Portrait of Professor Rosemary Hunter FAcSS

Professor Rosemary Hunter FAcSS

Professor of Law
Co-Director of Postgraduate Research


BA (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Melb), JSM, JSD (Stanford). 

Rosemary began her academic career in Australia, where she taught first at the University of Melbourne and then at Griffith University in Brisbane. At Griffith she served as Director of the Socio-Legal Research Centre and Dean of the Law Faculty. She moved to the UK in 2006, and spent eight years at the University of Kent and four years at Queen Mary University of London before returning to Kent Law School in 2018. 

Together with Professor Clare McGlynn and Dr Erika Rackley at Durham University, she was one of the co-organisers of the Feminist Judgments Project, in which a group of academics and practitioners wrote alternative judgments in a series of key cases in English law, imagining how a feminist judge sitting on the court might have decided the case. The project resulted in the publication of Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (Hart Publishing, 2010). Professor Hunter has subsequently co-organised feminist judgment projects in Australia (Douglas et al (eds), Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law, Hart Publishing, 2014) and New Zealand (McDonald et al (eds), Feminist Judgments of Aotearoa New Zealand: Te Rino – A Two-Stranded Rope, Hart Publishing, 2017), and has supported and advised similar projects in the USA, Northern/Ireland, India, Scotland, and in International Law, as well as a related project focusing on children’s rights. 

She was a founding editor in 2011 of feminists@law, an online open access journal of feminist legal scholarship, and continues to edit the journal with a group of KLS colleagues. 

She is also a general editor of two book series: the Onati International Series in Law and Society (with David Nelken), published by Hart/Bloomsbury, and the Edward Elgar Research Handbooks in Law in Society (with Austin Sarat).

Research interests

Professor Hunter’s current research on feminist judging includes projects with Professor Erika Rackley (KLS) on Lady Hale’s contributions to the Supreme Court and to law more generally; with Professor Emerita Kathy Mack and Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu (Flinders University) on feminist judging in lower courts; and with Dr Danielle Tyson (Deakin) on sentencing in domestic homicide cases. 

In family law, she recently completed a major, ESRC-funded project, Mapping Paths to Family Justice, with colleagues at the University of Exeter. The research investigated the operation and experiences of different forms of out-of-court family dispute resolution (solicitor negotiations, mediation and collaborative law), and resulted in a book, Mapping Paths to Family Justice: Resolving Family Disputes in Neoliberal Times (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) which won the 2018 SLSA Hart Socio-Legal Book Prize. She is currently engaged in several projects focusing on family courts’ handling of domestic abuse allegations, including a co-edited special issue of the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol 40(4) (2018). 

Her current research on access to justice includes work with Professor Liz Trinder (Exeter) on judgecraft in relation to litigants in person; and a co-authored contribution on Lawyers and Access to Justice in a forthcoming edited collection on Lawyers in 21st Century Society.


Rosemary's undergraduate teaching responsibilities span Family and the Critical Introduction to Law.


Professor Hunter welcomes PhD candidates in feminist legal studies and socio-legal studies generally, as well as in her specific areas of research interest. However she does not offer supervision on topics focusing on (women’s) human rights.


Professor Hunter is the academic member of the Family Justice Council – a non-departmental public body with an interdisciplinary membership whose task is to monitor the family justice system to ensure it is working effectively and to advise on reforms needed for continuous improvement. She also presents regular sessions on family law issues at the Judicial College, and is a member of the Governing Board of the Onati International Institute for the Sociology of Law. 

Previously, she was a member of the Council of JUSTICE, and a member of the Executive Committee and for six years Chair of the Socio-Legal Studies Association. 

In 2012 she was made a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in recognition of her scholarly eminence and contributions to wider social science. 


Showing 50 of 89 total publications in the Kent Academic Repository. View all publications.


  • Hunter, R. and Rackley, E. (2020). Feminist Judgments on the UK Supreme Court. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law [Online] 32:85-113. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3138 / cjwl.32.1.04.
    Prompted by two of the premises of feminist judgment-writing projects – that feminist judgments are relatively rare in the ‘real world’, and that they make a valuable contribution to jurisprudence and to the quality of justice – this article explores feminist judgment writing on the UK Supreme Court. Drawing on a database of over 570 cases, the article investigates who writes feminist judgments on the UK Supreme Court, what kind of feminist judgments they write, and what the feminist judgments add to the Court’s jurisprudence and the quality of justice it dispenses. It finds that among judges employing feminist reasoning, Lady Hale was by far the most active, but she was not alone, with Lords Kerr and Wilson also writing several feminist judgments. A range of different type of feminist reasoning was deployed and feminist judgments generally did constitute better judging, although their impact tended to be more discursive than substantive. The article concludes by considering the implications of these findings for both feminist debates and for the UK Supreme Court and the litigants appearing before it.
  • Hunter, R. (2018). Feminist Judging in the Real World. Onati Socio-Legal Series [Online] 8:1275-1306. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-0995.
    The various feminist judgment projects (FJPs) have explored through the imagined rewriting of judgments a range of ways in which a feminist perspective may be applied to the practice of judging. But how do these imagined judgments compare to what actual feminist judges do? This article presents the results of the author’s empirical research to date on ‘real world’ feminist judging. Drawing on case study and interview data it explores the how, when and where of feminist judging, that is, the feminist resources, tools and techniques judges have drawn upon, the stages in the hearing and decision-making process at which these resources, tools and techniques have been deployed, and the areas of law in which they have been applied. The article goes on to consider observed and potential limits on feminist judicial practice, before drawing conclusions about the comparison between ‘real world’ feminist judging and the practices of FJPs.

    Los proyectos de sentencias feministas, a través de la reelaboración imaginaria de sentencias judiciales, han explorado multitud de vías en las que las perspectivas feministas se podrían aplicar a la práctica judicial. Pero ¿qué resulta de la comparación entre dichas sentencias y la práctica real de las juezas feministas? Este artículo presenta los resultados de la investigación empírica de la autora. Se analiza el cómo, el cuándo y el dónde de la labor judicial feminista, es decir, los recursos, herramientas y técnicas feministas que las juezas han utilizado, las fases de audiencia y toma de decisión en las que se han utilizado y las áreas del derecho en que se han aplicado. Además, se toman en consideración los límites observados y potenciales de la práctica judicial feminista, y se extraen conclusiones sobre la comparación entre la labor judicial feminista en el “mundo real” y la práctica de los proyectos de tribunales feministas.
  • Hunter, R. and Rackley, E. (2018). Judicial leadership on the UK Supreme Court. Legal Studies [Online] 38:191-220. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/lst.2017.19.
    This paper examines judicial leadership on the UK Supreme Court. It does not confine itself to the formal roles of the President and Deputy President. Rather, building on existing categories of judicial leadership, including administrative, jurisprudential and community leadership, it considers the contributions of all 12 Justices. In so doing, it provides a significant compilation of quantitative data on the activities of the Justices of the Supreme Court both on and off the bench from the the Court's inception in 2009 to the end of the 2014-2015 legal year. From this, we suggest that while a number of the Justices engaged in one or two broad forms of leadership-with Lady Hale in particular demonstrating a substantial degree of leadership across all three dimensions- A t the other end of the spectrum, at least on the measures used in this paper, a significant minority did not. In the light of this, and the significant number of recent and forthcoming retirements from the Court, the paper concludes by considering the implications of our findings for the future of the Court. We argue that these retirements will result in gaps in both formal and informal judicial leadership, and it is vital that these gaps are filled by appointees who are capable of, and prepared to step up to, diverse and varied forms of judicial leadership.
  • Hunter, R. and Tyson, D. (2017). Justice Betty King: A study of feminist judging in action. UNSW Law Journal [Online] 40. Available at: http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/article/justice-betty-king-a-study-of-feminist-judging-in-action/.
  • Hunter, R. and Tyson, D. (2017). The Implementation of Feminist Law Reforms: The Case of Post-provocation Sentencing. Social & Legal Studies [Online] 26:129-165. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0964663916666628.
    In 2005, the Australian State of Victoria abolished the controversial partial defence of provocation. Part of the impetus for the reforms was to challenge provocation’s victim-blaming narratives and the defence’s tendency to excuse men’s violence against intimate partners. However, concerns were also expressed that these narratives and excuses would simply reappear at the sentencing stage when men who had killed intimate partners were convicted of murder or manslaughter. This article analyses post-provocation sentencing judgments, reviewing cases over the 10-year period since the reforms in order to determine whether these concerns have been borne out. The analysis suggests that at the level of sentencing outcomes they have not been borne out, although at the level of discourse the picture is more mixed. While sentencing narratives continue to reproduce the language of provocation, at the same time, post-provocation sentencing appears to provide opportunities for feminist judging – picking up on the spirit of the reforms – which have been taken up by some judges more than others.
  • Alessandrini, D. and Hunter, R. (2017). Editorial: Why We Still Oppose Gold and Also Oppose Hybrid Open Access. feminists at law [Online]. Available at: http://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/view/350/964.
  • Hunter, R., Roach Anleu, S. and Mack, K. (2016). Judging in Lower Courts: Conventional, procedural, therapeutic and feminist approaches. International Journal of Law in Context [Online] 12:337-360. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552316000240.
    Recent theorising about feminist judging has concentrated on appellate courts and their judgments. This paper develops a conceptualisation of feminist judging in lower, first instance courts, which are dominated by high case volume and limited time for each matter, with decisions given orally and ex tempore rather than in elaborated written judgments. Through careful accounts of the philosophy, goals and practices of conventional as well as newer, more engaged approaches to judging, the paper compares and contrasts feminist judging with other approaches to judging in the lower courts. This entails considering dimensions such as the judicial officer's orientation to substantive law and practice in court, concepts of fairness, ethical commitments, the view of the defendant, and judicial qualities and capacities.
  • Hunter, R. (2015). More than Just a Different Face? Judicial Diversity and Decision-making. Current Legal Problems [Online] 68:119-141. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuv001.
    This article addresses a key question in debates around judicial diversity: what evidence is there that a more diverse judiciary will make a difference to substantive decision-making? The article begins by outlining the range of arguments for a more diverse judiciary which include, but are not confined to, making a difference to substantive decision-making. It then turns to consider the considerable evidence which now exists both to refute and to support the existence of substantive differences in decision-making following the appointment to the judiciary of women and others from non-traditional backgrounds. On the basis of this evidence, it draws conclusions as to the kinds of differences in decision-making which might be expected, and the circumstances under which different approaches to decision-making are likely to flourish.
  • Hunter, R. and Barnett, A. (2013). Fact-Finding Hearings and the Implementation of Practice Direction 12J. Family Law 43:431-437.
  • Hunter, R. (2012). Introduction: Feminist Judgments as Teaching Resources. Law Teacher [Online] 46:214-226. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069400.2012.732364.
    While academic scholarship generally offers various forms of commentary on decided cases, feminist judgment-writing projects have recently embarked on a new form of critical scholarship. Rather than critiquing judgments from a feminist perspective in academic essays, the participants in these projects have set out instead to write alternative judgments, as if they had been one of the judges sitting in court at the time. After introducing the UK Feminist Judgments Project and describing what is “different” about the judgments it has produced, the paper explains some of the ways in which these judgments have been used as teaching resources in UK law schools. The paper goes on to introduce the following four articles in this issue of the Law Teacher, which illustrate in greater detail particular pedagogical uses of the Feminist Judgments Project.
  • Hunter, R. (2012). The Power of Feminist Judgments?. Feminist Legal Studies [Online] 20:135-148. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10691-012-9202-0.
    Recent years have seen the advent of two feminist judgment-writing projects, the Women’s Court of Canada, and the Feminist Judgments Project in England. This article analyses these projects in light of Carol Smart’s feminist critique of law and legal reform and her proposed feminist strategies in Feminism and the Power of Law (1989). At the same time, it reflects on Smart’s arguments 20 years after their first publication and considers the extent to which feminist judgment-writing projects may reinforce or trouble her conclusions. It argues that both of these results are discernible—that while some of Smart’s contentions have proved to be unsustainable, others remain salient and have both inspired and hold important cautions for feminist judgment-writing projects.
  • Hunter, R. (2012). Feminist Judgments as Teaching Resources. Onati Socio-Legal Series [Online] 2:47-62. Available at: http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/156.
    This paper discusses feminist judgments as a specific vehicle for teaching students to think critically about law. The analysis of appellate judgments forms a central plank of Anglo-Commonwealth and US jurisprudence and legal education. While academic scholarship generally offers various forms of commentary on decided cases, feminist judgment-writing projects have recently embarked on a new form of critical scholarship. Rather than critiquing judgments from a feminist perspective in academic essays, the participants in these projects have set out instead to write alternative judgments, as if they had been one of the judges sitting on the court at the time. After introducing the UK Feminist Judgments Project and describing what is ‘different’ about the judgments it has produced, the paper explains some of the ways in which these judgments have been used in UK law schools to teach critical thinking. The paper finally speculates on the potential production and application of feminist judgments or their equivalents beyond the common law context.
  • Hunter, R., Alessandrini, D. and Williams, T. (2012). Why We Oppose Gold Open Access. feminists@law [Online]. Available at: http://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/issue/view/6.
  • Hunter, R. (2011). Doing Violence to Family Law. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law [Online] 33:343-359. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2011.632888.
    This article discusses the nature and implications of the proposed Legal Aid cuts in
    family law cases raising issues of domestic abuse. It outlines the proposed inclusions
    within and removals from the scope of Legal Aid for private family law proceedings set out in the Green Paper, Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and Wales, charts the progress of the proposals from the Green Paper to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill 2011, and considers their likely impacts on women and children affected by domestic abuse. It also considers the potential interaction between the Legal Aid reforms and the Family Justice Review, and suggests desirable amendments to both.
  • Hunter, R. and De Simone, T. (2009). Women, Legal Aid and Social Inclusion. Australian Journal of Social Issues 44:379-398.
    This article examines access to legal aid for women in light of the Australian government’s social inclusion agenda. It is notable that the government’s image of social citizenship does not include the ability to invoke and enforce legal rights, and that discourses of social exclusion have paid relatively little attention to gendered patterns of exclusion. The article reports on a study of applications for and refusals of legal aid for family law, domestic violence and anti?discrimination matters by socially excluded women in Queensland. It demonstrates the variety of ways in which Legal Aid Queensland’s grants process operated to further exclude and marginalise these women. It argues that effective access to legal aid is an important element of social inclusion, but that this goal cannot be achieved by reliance on the tools of New Public Management.
  • De Simone, T. and Hunter, R. (2009). Causes of Inaction: Barriers to Accessing Legal Aid Serivces. Alternative Law Journal 34:265-269.
    This article explores the ways that social welfare organisations can unconsciously exclude their clients. It draws from research undertaken by the authors on the barriers to accessing legal aid services by women and looks particularly at the application process, the client’s dealings with the agency, the refusal process and the consequences of not having legal aid.
  • Gaze, B. and Hunter, R. (2009). Access to Justice for Discrimination Complainants: Courts and Legal Representation. UNSW Law Journal 32:699-724.
  • Grabham, E. and Hunter, R. (2008). Encountering Human Rights: Gender/Sexuality, Activism and the Promise of Law. Feminist Legal Studies [Online] 16 Spe:1-7. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10691-007-9070-1.
  • Hunter, R. (2008). Would You Like Theory With That? Bridging the Divide Between Policy-Oriented Empirical Legal Research, Critical Theory and Politics Hunter, R. and Cowan, S. eds. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 41:121-148.
    In response to the divides identified by some UK writers between critical legal scholarship, left political agendas, and empirical, policy-driven, socio-legal research, and indications of similar divides in the US, this essay seeks to demonstrate the possibilities for work that negotiates between progressive political commitments, social and political theory, policy concerns, and social scientific approaches to the interface between law and society. It does so by reference to three case studies of critical, feminist socio-legal scholarship, which address policy issues in the areas of family law, the legal profession, and access to justice.
  • Hunter, R. (2008). Can Feminist Judges Make a Difference?. International Journal of the Legal Profession [Online] 15:7-36. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09695950802439759.
    Many of the expectations and aspirations about the ‘difference’ that women judges would make have proved unrealistic, given the inevitable diversity and often conservatism of women appointed as judges. On the other hand, we might reasonably expect feminist judges to ‘make a difference’. This essay focuses on feminist judges, and seeks to identify what it is that we might reasonably expect of them. This in turn requires consideration of who counts as a feminist judge, what might be included in a feminist approach to judging, and what institutional norms inherent within the judicial role might constrain the adoption of a feminist approach. The essay concludes that feminist judges both can and ought to make a difference across a wide range of judicial activities.
  • Hunter, R. (2008). A Conversation with Baroness Hale. Feminist Legal Studies 16.


  • Barlow, A., Hunter, R., Smithson, J. and Ewing, J. (2017). Mapping Paths to Family Justice: Resolving Family Disputes in Neoliberal Times. [Online]. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55405-5.
    The family justice system in England and Wales has undergone radical change over the past 20 years. A significant part of this shifting landscape has been an increasing emphasis on settling private family disputes out of court, which has been embraced by policy-makers, judges and practitioners alike and is promoted as an unqualified good.
    Mapping Paths to Family Justice: Resolving Family Disputes in Neoliberal Times examines the experiences of people taking part in out-of-court family dispute resolution in England and Wales. It addresses questions such as how participants’ experiences match up to the ideal; how recent changes to the legal system have affected people’s ability to access out-of-court dispute resolution; and what kind of outcomes are achieved in family dispute resolution.

    This book is the first study systematically to compare different forms of family dispute resolution. It explores people’s experiences of solicitor negotiations, mediation and collaborative law empirically by analyzing findings from a nationally representative survey, individual in-depth interviews with parties and practitioners, and recorded family dispute resolution processes. It considers these in the context of ongoing neoliberal reforms to the family justice system, drawing out conclusions and implications for policy and practice.
  • Gaze, B. and Hunter, R. (2010). Enforcing Human Rights in Australia: An Evaluation of the New Regime. Sydney: Themis Press.
    Published in association with the Law and Justice Foundation of NSW this major study breaks new ground in exploring the effectiveness and accessibility of procedures for protecting the rights of individuals to equality and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and disability.

    The enforcement of Australian federal anti-discrimination laws has encountered constitutional limitations. Because federal tribunals are unable to make binding decisions, in 2000 enforcement of federal discrimination matters was moved from a tribunal (the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission) to the federal courts. The study examines how the move from a specialist tribunal to the federal courts affected enforcement of federal anti-discrimination law. Drawing on statistical data, analysis of reported cases and interviews with parties and their advisors under both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ systems, it investigates the impact of the change in terms of:
    • specialist versus generalist decision-making
    • relatively informal versus formal procedures
    • a regime in which each party bears their own costs versus one in which the loser pays the winner’s costs
    The study traces the impact of these changes on the decisions made by complainants about whether (and where) to bring a complaint, whether to settle their cases or proceed to litigation, and on decisions made by respondents about whether to defend or settle a case. The enforcement process in federal discrimination matters was found to erect significant barriers to individuals seeking to pursue their claims in this area.
  • Hunter, R. (2008). Domestic Violence Law Reform and Women’s Experience in Court:The Implementation of Feminist Reforms in Civil Proceedings. New York: Cambria Press.
    This study investigates the ways in which women’s experiences of domestic violence are heard and understood in civil court settings, and examines women’s experiences of telling their stories (or at least attempting to do so) in those settings. The two areas on which the study focuses are intervention order proceedings in State Magistrates’ Courts, and residence, contact, and property matters in the federal Family Court in Australia. The relevant legislation in the two jurisdictions is either partly or wholly a product of feminist legal activism. The study, therefore, seeks to determine whether the feminist claim that the criminal law silences women also pertains in the context of new civil claims specifically designed to respond to women’s experiences.

Book section

  • Hunter, R. and Barlow, A. (2020). Reconstruction of family mediation in a post-justice world. In: Roberts, M. and Moscati, M. eds. Family Mediation: Contemporary Issues. Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional, pp. 11-32.
    Following the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), family mediation became the policy makers’ dispute resolution process of choice in England and Wales and the only one for which legal aid is available, save where domestic violence can be evidenced in a prescribed way. Drawing on evidence from an ESRC-funded socio-legal project Mapping Paths to Family Justice (Barlow, Hunter, Smithson and Ewing, 2017) and its follow-up Impact Accelerator study Creating Paths to Family Justice (Barlow, Ewing, Hunter and Smithson, 2017), this chapter first explores the extent to which this mainstreaming of mediation may have distorted its very essence as a voluntary process, freely entered into by parties wanting to resolve their disputes out of court, where it is now expected to cater to a much wider range of cases and parties in pursuit of a policy agenda to keep disputes out of court. Second it considers the operation of mediation outside the family justice framework, where online information has replaced legal advice for many and outcomes reflect settlement imperatives rather than family law principles. Finally, in light of these developments, it examines what the future might hold. Could mediation morph into Online Dispute Resolution? Or might the Australian model of lawyer-assisted mediation provide a means to reintroduce considerations of justice into the process?
  • Hunter, R. (2019). Feminist approaches to socio-legal studies. In: Creutzfeldt, N., Mason, M. and McConnachie, K. eds. Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Theory and Methods. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 260-272.
    Feminist approaches to socio-legal studies combine feminist theory with concern about the operation and effects of law. Both of these elements may be quite varied, and both have evolved over time to embrace new theoretical and socio-legal developments. Within the diverse and changing body of feminist socio-legal work, this chapter focuses on a particular example of an emerging feminist socio-legal approach, the practice of rewriting judgments from a feminist perspective. Over the past decade, feminist judgment projects have been conducted in a number of common law jurisdictions, including Canada, the USA, Ireland, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. These projects have inaugurated a new form of socio-legal scholarship, which seeks to demonstrate in a sustained and disciplined way how judgments could have been written and cases could have been decided differently. As such, they use an innovative methodology to interrogate and contest the practice of judicial decision-making and to bring knowledge of gendered social experience to the process of judging.
  • Hunter, R. (2015). Judicial Diversity and the ‘New Judge’. In: Sommerlad, H., Harris-Short, S., Vaughan, S. and Young, R. eds. The Futures of Legal Education and the Legal Profession. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 79-96. Available at: https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/the-futures-of-legal-education-and-the-legal-profession-9781782255864/.
  • Hunter, R. (2013). Contesting the Dominant Paradigm: Feminist Critiques of Liberal Legalism. In: Davies, M. and Munro, V. eds. The Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 13-30.
    The concept of ‘liberal legalism’ refers to a set of assumptions found within law in societies and regimes (such as the international legal order) in which liberalism is the dominant political philosophy. These assumptions broadly concern: (a) the nature of the legal person; and (b) the role of law. This chapter will provide an account of both of these aspects of liberal legalism, and the feminist critiques to which they have been subject. Feminist critiques have been mounted from a variety of positions, ranging from liberal feminists challenging law to live up to its promises, to radical and postmodern feminists who, for different reasons, trenchantly reject the validity of the assumptions of liberal legalism. The chapter focuses on feminist critiques of liberal legalism rather than on internal debates within feminism, although these debates are evident in the different diagnoses of and responses to the perceived problems of liberal legalism.
  • Hunter, R. (2013). Justice Marcia Neave: Case Study of a Feminist Judge. In: Schultz, U. and Shaw, G. eds. Gender and Judging. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 399-418.
  • Hunter, R. (2013). The Gendered “Socio” of Socio-Legal Studies. In: Feenan, D. ed. Exploring the ‘Socio’ of Socio-Legal Studies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 205-227.
  • Hunter, R. (2011). Constructing Vulnerabilities and Managing Risk: State Responses to Forced Marriage. In: FitzGerald, S. ed. Regulating the International Movement of Women: From Protection to Control. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish, pp. 11-28. Available at: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415579490/.
  • Hunter, R. (2011). (De-)Sexing the Woman Lawyer. In: Jones, J., Grear, A., Fenton, R. A. and Stevenson, K. eds. Gender, Sexualities and Law. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 26-38.
  • Conaghan, J. (2010). Commentary on James v. Eastleigh BC. In: Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. eds. Feminist Judgements from Theory to Practice. Hart, pp. 414-419.
  • Carr, H. and Hunter, C. (2010). YL v. Birmingham City Council and others. In: Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. eds. Feminist Judgements from Theory to Practice. Hart, pp. 318-328.
  • Barker, N. and Fox, M. (2010). Sheffield City Council v E and another. In: Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. eds. Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice. Hart Publishing.
  • Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. (2010). Feminist Judgments: An Introduction. In: Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. eds. Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 3-29. Available at: https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/feminist-judgments-9781847317278/.
  • Sheldon, S. (2010). Commentary on Evans v Amicus Health Care (Sonia Harris Short). In: Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. eds. Feminist Judgments: From Theory into Practice. Hart.
  • Hunter, R. (2010). An Account of Feminist Judging. In: Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. eds. Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 30-43.
  • Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. (2010). Feminist Judgments: An Introduction. In: Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. eds. Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 3-29.
  • Mackenzie, R. (2010). Judgement of R v Brown [1993] AC 1; with Commentary by Matthew Weait. In: Hunter, R. and Rackley, E. eds. Feminist Judgements. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 247-254.
  • Hunter, R., Banks, C. and Giddings, J. (2009). Australian Innovations in Legal Aid Services: Lessons from an Evaluation Study. In: Buck, A., Pleasence, P. and Balmer, N. J. eds. Reaching Further: Innovation, Access and Quality in Legal Services. London: TSO, pp. 7-25.
  • Hunter, R. (2008). Alternatives to Equality. In: Hunter, R. ed. Rethinking Equality Projects in Law: Feminist Challenges. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 81-101.
  • Hunter, R. and De Simone, T. (2008). Identifying Disadvantage - Beyond Intersectionality. In: Grabham, E., Herman, D., Cooper, D. and Krishnadas, J. eds. Intersectionality and Beyond: Law, Power and the Politics of Location. Routledge Cavendish, pp. 159-182.
  • Drakopoulou, M. (2007). Feminism and consent: a genealogical inquiry. In: Hunter, R. and Cowan, S. eds. Choice and Consent: Feminist Engagements With Law and Subjectivity. London: Routledge Cavendish, pp. 9-38.
  • Hunter, R. (2007). Consent in Violent Relationships. In: Hunter, R. and Cowan, S. eds. Choice and Consent: Feminist Engagements With Law and Subjectivity. London: Routledge Cavendish, pp. 158-173.

Edited book

  • Hunter, R. and Rackley, E. (2010). Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice. Hunter, R., McGlynn, C. and Rackley, E. eds. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  • Hunter, R. (2008). Rethinking Equality Projects in Law: Feminist Challenges. Hunter, R. ed. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  • Hunter, R. and Cowan, S. (2007). Choice and Consent: Feminist Engagements With Law and Subjectivity. Hunter, R. and Cowan, S. eds. London: Routledge-Cavendish.


  • Hunter, R., Burton, M. and Trinder, L. (2020). Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases: Final Report. Ministry of Justice. Available at: https://www.govk.uk/government/consultations/assessing-risk-of-harm-to-children-and-parents-in-private-law-children-cases.
    This is the final report of the expert panel appointed by the Ministry of Justice to assess how effectively the family courts identify and respond to allegations of domestic abuse and other serious offences, in cases involving disputes between parents about the arrangements for their children, known as ‘private law children proceedings’. It reflects the findings from the call for evidence, following over 1,200 responses from individuals and organisations across England and Wales, together with roundtables and focus groups held with professionals, parents and children with experience of the family courts. Most of the evidence received focused on domestic abuse. The report makes findings in relation to both the processes and the outcomes for parties and children involved in such proceedings The panel makes several recommendations for next steps to be taken forward by the family justice system.
  • Hunter, R. and Barnett, A. (2013). Fact-Finding Hearings and the Implementation of the President’s Practice Direction: Residence and Contact Cases: Domestic Violence and Harm. Family Justice Council. Available at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/FJC/FFH%20report%20January%202013.pdf.
Last updated