Who needs fact when you've got narrative? The case of P, C&S vs United Kingdom
Baldwin, P. Clive
Baldwin, P. Clive
Publication Date
2005
End of Embargo
Supervisor
Keywords
Rights
Peer-Reviewed
Yes
Open Access status
closedAccess
Accepted for publication
Institution
Department
Awarded
Embargo end date
Collections
Additional title
Abstract
Legal arguments and judgements ostensibly rely for their credibility and persuasiveness on the presentation of factual claims and determination of facts through due process. While it should follow that proceedings that are undermined by disregard for facticity and due process should not appear credible or persuasive, in practice this is not always the case. In cases where narratives are not firmly underpinned by factuality and due process a series of narrative techniques and processes can be brought into play to enhance the persuasiveness and credibility of those narratives. These processes include the reliance on a narrative trajectory, the presentation of consensus, drawing on supportive discourses, the privileging of certain narrators and the smoothing over of contradictory evidence. This paper examines these processes in the case of P,C&S vs United Kingdom in which in the absence of fact and due process a local authority and the domestic courts in the UK constructed and confirmed a narrative of a dangerous mother.
Version
No full-text in the repository
Citation
Baldwin PC (2005) Who needs fact when you've got narrative? The case of P,C&S vs United Kingdom. International Journal for the Semiotics of the Law. 18(3-4): 217-241.
Link to publisher’s version
Link to published version
Link to Version of Record
Type
Article