Citation

Winter J. Soc. Leg. Stud. 2002; 11(3): 343-367.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2002, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/096466390201100302

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article considers the largely neglected role of judicial summing up in contested trials. The rhetoric of the role of the judge is of independent arbiter. Using the trials of Myra Hindley and Rose West the article examines the relationship between this rhetoric and reality in the light of the discretion allowed by the broad nature of the rules ‘regulating’ the summing up. The article explores how this rhetorical space can be used or exploited so that it becomes a form of judicial advocacy, creating new narratives or lending support to the narratives of the prosecution or defence. In particular, the article argues that a crucial distinction in the narratives evident in the summings up in the trials of Rose West and Myra Hindley is the appearance of the sexed or gendered identities of the two women.