A tale of two citadels: competing narratives in a case biography
A tale of two citadels: competing narratives in a case biography
This paper considers how clashes of social values in litigation over NHS funding decisions manifest themselves in the ‘biography’ of a case. It argues that the issues in AC v Berkshire West PCT [2010] EWHC 1162 (Admin) and (on appeal) [2011] EWCA Civ 247 can be seen in terms of two competing narratives; one about discrimination and transgender individuals, the other concerning bureaucratic rationality and prioritisation processes. Each narrative can be conceptualised as a siege on a well defended citadel. The first seeks to break down the barriers excluding transgendered people from full recognition in English law and society. The second tries to wrestle resource allocation from professional and managerial discretion into rights-based scrutiny.
These competing narratives appear in the selection of legal teams, the overlapping but distinct networks in which cases are connected, and interpretive judgments by lawyers in and out of court. Choice between narratives provides significant framing effects for the assessment of social values, a feature that may be normal rather than unusual in contested legal cases
Jones, Caroline
e39a554e-f70d-4f90-b0dc-efa252e7d41e
Montgomery, Jonathan
c4189a2c-86b8-466a-a7c8-985757206c04
9 April 2014
Jones, Caroline
e39a554e-f70d-4f90-b0dc-efa252e7d41e
Montgomery, Jonathan
c4189a2c-86b8-466a-a7c8-985757206c04
Jones, Caroline and Montgomery, Jonathan
(2014)
A tale of two citadels: competing narratives in a case biography.
Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
08 - 10 Apr 2014.
Record type:
Conference or Workshop Item
(Paper)
Abstract
This paper considers how clashes of social values in litigation over NHS funding decisions manifest themselves in the ‘biography’ of a case. It argues that the issues in AC v Berkshire West PCT [2010] EWHC 1162 (Admin) and (on appeal) [2011] EWCA Civ 247 can be seen in terms of two competing narratives; one about discrimination and transgender individuals, the other concerning bureaucratic rationality and prioritisation processes. Each narrative can be conceptualised as a siege on a well defended citadel. The first seeks to break down the barriers excluding transgendered people from full recognition in English law and society. The second tries to wrestle resource allocation from professional and managerial discretion into rights-based scrutiny.
These competing narratives appear in the selection of legal teams, the overlapping but distinct networks in which cases are connected, and interpretive judgments by lawyers in and out of court. Choice between narratives provides significant framing effects for the assessment of social values, a feature that may be normal rather than unusual in contested legal cases
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 9 April 2014
Venue - Dates:
Socio-Legal Studies Association Annual Conference, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 2014-04-08 - 2014-04-10
Organisations:
Southampton Law School
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 374561
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/374561
PURE UUID: 7aef72e9-6147-4918-8282-6f9b66b586f2
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 20 Feb 2015 16:03
Last modified: 11 Dec 2021 06:03
Export record
Contributors
Author:
Caroline Jones
Author:
Jonathan Montgomery
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics