Southampton academic discusses case narratives at UCL

Caroline is a Senior Lecturer in Law, and Director of Southampton Law School’s Health, Ethics and Law research centre (HEAL). This research was supported by the British Academy and Leverhulme Trust small grant scheme, and Alex Chrysanthou (Southampton) provided the research assistance.

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.

The judgments can be found at:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/1162.rtf (High Court)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/247.html (Court of Appeal)
The latest protocol on access to gender identity services from NHS England can be found at: http://www.england.nhs.uk/2013/10/28/gender-protocol/