999. “Judicial Independence: Some Evidence from the English Court of Appeal,” 42 Journal of Law and Economics 831–847.10.1086/467444Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, M.R. 2005. “Judicial Career Incentives and Court Performance: An Empirical Study of the German Labour Courts of Appeal,” 20 European Journal of Law and Economics 127–44.10.1007/s10657-005-1733-2Search in Google Scholar
Segal, J.A., and A.D. Cover. 1989. “Ideological Values and the Votes of US Supreme Court Justices,” 83 American Political Science Review 557–565.10.2307/1962405Search in Google Scholar
Segal, J.A., and H.J. Spaeth. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511615696Search in Google Scholar
Shachar, Y., M. Gross, and R. Harris. 1997. “Anatomy of Discourse and Dissent in The Supreme Court – Quantitative Analyses,” 20 Tel Aviv U. L. Rev 749–795.Search in Google Scholar
Smyth, R., and P.K. Narayan. 2004. “Hail to the Chief! Leadership and Structural Change in the Level of Consensus on the High Court of Australia,” 1 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 399–427.10.1111/j.1740-1461.2004.00012.xSearch in Google Scholar
Songer, D.R., J. Szmer, and S.W. Johnson. 2011. “Explaining Dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada,” 44 Canadian Journal of Political Science 389–409.10.1017/S0008423911000151Search in Google Scholar
Swinfen, D. 1987. Imperial Appeal: The Debate on the Appeal to the Privy Council 1833–1986. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tate, C.N., and P. Sittiwong. 1989. “Decision Making in the Canadian Supreme Court : Ex- Tending the Personal Attributes Model across Nations,” 51 Journal of Politics 900–916.10.2307/2131540Search in Google Scholar
Vanberg, G. 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. Cambridge: University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511510427Search in Google Scholar
Voigt, S., M. Ebeling, and L. Blume. 2007. “Improving Credibility by Delegating Judicial Competence – the Case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,” 82 Journal of Development Economics 348–373.10.1016/j.jdeveco.2006.04.004Search in Google Scholar
Walker, N. 2010. Final Appellate Jurisdiction in the Scottish Legal System. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.Search in Google Scholar
Appendix
Judges.
| Name | National Jurisdiction | Birth | Appointment | House of Lords | Justice SCUK | Male | Total Votes | Total Separate | Total Dissenting | Total Concurring |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auld | English | 1937 | 1995 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Balcombe | English | 1925 | 1985 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Beldam | English | 1925 | 1989 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bingham | English | 1933 | 1986 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 82 | 14 | 6 | 8 |
| Blanchard | New Zealander | 1942 | 1998 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brown | English | 1937 | 1992 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 33 | 10 | 3 | 7 |
| Browne-Wilkinson | English | 1930 | 1983 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cameron | Scottish | 1934 | 2000 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carswell | Northern Irish | 1934 | 1993 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 38 | 10 | 2 | 8 |
| Clarke | English | 1943 | 1998 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Clyde | Scottish | 1932 | 1996 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 49 | 7 | 1 | 6 |
| Coghlin | Northern Irish | 1945 | 2009 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Collins | English | 1941 | 2007 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Cooke | New Zealander | 1926 | 1977 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 21 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Cosgrove | Scottish | 1946 | 2003 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Dyson | English | 1943 | 2001 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Elias | New Zealander | 1949 | 1999 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Evans | English | 1934 | 1992 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gault | New Zealander | 1938 | 1992 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gibson | English | 1934 | 1993 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Glidewell | English | 1924 | 1985 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Goff | English | 1926 | 1982 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Hale | English | 1945 | 1999 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 37 | 13 | 4 | 9 |
| Henry | English | 1931 | 1993 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Higgins | Northern Irish | 1944 | 2007 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hobhouse | English | 1932 | 1993 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 73 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| Hoffmann | English | 1934 | 1992 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 102 | 9 | 5 | 4 |
| Hope | Scottish | 1938 | 1989 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 123 | 15 | 3 | 12 |
| Hughes | English | 1948 | 2006 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hutton | Northern Irish | 1931 | 1988 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 85 | 11 | 7 | 4 |
| Jauncey | Scottish | 1925 | 1988 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Judge | English | 1941 | 1996 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keith | New Zealander | 1937 | 1998 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kennedy | English | 1935 | 1992 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kerr | Northern Irish | 1948 | 2004 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Kirkwood | Scottish | 1946 | 2000 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Laws | English | 1945 | 1999 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Leggatt | English | 1930 | 1990 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 44 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Lloyd | English | 1929 | 1984 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Mackay | Scottish | 1927 | 1979 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mance | English | 1943 | 1999 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 25 | 11 | 3 | 8 |
| Millett | English | 1932 | 1994 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 78 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Mustill | English | 1931 | 1985 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Neuberger | English | 1948 | 2004 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Nicholls | English | 1933 | 1985 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 72 | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Nolan | English | 1928 | 1991 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nourse | English | 1932 | 1985 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Otton | English | 1933 | 1995 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 42 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Parker | English | 1937 | 2000 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Phillips | English | 1938 | 1995 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Richardson | New Zealander | 1930 | 1978 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Roch | English | 1934 | 1993 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rodger | Scottish | 1944 | 1992 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 98 | 17 | 6 | 11 |
| Rose | English | 1937 | 1992 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Russell | English | 1926 | 1987 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Saville | English | 1936 | 1994 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Scott | English | 1934 | 1991 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 78 | 12 | 7 | 5 |
| Slade | English | 1927 | 1982 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Slynn | English | 1930 | 1992 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 40 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Staughton | English | 1933 | 1988 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Steyn | English | 1932 | 1992 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 94 | 14 | 11 | 3 |
| Stuart Smith | English | 1927 | 1988 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Thomas | English | 1931 | 1994 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Tipping | New Zealander | 1942 | 1998 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Walker | English | 1938 | 1997 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 62 | 8 | 5 | 3 |
| Wilson | English | 1945 | 2005 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Woolf | English | 1933 | 1986 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Zacca | Jamaican | 1931 | 1992 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Results for separate votes – std. errors clustered by author judge (excl. 2010 and 2011).
| Reg 1 | Reg 2 | Reg 3 | Reg 4 | Reg 5 | Reg 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devolution | 5.83*** | 6.41*** | 6.66*** | 6.33*** | 6.74*** | 7.02*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Domestic | –2.40 | –0.96 | –1.03 | –2.73* | –1.57 | –1.67 |
| (0.11) | (0.64) | (0.62) | (0.08) | (0.44) | (0.42) | |
| Scottish judge | –0.66** | –0.56 | –0.56 | –0.86** | –0.72 | –0.71 |
| (0.03) | (0.23) | (0.23) | (0.03) | (0.18) | (0.18) | |
| Female judge | –0.48 | –0.19 | –0.21 | –0.69 | –0.30 | –0.31 |
| (0.33) | (0.67) | (0.63) | (0.18) | (0.53) | (0.49) | |
| Law Lord judge | 1.15** | 1.20* | 1.22* | 1.27** | 1.30* | 1.33* |
| (0.04) | (0.06) | (0.06) | (0.04) | (0.06) | (0.06) | |
| Seniority | –0.02 | –0.01 | –0.01 | –0.02 | –0.01 | –0.01 |
| (0.42) | (0.52) | (0.58) | (0.52) | (0.69) | (0.74) | |
| Scottish author | 0.26 | 0.32 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.21 |
| (0.46) | (0.36) | (0.58) | (0.30) | (0.34) | (0.55) | |
| Sen. LL Bingham | 3.21*** | 3.00*** | 3.08*** | 3.45*** | 3.14*** | 3.25*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Business law | –0.64 | –0.59 | –0.65 | –0.68 | –0.60 | –0.65 |
| (0.46) | (0.48) | (0.41) | (0.46) | (0.48) | (0.42) | |
| Criminal | 0.15 | –0.10 | –0.27 | 0.33 | –0.05 | –0.23 |
| (0.74) | (0.84) | (0.55) | (0.50) | (0.91) | (0.62) | |
| Rights-Commonw. | 0.80** | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.99** | 0.43 | 0.32 |
| (0.03) | (0.28) | (0.43) | (0.02) | (0.24) | (0.39) | |
| Land and property | –0.85 | –0.82 | –0.87 | –0.92 | –0.87 | –0.92 |
| (0.19) | (0.17) | (0.19) | (0.18) | (0.15) | (0.17) | |
| Panel size | 0.75*** | 0.78*** | 0.69*** | 0.72*** | ||
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |||
| Pro-appellant | –0.21 | –0.23 | –0.23 | –0.24 | ||
| (0.59) | (0.55) | (0.56) | (0.53) | |||
| Judge is in majority | –0.06 | –0.06 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| (0.87) | (0.87) | (0.97) | (0.97) | |||
| Same jurisd. judge/case | –0.28(0.48) | –0.27(0.49) | –0.41(0.33) | –0.40(0.35) | ||
| Same jurisd. judge/author judge | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.23 | ||
| (0.33) | (0.36) | (0.41) | (0.45) | |||
| Same jurisd. author judge/case | –0.66(0.52) | –0.87(0.43) | –0.52(0.60) | –0.72(0.49) | ||
| Appellant individual | 0.05 | 0.05 | ||||
| (0.88) | (0.89) | |||||
| Respondent individual | –0.54 | –0.59 | ||||
| (0.37) | (0.34) | |||||
| Constant | –3.74*** | –7.32*** | –7.33*** | –4.01*** | –7.23*** | –7.27*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Observations | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 |
Note: Robust p-values in parentheses. * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01. All regressions include year fixed effects. Regs. 1, 2 and 3 with weights for the probability of being sampled. Regs. 4, 5 and 6 with weights for the probability
Results for separate votes – std. errors clustered by judge (excl. 2010 and 2011).
| Reg 1 | Reg 2 | Reg 3 | Reg 4 | Reg 5 | Reg 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devolution | 5.83*** | 6.41*** | 6.66*** | 6.33*** | 6.74*** | 7.02*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Domestic | –2.40* | –0.96 | –1.03 | –2.73* | –1.57 | –1.67 |
| (0.06) | (0.54) | (0.52) | (0.08) | (0.44) | (0.42) | |
| Scottish judge | –0.66*** | –0.56*** | –0.56*** | –0.86** | –0.72 | –0.71 |
| (0.00) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.03) | (0.18) | (0.18) | |
| Female judge | –0.48* | –0.19 | –0.21 | –0.69 | –0.30 | –0.31 |
| (0.07) | (0.43) | (0.39) | (0.18) | (0.53) | (0.49) | |
| Law Lord judge | 1.15*** | 1.20*** | 1.22*** | 1.27** | 1.30* | 1.33* |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.04) | (0.06) | (0.06) | |
| Seniority | –0.02 | –0.01 | –0.01 | –0.02 | –0.01 | –0.01 |
| (0.46) | (0.59) | (0.61) | (0.52) | (0.69) | (0.74) | |
| Scottish author | 0.26 | 0.32 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.21 |
| (0.42) | (0.44) | (0.61) | (0.30) | (0.34) | (0.55) | |
| Sen. LL Bingham | 3.21*** | 3.00*** | 3.08*** | 3.45*** | 3.14*** | 3.25*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Business law | –0.64 | –0.59 | –0.65 | –0.68 | –0.60 | –0.65 |
| (0.20) | (0.20) | (0.12) | (0.46) | (0.48) | (0.42) | |
| Criminal | 0.15 | –0.10 | –0.27 | 0.33 | –0.05 | –0.23 |
| (0.75) | (0.87) | (0.63) | (0.50) | (0.91) | (0.62) | |
| Rights-Commonw. | 0.80**; | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.99** | 0.43 | 0.32 |
| (0.04) | (0.29) | (0.43) | (0.02) | (0.24) | (0.39) | |
| Land and property | –0.85* | –0.82* | –0.87* | –0.92 | –0.87 | –0.92 |
| (0.05) | (0.06) | (0.07) | (0.18) | (0.15) | (0.17) | |
| Panel size | 0.75*** | 0.78*** | 0.69*** | 0.72*** | ||
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |||
| Pro-appellant | –0.21 | –0.23 | –0.23 | –0.24 | ||
| (0.46) | (0.42) | (0.56) | (0.53) | |||
| Judge is in majority | –0.06 | –0.06 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| (0.86) | (0.86) | (0.97) | (0.97) | |||
| Same jurisd. judge/case | –0.28(0.64) | –0.27(0.64) | –0.41(0.33) | –0.40(0.35) | ||
| Same jurisd. author judge/case | –0.66(0.18) | –0.87(0.15) | –0.52(0.60) | –0.72(0.49) | ||
| Same jurisd. judge/author judge | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.23 | ||
| (0.36) | (0.39) | (0.41) | (0.45) | |||
| Appellant individual | 0.05 | 0.05 | ||||
| (0.85) | (0.89) | |||||
| Respondent individual | –0.54 | –0.59 | ||||
| (0.25) | (0.34) | |||||
| Constant | –3.74*** | –7.32*** | –7.33*** | –4.01*** | –7.23*** | –7.27*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Observations | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 |
Note: Robust p-values by judge in parentheses. * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01. All regressions include year fixed effects. Regs. 1, 2 and 3 with weights for the probability of being sampled. Regs. 4, 5 and 6 with weights for the probability of being sampled and panel size.
Results for separate votes – std. errors clustered by decision (excl. 2010 and 2011).
| Reg 1 | Reg 2 | Reg 3 | Reg 4 | Reg 5 | Reg 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devolution | 5.83*** | 6.41*** | 6.66*** | 6.33*** | 6.74*** | 7.02*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Domestic | –2.40* | –0.96 | –1.03 | –2.73* | –1.57 | –1.67 |
| (0.08) | (0.65) | (0.63) | (0.05) | (0.46) | (0.45) | |
| Scottish judge | –0.66** | –0.56 | –0.56 | –0.86*** | –0.72* | –0.71* |
| (0.02) | (0.13) | (0.13) | (0.01) | (0.08) | (0.08) | |
| Female judge | –0.48 | –0.19 | –0.21 | –0.69 | –0.30 | –0.31 |
| (0.33) | (0.71) | (0.67) | (0.17) | (0.56) | (0.53) | |
| Law Lord judge | 1.15** | 1.20** | 1.22** | 1.27*** | 1.30** | 1.33** |
| (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.02) | |
| Seniority | –0.02 | –0.01 | –0.01 | –0.02 | –0.01 | –0.01 |
| (0.47) | (0.59) | (0.61) | (0.53) | (0.72) | (0.75) | |
| Scottish author | 0.26 | 0.32 | 0.21 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.21 |
| (0.58) | (0.53) | (0.71) | (0.39) | (0.49) | (0.67) | |
| Sen. LL Bingham | 3.21*** | 3.00*** | 3.08*** | 3.45*** | 3.14*** | 3.25*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Business law | –0.64 | –0.59 | –0.65 | –0.68 | –0.60 | –0.65 |
| (0.40) | (0.43) | (0.36) | (0.38) | (0.42) | (0.36) | |
| Criminal | 0.15 | –0.10 | –0.27 | 0.33 | –0.05 | –0.23 |
| (0.76) | (0.86) | (0.64) | (0.53) | (0.93) | (0.69) | |
| Rights-Commonw. | 0.80* | 0.39 | 0.29 | 0.99** | 0.43 | 0.32 |
| (0.07) | (0.40) | (0.54) | (0.03) | (0.35) | (0.50) | |
| Land and property | –0.85 | –0.82 | –0.87 | –0.92 | –0.87 | –0.92 |
| (0.20) | (0.20) | (0.22) | (0.18) | (0.18) | (0.21) | |
| Panel size | 0.75*** | 0.78*** | 0.69*** | 0.72*** | ||
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |||
| Pro-appellant | –0.21 | –0.23 | –0.23 | –0.24 | ||
| (0.56) | (0.53) | (0.53) | (0.50) | |||
| Judge is in majority | –0.06 | –0.06 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||
| (0.88) | (0.88) | (0.97) | (0.97) | |||
| Same jurisd. judge/case | –0.28(0.65) | –0.27(0.66) | –0.41(0.53) | –0.40(0.54) | ||
| Same jurisd. author judge/case | –0.66(0.56) | –0.87(0.47) | –0.52(0.64) | –0.72(0.54) | ||
| Same jurisd. judge/author judge | 0.26 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.23 | ||
| (0.37) | (0.40) | (0.43) | (0.46) | |||
| Appellant individual | 0.05 | 0.05 | ||||
| (0.90) | (0.91) | |||||
| Respondent individual | –0.54 | –0.59 | ||||
| (0.31) | (0.28) | |||||
| Constant | –3.74*** | –7.32*** | –7.33*** | –4.01*** | –7.23*** | –7.27*** |
| (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Observations | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 | 1,130 |
Note: Robust p-values by decision in parentheses. * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01. All regressions include year fixed effects. Regs. 1, 2 and 3 with weights for the probability of being sampled. Regs. 4, 5 and 6 with weights for the probability of being sampled and panel size.
Results for proportion of separate votes (excl. 2010 and 2011).
| Reg 1 | Reg 2 | Reg 3 | Reg 4 | Reg 5 | Reg 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Devolution | 4.23*** | 3.76*** | 3.77*** | 4.23*** | 3.76*** | 3.77** |
| (0.00) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.00) | (0.01) | (0.01) | |
| Domestic | -2.38* | -3.08 | -3.10 | -2.38* | -3.08 | -3.10 |
| (0.05) | (0.24) | (0.24) | (0.06) | (0.29) | (0.29) | |
| Total Scottish | -0.23 | -0.27 | -0.27 | -0.23 | -0.27 | -0.27 |
| (0.32) | (0.30) | (0.31) | (0.16) | (0.25) | (0.28) | |
| Total female | -0.13 | -0.22 | -0.23 | -0.13 | -0.22 | -0.23 |
| (0.74) | (0.56) | (0.56) | (0.77) | (0.60) | (0.61) | |
| Total Law Lords | 0.54*** | 0.47** | 0.47** | 0.54*** | 0.47* | 0.47* |
| (0.00) | (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.00) | (0.05) | (0.05) | |
| Avg Sen. Years(Panel) | -0.16 | -0.18 | -0.18 | -0.16 | -0.18* | -0.18* |
| (0.23) | (0.17) | (0.17) | (0.13) | (0.06) | (0.07) | |
| Scottish author | 0.04 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.04 | 0.75 | 0.73 |
| (0.94) | (0.22) | (0.24) | (0.91) | (0.14) | (0.17) | |
| Sen. LL Bingham | 2.21*** | 2.28** | 2.28** | 2.21*** | 2.28*** | 2.28*** |
| (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
| Business law | -0.42 | -0.44 | -0.43 | -0.42 | -0.44 | -0.43 |
| (0.48) | (0.47) | (0.48) | (0.53) | (0.52) | (0.52) | |
| Criminal | -0.18 | -0.17 | -0.20 | -0.18 | -0.17 | -0.20 |
| (0.67) | (0.71) | (0.66) | (0.63) | (0.67) | (0.61) | |
| Rights-Commonw. | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.36 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.36 |
| (0.34) | (0.28) | (0.34) | (0.21) | (0.16) | (0.24) | |
| Land and property | -0.65 | -0.71 | -0.70 | -0.65 | -0.71 | -0.70 |
| (0.31) | (0.24) | (0.27) | (0.22) | (0.15) | (0.17) | |
| Pro-appellant | -0.14 | -0.14 | -0.14 | -0.14 | ||
| (0.61) | (0.62) | (0.65) | (0.64) | |||
| Total judges in majority | -0.18 | -0.18 | -0.18 | -0.18 | ||
| (0.19) | (0.19) | (0.17) | (0.17) | |||
| Total same jurisd. judge/case | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.46 | ||
| (0.27) | (0.27) | (0.39) | (0.38) | |||
| Total same jurisd. judge/author judge | 0.29* (0.06) | 0.29* (0.06) | 0.29* (0.05) | 0.29* (0.05) | ||
| Same jurisd. author judge/case | -0.94 (0.45) | -0.98 (0.43) | -0.94 (0.42) | -0.98 (0.40) | ||
| Appellant individual | 0.06 | 0.06 | ||||
| (0.87) | (0.83) | |||||
| Respondent individual | -0.06 | -0.06 | ||||
| (0.88) | (0.89) | |||||
| Constant | -2.44* | -2.18* | -2.23* | -2.44 | -2.18* | -2.23** |
| (0.06) | (0.08) | (0.08) | (0.10) | (0.07) | (0.05) | |
| Observations | 331 | 331 | 331 | 331 | 331 | 331 |
Note: Regs. 1-3 with robust standard errors; Regs. 4-6 with clustered standard errors by author judge. * p<0.1 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01.
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
