Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Previewpdf
Previewpdf
This book explores the intersecting issues relating the phenomenon of ageing to
gender and family law. The latter has tended to focus mainly on family life in
young and middle age; and, indeed, the issues of childhood and parenting are key
in many family law texts. Family life for older members has, then, been largely
neglected; addressing this neglect, the current volume explores how the issues
which might be important for younger people are not necessarily the same as those
for older people. The significance of family, the nature of family life, and the
understanding of self in terms of one’s relationships, tend to change over the life
course. For example, the state may play an increasing role in the lives of older
people – as access to services, involvement in work and the community, the ability
to live independently, and to form or maintain caring relationships, are all impacted
by law and policy. This collection therefore challenges the standard models of family
life and family law that have been developed within a child/parent-centred para-
digm, and which may require rethinking in the turn to family life in old age. Inter-
disciplinary in its scope and orientation, this book will appeal not just to academic
family lawyers and students interested in issues around family law, ageing, gender,
and care; but also to sociologists and ethicists working in these areas.
Edited by
Beverley Clough and Jonathan Herring
First published 2018
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
A GlassHouse book
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 selection and editorial matter, Beverley Clough and Jonathan Herring;
individual chapters, the contributors
The right of Beverley Clough and Jonathan Herring to be identified as the author of
the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known
or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Names: Clough, Beverley, editor. | Herring, Jonathan, editor.
Title: Ageing, gender and family law / edited by Beverley Clough, Jonathan Herring.
Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017048423 | ISBN 9781138744943 (hbk)
Subjects: LCSH: Older people--Legal status, laws, etc.--Great Britain. | Women--
Legal status, laws, etc.--Great Britain. | Domestic relations--Great Britain.
Classification: LCC KD665.A43 A34 2018 | DDC 346.4101/5--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017048423
Typeset in Galliard
by Taylor & Francis Books
Contents
Introduction 1
PART 1
Care, vulnerability and age 13
1 Embracing vulnerability in ageing: our route to flourishing 15
Daniel Bedford
PART 2
Rights and state institutions 89
6 Accountability, social justice, and social care decision-making:
reflections on the responsive state 91
Beverley Clough
vi Contents
PART 3
Relationships in old age 159
10 Ageing, love and family law 161
Jonathan Herring
Index 243
Contributors
Susan Easton is Professor of Law at Brunel Law School, a barrister and the editor
of the International Journal of Discrimination and the Law. She specialises in
prisoners’ rights and is the author of Prisoners’ Rights: Principles and Practice
and The Politics of the Prison and the Prisoner: Zoon Politikon, also to be pub-
lished by Routledge in 2018, and co-author of Sentencing and Punishment:
The Quest for Justice.
Jonathan Herring is a Professor of Law at the University of Oxford. His research
spans medical law, family law, criminal law, and law relating to care. His current
research focuses on relationality, personhood, and vulnerability, particularly in
the context of care and older people.
Felicity Kaganas is a Professor of Law at Brunel University. She teaches Family
Law and Children and the Law and has published widely in these fields. She is
joint author, with Alison Diduck, of Family Law, Gender and the State (Hart
Publishing), now in its Third Edition.
Liz Lloyd is Professor of Social Gerontology in the School for Policy Studies at
the University of Bristol and a Senior Research Fellow at the NIHR School for
Social Care Research. Liz’s research and publications have focused on health
and social care policies and practices related to ageing as well as on older people’s
experiences of support and care. She continues to pursue a long-standing
interest in developing the links between gerontological theory and feminist
perspectives on care.
Daniel Monk is Professor of Law at Birkbeck, University of London. Adopting a
variety of socio-legal methods his research has examined a wide range of issues
about children, families, education, and sexuality.
Christine Piper is an Emeritus Professor in Brunel Law School and a Fellow
of the Academy of Social Sciences. Her research interests have focused on
family law, sentencing and, more recently, eighteenth-century rural industries.
Her books include Investing in Children (2008, Routledge) (with S. Easton),
Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice, 4th Edition (2016, OUP)
and (with M. King) How the Law Thinks About Children, 2nd Edition (1995,
Ashgate).
Laura Pritchard-Jones is a Lecturer in Law at Keele University. Her research
interests lie in both the doctrinal and theoretical aspects to social welfare, adult
safeguarding, and mental disability law, and particularly how they operate in
relation to older people.
Ann Stewart is Professor of Law at University of Warwick Law School and
specialises in the area of gender and the law, particularly in the context of
international development with a focus on southern and eastern Africa and in
South Asia. Areas of particular interest are caring, care/body work in relation to
older people within the UK and within East Africa.
List of contributors ix
Family law textbooks present one image of typical family life: partnership; parent-
hood; divorce. The cases discussed are those of couples wanting to create a child;
disputing the upbringing of their children; or seeking a division of their assets.
Those walking the streets of family law textbooks are children, young adults and
the middle aged. Older people rarely appear, save perhaps in a small section on
grandparents. For them much of what appears in the standard textbooks is irrele-
vant. Even when an attempt is made to include a chapter on older people the
themes presented are bound by stereotypes of old age: it’s all about inheritance;
loss of capacity; and the need for care.1 The day-to-day lives of older people seems
to escape family law.
This book seeks to explore family law for older people. We believe this is not
simply a matter of discovering ‘older family law’. Rather an understanding of what
family life is about for older people throws considerable light on what family life
should be about for everyone. Gender plays a major theme in this book. Feminism
has historically rather overlooked older people and focused attention on issues
impacting younger women. Recently this has been an upsurge in interest among
feminists in old age and we welcome this and seek to use this in this collection.
Again, the issue is not simply one of discovering ‘feminist gerontology’ but
exploring how feminist insights into old age reveal much about the lives of women
and the impact of patriarchy generally.
Old age
Many regard ageing as one of the great issues of the day. The media are keen to
report considerable concern at the ‘surge’ in the number of older people.2 However,
there is little agreement about who these dangerous ‘older people’ are. One
possibility is to select a particular age at which one becomes an ‘older people’. For
example, the World Health Organisation uses the age of 60 (Brandl and Meuer
2001). Opponents of such an approach object that setting a particular age at
which a person becomes old, would be arbitrary. Among people of any given age
there will be a huge variation in health, lifestyle, appearance etc. For example, in
2008 Omkari Panwar, a 70-year-old woman, in India gave birth (Rees et al 2010).
2 Introduction
It would be difficult to say anything that would be true for all those of a particular
age, except something about their birthdays. More importantly Helen Small notes
‘The age we feel is not necessarily the same as our calendrical age, nor is it the
same as how we are perceived, or how we register ourselves being perceived by
others’ (Small 2007, 3). So our chronological age is only one aspect of what it is
to experience age personally and in our society.
Supporters of an age-based definition of old age might reply that inevitably the
law has to use generalisations, even if that means that some people are unfairly
categorised. We do this with children for example. Children under 17 are not
allowed to drive, even though there may well be some under-17s who would have
the necessary skills (Herring 2003). But this raises the issue of why it is we want to
use the category of older people in the law. Is it to mark out a category of people
who are particularly vulnerable, or upon whom it is justifiable to place certain
obligations? While generally speaking those under 16 are not able to make com-
plex competent decisions, it is not clear whether we could make any generalisation
of any kind about older people (Fries 1980).
Another alternative would be to define ‘older people’ as those who have reached
the age when a state pension becomes payable. This would be the age at which the
state would have indicated that they could be expected to stop work and undertake
retirement. The benefits of this approach would be that there would be a clear
definition of the category. Further it would link the definition of old age to being a
pensioner which itself is linked with the problems of poverty, vulnerability, and
social exclusion. These are the very reasons why the category of older people might
be of interest to politicians, lawyers, and academics. The difficulty with this defini-
tion is that it is increasingly outdated. The notion of retirement is undergoing a
major rethink. Indeed, it is become increasingly rare for there to be a particular
point in time when a person stops full time work and starts retirement.
A third approach would be to argue that someone is an ‘older people’ if they
are perceived to be an older person by society. This would capture the argument
that old age is essentially a social construct and while there is no consistency in the
actual characteristics of older people, there is among those they are thought to
have based on ageist assumptions. The disadvantage of this approach is that it does
not provide a very clear cut definition of old age for older purposes. However, the
concept is not unknown to the law as the Employment Equality (Age) Regula-
tions 2006 protects people from being discriminated against on the basis of the
age or ‘apparent age’ Rees et al 2010).
It may be that all three of these approaches to defining old age have something
to be said for them, depending on the purpose to which the term is being put. If
we are seeking to combat or explore ageism it seems sensible to rely on the perception
approach. If we are looking at issues around poverty and intergenerational economic
equality, the retirement age may be more sensible. There may be medical purposes
for which the biological age is most appropriate. And so forth.
Whichever approach is taken it is important to understand ageing as a narrative
(Baars 2012). An older person is not a static entity. Their ageing take place in the
Introduction 3
context of a life course, which will have a central impact on their current state.
That is a major theme in this book. Old age is not a static entity either from the
perspective of the individual, nor from society. Indeed, Simon Biggs (2005)
describes ‘a climate of considerable cultural confusion’ on age as life course cate-
gories become indistinct (Featherstone and Hepworth, 1995). One response is to
increase our divisions of age categories to introduce a ‘fourth age’ of ageing.
These arguments are played out in debates over whether or not there should be
a field of study called ‘elder law’ or some similar title. It is notable that in other
jurisdictions, in particular the USA, elder law is a well acknowledged area of aca-
demic study, with courses and textbooks in the area. Indeed, there is even a
‘Nutshells in Elder Law’ (Frolik and Kaplan 2014) the ultimate indica that a sub-
ject has entered the legal academy!
The case against studying ‘elder law’ is that doing so will perpetuate, rather
than redress ageism (Kapp 2005). Indeed the fact that as studied in the States it
commonly covers issues around ‘estate planning’, nursing care, and medical costs
may be seen to perpetuate the idea older people are frail and facing imminent
death. Age, it might be said, is an utterly arbitrary factor to use as category of legal
study (Brandl and Meuer 2001). Mike Brogdon and Preeti Nijhar (2000, 151) argue
that ‘There are few collective characteristics that clearly mark out elderly people from
younger people’. Indeed it might be thought that there are greater differences among
those over 70 that any other age group (Settersten 2005, 8). It would make far more
sense to consider the law and people lacking in competence; or the law and those
living in institutional settings, rather than the law and older people.
The law can reflect and reinforce, both directly and indirectly ageist attitudes
(Kohli 2005, 427). Robert Butler claims that ageism is manifested through:
stereotypes and myths, outright disdain and dislike, or simply subtle avoidance of
contact; discriminatory practices in housing, employment and services of all kinds;
epithets, cartoons and jokes. At times ageism becomes an expedient method by
which society promotes viewpoints about the aged in order to relieve itself from
the responsibility towards them, and at other times ageism serves a highly personal
objective, protecting younger (usually middle-aged) individuals – often at high
emotional cost – from thinking about things they fear (aging, illness and death).
(1995)
The response to ageism is carried. Some seek to challenge the assumptions about
old age and argue that older people can be ‘as young’ as older people. Others
argue that old age should be celebrated. Molly Andrews (1999) is concerned that
promoting agelessness would deprive older people of one of the ‘hard earned
resources: their age’. Betty Friedan has written:
How long, and how well, can we really live by trying to pass as young? By the
fourth face-lift (or third?) we begin to look grotesque, no longer human.
Obsessed with stopping age, passing as young … Seeing age only as decline
4 Introduction
from youth, we make age itself the problem and never face the real problems
that keep us from evolving and leading continually useful, vital, and produc-
tive lives. Accepting that dire mystique of age for others, even as we deny it
for ourselves, we ultimately create or reinforce the conditions of our own
dependence, powerlessness, isolation, even senility.
(1993, 25–6)
Molly Andrews argues that old age should be regarded as like any other stage of life. It
has real challenges and difficulties which should be acknowledged. But it carries bene-
fits too and these would be lost if the ‘agelessness’ model were lost. Old age should not
be regarded as the absence of youth abut rather as she sees it ‘the project of a lifetime’.
Others emphasise the importance of acknowledging the bodily impact of age.
Toni Calasanti and Kathleen Slevin write:
Age categories have real consequences, and bodies – old bodies – matter.
They have a material reality along with their social interpretation. Old people
are not, in fact, just like middle-aged persons but only older. They are different.
And as is the case with other forms of oppression, we must acknowledge and
accept these differences, even seen them as valuable.
(2006, 3)
The argument is that although there are prejudices about old age and unfair
assumptions are made; that should not be used to disguise the fact that for most
people old age is different from other stages in life. These differences must be
recognised and treasured.
They have outlived their status as sex objects and their usefulness as child-
bearers, and are to some extent freer from direct male control than younger
women in whom males still have vested interests. One might argue that the
patronizing attitudes frequently displayed towards older women are one
means of social control of these women’s behaviour, exerted because they
have this greater degree of freedom.
(1996, 63)
Introduction 5
vulnerability for both the older person and family member in a caring relationship
with them. A family contract, supporters claim, offers a way that both the older
person and family member can find a degree of security: the family member being
guaranteed some compensation for their care; and the older person being able to
rely on the contracted levels of care. As Pip points out these contracts are no
panacea. The nature of care which might otherwise be given altruistically becomes
commercialised through the contract. The informal nature of it may become more
structured. Further, there are considerable difficulties for those drafting these
contracts in predicting future care needs.
Liz Lloyd’s chapter also explores the significance of care, drawing on an ethic of
care. As Liz notes old age can be a time of increased need for care. However, this
can bring challenges in terms of human rights. Increased appreciation of the need
for care and the desire to protect rights can be connected to increased regulation
and commodification of care. As she notes increased statutory regulation of care
creates a tension, promoting well-being and protecting rights on the one hand;
and cutting the costs of welfare on the other. Care, which has traditionally been
seen as a private matter is now regularly seen as a public matter. A crucial aspect
she raises is that caring is now commonly performed by people who are older
themselves. This makes the balance between protecting human rights and promoting
care all the more complex in old age.
Jennifer Collins in her chapter explores the issue of financial exploitation of
older people. She argues that there are considerable difficulties in formulating a
specific response to the issue. One lies in difficulties of formulating an offence
which satisfies the requirements of legal certainty in criminal law. The concept of
exploitation, which most naturally could be used in this context is imprecise and
ambiguous. Another difficulty is that the creation of a specific offence could
‘entrench the vulnerability of older persons’. It might, for example, make people
wary of dealing with older people or restrict which products they can choose. This
might, in turn, impact on the autonomy of older people. In the seminar in which
we discussed the chapters of the book, we were told of an older person who
wanted to make a Christmas gift to some carers in her home, was distressed after
she was told she could not due to regulations designed to prevent financial abuse.
Jen sees more potential in using the current offences of abuse of position to protect
older people. She sees these as avoiding the portrayal of older people as necessarily
financially vulnerable, while taking seriously cases where older people have been
dishonestly deprived of money. This chapter offers a fine example of the tensions
between recognising the reality that older people are often the victim of financial
abuse and protecting them from that, while not reinforcing an image of older
people being particularly vulnerable. These issues are, of course, familiar in other
contexts, such as sex and race.
This chapter contributes to the theme of ‘Ageing, Gender and Family Law’ by
examining the limits and potential of the criminal law in regulating the financial
abuse of older persons, especially but not exclusively, by family members. Two
inter-connected arguments about the limits of the criminal law in penalising this
Introduction 7
form of wrongdoing are put forward. First, it is argued that it is far from clear that
the creation of new criminal law measures to target financial abuse of older persons
specifically can be justified, given the significant challenges this type of wrongdoing
poses for legal certainty. The notion suffers from deep imprecision and ambiguity,
which cannot easily be resolved. Secondly, another limitation consists of the dangers
of using the criminal law to legislate in an older person-protective mode; increasing
the risk, it will be argued, of entrenching vulnerability of older persons and of
driving these practices further beneath the radar of public policy. The final part of
the chapter turns to consider the latent potential of the criminal law in protecting
older persons from financial abuse. It argues that there is scope to interpret an
existing property offence in a vulnerable person-protective mode.
Alison Brammer picks up these themes in her chapter, which reflects upon the
potential in the Care Act 2014 in relation to safeguarding and abuse. The chapter
provides important reflections from the perspective of gender and older women to
offer new insights into the way in which the law in this area may navigate the
paradoxes involved in recognising and responding to vulnerability and abuse. This
provides an interesting lens through which to question how we conceptualise
inter-personal elder abuse – as an issue for adult safeguarding, or as domestic
violence – and respond to it through different pathways. Recognising the issues
arising for older women in these situations reveals the consequences of responding
through these different channels and services, and the particularised impact of
these. The promises and pitfalls of the Care Act, alongside Making Safeguarding
Personal, enable a more nuanced appreciation of both the conceptual and the
pragmatic challenges faced by older people who are facing inter-personal abuse.
The chapter by Beverley Clough picks up this call for a focus on the responsive state
and explores the ways in which the state and its institutions (including the courts)
respond or, conversely, fail to respond in the context of adult social care. The chapter
argues that despite the valuable rights contained in the European Convention on
Human Rights and their potential utility in the context of adult social care, the way
in which access to these is structured, and in particular the way in which courts have
responded through judicial review, prevents very real barriers to enjoyment of these.
Laura Pritchard-Jones’s chapter develops this thread of thinking about the role
of human rights here, and provides an important contribution in the context of
calls for a UN Convention on the Rights of Older People (p. 116). There has
been increasing interest in such a convention, and there is the potential to model
any change on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(2006) which has been widely welcomed as ushering in a ‘paradigm shift’ in dis-
ability rights. At the same time, however, human rights have faced sustained criti-
cism, particularly from feminist legal scholars who highlight the gendered
underpinnings and effects of rights. Laura considers the critical insights to be
heeded by drafters of a convention, with a particular focus on the ‘subject’ of
rights and on the public/private divide that pervades this context.
Ann Stewart’s chapter similarly reflects upon the way in which those least able to
accumulate assets over their life course – primarily women – are most affected by the
vagaries of the market and the way this impacts our social care system. Like the
other chapters in this section, the chapter picks up on the way in which the state is
responding here, through the provision of social care and also through
the regulation of it through the Care Quality Commission. In exploring this often
overlooked interaction, Ann argues that the form of regulation here is not adequate
to respond to the problems created by a market which is both dependent on and
influenced by large private equity financed providers. This raises broader questions
about the role of the state here, the interaction between the different structures and
institutions and the productive effects of these interactions. Alongside Clough’s
chapter, the discussion adds an additional call for a focus on the responsive state.
The chapter by Sue Easton turns to the increasingly important issues raised by
an ageing prison population. In particular, the chapter highlights the margin-
alisation of older people – and particularly older women – through policies which
have specifically been designed with a younger, male prison population in mind.
There are a number of age and gender related effects which stem from this policy
design, including a lack of access to appropriate healthcare, difficulties in meeting
the pace of prison routines, and loneliness and isolation. The difficulties in main-
taining family relationships or building relationships is particularly important here.
A critical dimension here is that the way these issues are responded to, and indeed
Introduction 9
interactions between care, family, and the state, and the way in which testamentary
freedom can reinforce the inequality and disadvantage that the wider socio-poli-
tical context may foster.
The following chapter by Felicity Kaganas and Christine Piper is an important
contribution which explores trends in grandparental care. As they highlight,
grandparental care is often seen as a relatively new phenomenon, with grand-
parents perceived to be increasingly taking up caring responsibilities. After
exploring the evidence and literature on this, they move on to consider grand-
parent care for children who would otherwise be in the care of the state. Impor-
tant issues arise here in terms of access to resources to facilitate this care, and the
discretionary nature of the powers of Local Authorities to respond in this context.
We see again the issues of the social and political economy context, and the ways
in which this structures responses to care and dependency, and social reproduc-
tion. The chapter further raises the issues of choice and autonomy which feature in
many of the chapters in this collection, reinforcing the idea that choice is inevi-
tably shaped and constrained by our social situatedness and networks of relations –
not just at the interpersonal level but also with the state.
Rachel Taylor picks up the theme of grandparental care and considers the way
that legal rights safeguard (or fail to safeguard) relationships between children and
grandparents. However, rather than arguing for stronger legal rights for grand-
parents in this area, Taylor suggests that a flexible legal approach is preferable here
and allows for a sustained focus on the welfare of the child. Whilst this may initially
seem to sit at odds with some of the chapters in this collection, through engaging
with recent case law in this context Taylor reveals the way in which a focus on
biological relation has distorted litigation. This does not always work in beneficial
ways for grandparents. The issue of resources in a social and political context of
austerity again features here, with a particular focus on the ways in which in terms of
the resourcing of family justice, grandparents are often placed under considerable
burdens by the privatising (through the use of private orders) of what would
otherwise be public cases. This has important implications for access to quality legal
advice and representation here – an issue similarly highlighted by Kaganas and Piper.
Notes
1 E.g., unfortunately, Herring (2017), Chapter 12.
2 www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11005945/No-rise-in-numbers-in-care-hom
es-despite-surge-in-elderly-population.html
3 See also Dougherty et al (2016).
References
Aitken, L. and Griffin, G. (1999) Gender Issues in Elder Abuse. London: Sage.
Andrews, M. (1999) ‘The Seductiveness of Agelessness’ Ageing and Society 19, 301.
Baars, J. (2012) ‘Critical Turns of Aging, Narrative and Time’ International Journal of
Ageing and Later Life 7(2), 143.
Introduction 11
Biggs, S. (2005) ‘Beyond Appearances: Perspectives on Identity in Later Life and Some
Implications for Method’ The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 60(3), S118.
Brandl, B. and Meuer, T. (2001) ‘Domestic Abuse In Later Life’ Elder Law Journal 8, 297.
Brogdon, M. and Nijhar, P. (2000) Crime, Abuse and the Elderly. Cullompton: Willan
Publishing.
Butler, R. (1995) ‘Ageism’ in G. Maddox (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Aging. New York: Springer.
Calasanti, T. and Slevin, K. (2006) Age Matters. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dougherty, E. N., Dorr, N. and Pulice, R. T. (2016) ‘Assisting Older Women in Com-
batting Ageist Stereotypes and Improving Attitudes Toward Aging’ Women & Therapy
39(1–2), 12.
Featherstone, M. and Hepworth, M. (1995) ‘Images of Positive Ageing’ in M. Featherstone
and A. Wernick (eds) Images of Ageing. London: Routledge.
Fineman, M. A. (2015) ‘Equality and Difference – The Restrained State’ Alabama Law
Review 66(3), 609.
Friedan, B. (1993) The Fountain of Age. London: Jonathan Cape.
Fries, J. (1980) ‘Aging, Natural Death and Compression of Morbidity’ New England
Journal of Medicine 303, 134.
Frolik, L. and Kaplan, R. (2014) Elder Law in a Nutshell (6th edn) Saint Paul, MN: West
Publishing.
Heaphy, B., Yip, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) ‘Ageing in a Non-Heterosexual Context’
Ageing and Society 24, 881.
Herring, J. (2003). ‘Children’s Rights for Grown-Ups’ in S. Fredman and S. Spencer (eds)
Age as an Equality Issue. Oxford: Hart.
Herring, J. (2017) Family Law. Harlow: Pearson.
Kapp, M. (2005) ‘Aging and the Law’ in R. Binstock and L. George (eds) Handbook of
Aging and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Kimmel, D., Rose, T. and David, S. (2006) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Aging.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Kohli, M. (2005) ‘Aging and Justice’ in R. Binstock and L. George (eds) Handbook of
Aging and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Jones, I. R. and Higgs, P. F. (2010) ‘The Natural, the Normal and the Normative: Con-
tested Terrains in Ageing and Old Age’ Social Science & Medicine 71(8) 1513.
Sargenat, M. (2005) ‘Disability and Age – Multiple Potential for Discrimination’ Interna-
tional Journal of the Sociology of Law 33, 17.
Settersten, R. (2005) ‘Aging and the Life Course’ in R. Binstock and L. George (eds)
Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Small, H. (2007) The Long Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sontag, S. (1978) ‘The Double Standard of Ageing’ in V. Carver and P. Liddiard (eds) An
Ageing Population. Sevenoaks: Open University Press.
Tronto, J. (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York:
Routledge.
Walker, A. and Northmore, S. (eds) Growing Older in a Black and Minority Ethnic Group.
London: Age Concern.
Ward, R. and Bytheway, B. (2008) Researching Age and Multiple Discrimination. London:
Central Books.
Westwood, S. (2013) ‘“My Friends are my Family”: An Argument about the Limitations of
Contemporary Law’s Recognition of Relationships in Later Life’ Journal of Social Wel-
fare and Family Law 35(3), 347.
Introduction
Aitken, L. and Griffin, G. (1999) Gender Issues in Elder Abuse. London: Sage.
Andrews, M. (1999) ‘The Seductiveness of Agelessness’ Ageing and Society 19, 301.
Baars, J. (2012) ‘Critical Turns of Aging, Narrative and Time’ International Journal of Ageing
and Later Life 7(2), 143.
Biggs, S. (2005) ‘Beyond Appearances: Perspectives on Identity in Later Life and Some
Implications for Method’ The Journals of Gerontology: Series B 60(3), S118.
Brandl, B. and Meuer, T. (2001) ‘Domestic Abuse In Later Life’ Elder Law Journal 8, 297.
Brogdon, M. and Nijhar, P. (2000) Crime, Abuse and the Elderly. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Butler, R. (1995) ‘Ageism’ in G. Maddox (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of Aging. New York: Springer.
Calasanti, T. and Slevin, K. (2006) Age Matters. Abingdon: Routledge.
Dougherty, E. N. , Dorr, N. and Pulice, R. T. (2016) ‘Assisting Older Women in Combatting
Ageist Stereotypes and Improving Attitudes Toward Aging’ Women & Therapy 39(1–2), 12.
Featherstone, M. and Hepworth , M. (1995) ‘Images of Positive Ageing’ in M. Featherstone and
A. Wernick (eds) Images of Ageing. London: Routledge.
Fineman, M. A. (2015) ‘Equality and Difference – The Restrained State’ Alabama Law Review
66(3), 609.
Friedan, B. (1993) The Fountain of Age. London: Jonathan Cape.
Fries, J. (1980) ‘Aging, Natural Death and Compression of Morbidity’ New England Journal of
Medicine 303, 134.
Frolik, L. and Kaplan, R. (2014) Elder Law in a Nutshell (6th edn) Saint Paul, MN: West
Publishing.
Heaphy, B. , Yip, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) ‘Ageing in a Non-Heterosexual Context’ Ageing
and Society 24, 881.
Herring, J. (2003). ‘Children’s Rights for Grown-Ups’ in S. Fredman and S. Spencer (eds) Age
as an Equality Issue. Oxford: Hart.
Herring, J. (2017) Family Law. Harlow: Pearson.
Kapp, M. (2005) ‘Aging and the Law’ in R. Binstock and L. George (eds) Handbook of Aging
and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Kimmel, D. , Rose, T. and David, S. (2006) Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Aging.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Kohli, M. (2005) ‘Aging and Justice’ in R. Binstock and L. George (eds) Handbook of Aging and
the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Jones, I. R. and Higgs, P. F. (2010) ‘The Natural, the Normal and the Normative: Contested
Terrains in Ageing and Old Age’ Social Science & Medicine 71(8) 1513.
Sargenat, M. (2005) ‘Disability and Age – Multiple Potential for Discrimination’ International
Journal of the Sociology of Law 33, 17.
Settersten, R. (2005) ‘Aging and the Life Course’ in R. Binstock and L. George (eds) Handbook
of Aging and the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Small, H. (2007) The Long Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sontag, S. (1978) ‘The Double Standard of Ageing’ in V. Carver and P. Liddiard (eds) An
Ageing Population. Sevenoaks: Open University Press.
Tronto, J. (1993) Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York:
Routledge.
Walker, A. and Northmore, S. (eds) Growing Older in a Black and Minority Ethnic Group.
London: Age Concern.
Ward, R. and Bytheway, B. (2008) Researching Age and Multiple Discrimination. London:
Central Books.
Westwood, S. (2013) ‘“My Friends are my Family”: An Argument about the Limitations of
Contemporary Law’s Recognition of Relationships in Later Life’ Journal of Social Welfare and
Family Law 35(3), 347.
Embracing vulnerability in ageing
Bailey, C. et al (2013) ‘Risky and Resilient Life with Dementia: Review of and Reflections on the
Literature’ Health, Risk & Society 15(5), 390–401.
Bergoffen, D. (2011) Contesting the Politics of Genocidal Rape: Affirming the Dignity of the
Vulnerable Body. New York: Routledge.
Bergoffen, D. (2014) ‘The Dignity of Finitude’ in S. Stoller (ed.) Simone de Beauvoir’s
Philosophy of Age: Gender, Ethics, and Time. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 127–143.
Bluhm, R. (2012) ‘Vulnerability, Health, and Illness’ International Journal of Feminist
Approaches to Bioethics 5(2), 147–161.
Bouchal, S. (2007) ‘Moral Meanings of Caring for the Dying’ in N. Johnston and A. Scholler-
Jaquish (eds) Meaning in Suffering: Caring Practices in the Health Professions. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press, 232–275
Boudiny, K. (2013) ‘“Active Ageing”: From Empty Rhetoric to Effective Policy Tool’ Ageing
Society 33(6), 1077–1098.
Bubeck, D. (2003) ‘Justice and the Labour of Care’ in F. E. Kittay and E. K. Feder (eds) The
Subject of Care: Feminist Perspectives on Dependency. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield,
160–185.
Bullington, J. (2006) ‘Body and Self: A Phenomenological Study on the Ageing Body and
Identity’ Medical Humanities 32, 25–31.
Butler, J. (2006) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London: Verso.
Butler, J. (2009) Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? London: Verso.
Carel, H. (2009) ‘A Reply to “Towards an Understanding of Nursing as a Response to Human
Vulnerability” by Derek Sellman: Vulnerability and Illness’ Nursing Philosophy 21(3), 214–219.
Carse, A. L. (2006) ‘Vulnerability, Agency, and Human Flourishing’ in C. Taylor and R. Dell’Oro
(eds) Health and Human Flourishing: Religion, Medicine, and Moral Anthropology. Washington,
D.C., MD: Georgetown University Press.
Clarke, C. et al (2010) ‘Dementia and Risk: Contested Territories of Everyday Life’ Journal of
Nursing and Healthcare of Chronic Illness 2(2), 102–112.
Curk, P. (2016) ‘Passions, Dependencies, Selves: A Theoretical Psychoanalytic Account of
Relational Responsibilities’ in H. Keating (ed.) Taking Responsibility, Law and the Changing
Family. Abingdon: Routledge.
Daniel, L. (1998) ‘Vulnerability as a Key to Authenticity’ Journal of Nursing Scholarship 30(2),
191–192.
Diduck, A. (2013) ‘Autonomy and Vulnerability in Family Law: The Missing Link ’ in J. Wallbank
and J. Herring (eds) Vulnerabilities, Care and Family Law. Abingdon: Routledge, 95–114.
Department of Health (DH) (2005) Independence, Well-Being and Choice. Our Vision for the
Future of Social Care in England, Cm 6499. London: DH.
DH (2009) Safeguarding Adults: Report on the Consultation on the Review of No Secrets.
London: DH.
Dunn, M. et al (2008) ‘To Empower or to Protect? Constructing the “Vulnerable Adult” in English
Law and Public Policy’ Legal Studies 28, 234–253.
Faulkner, A. (2012) The Right to Take Risks: Service Users’ Views of Risk in Adult Social Care
(Joseph Rowntree Foundation Programme Paper: Risk, Trust and Relationships in an Ageing
Society). York: Joseph Rowntree.
Fenge, L.A. . (2010) ‘Promoting Inclusiveness: Developing Empowering Practice with Minority
Groups of Older People’ in K. Brown (ed.) Vulnerable Adults and Community Care. London:
Sage, 90–96.
Fineman, M. A. (2012) ‘“Elderly” as Vulnerable: Rethinking the Nature of Individual and Social
Responsibility’ The Elder Law Journal 20(1), 101–112.
Gadow, S. (1987) ‘Frailty and Strength: The Dialectic of Ageing ’ in T. Cole and S. Gadow (eds)
What Does It Mean to Grow Old?: Reflections from the Humanities. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 235–243.
Gadow, S. (1980) ‘Body and Self: A Dialectic’ The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 5(3),
172–185.
Gattuso, S. (2003) ‘Becoming a Wise Old Woman: Resilience and Wellness in Later Life’ Health
Sociology Review 12, 171–177.
Gilson, E. (2013) The Ethics of Vulnerability: A Feminist Analysis of Social Life and Practice.
New York: Routledge.
Grear, A. (2010) Redirecting Human Rights: Facing the Challenge of Corporate Legal
Humanity. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Grear, A. (2013) ‘Vulnerability, Advanced Global Capitalism and Co-Symptomatic Injustice:
Locating the Vulnerable Subject’ in M. Fineman and A. Grear (eds) Vulnerability: Reflections on
a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics. Farnham: Ashgate, 41–60.
Hall, M. I. (2008) ‘Equity Theory: Responding to the Material Exploitation of the Vulnerable but
Capable’ in I. Doron (ed.) Theories on Law and Ageing: The Jurisprudence of Elder Law. Berlin:
Springer, 107–119.
Harper, S. (1997) ‘Constructing Later Life/constructing the Body: Some Thoughts from Feminist
Theory’ in A. Jamieson , S. Harper and C. Victor (eds) Critical Approaches to Ageing and Later
Life. Buckingham: Open University Press, 160–172.
Harris, G. (1997) Human Dignity and Vulnerability: Strength and Quality of Character. Oakland,
CA: University of California Press.
Herring, J. (2013) Caring and the Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Herring, J. (2016) Vulnerable Adults and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoffmaster, B. (2006) What Does Vulnerability Mean? Hastings Center Report, 36, 38–45.
Holstein, M. and Minkler, M. (2003) ‘Self, Society and the “New Gerontology”’ Gerontologist
43(6), 787–796.
Howarth, C. (2014) ‘Encountering the Ageing Body in Modernity: Fear, Vulnerability and
“Contamination”’ Journal for Cultural Research 18(3), 233–248.
Jordan, J. (2008) ‘Valuing Vulnerability: New Definitions of Courage’ Women & Therapy 31(2),
209–233.
Kittay, E. F. (2001) ‘When Caring Is Just and Justice Is Caring: Justice and Mental Retardation’
Public Culture 13(3), 557–579.
Kittay, E. F. (2011) ‘The Ethics of Care, Dependence, and Disability’ Ratio Juris 24, 49–58.
Law Commission (2011) Adult Social Care Law Com No 326. London: Law Commission.
Lawton, J. (1998) ‘Contemporary Hospice Care: the Sequestration of the Unbounded Body and
“Dirty Dying”’ Sociology of Health and Illness 20(2), 121–143.
Lloyd-Sherlock, P. (2004) ‘Ageing, Development and Social Protection: Generalizations, Myths
and Stereotypes’ in P. Lloyd-Sherlock (ed.) Living Longer: Ageing, Development and Social
Protection. London: UNRISD and Zed Books, 1–20.
Michaels, C. and Moffett, C. (2008) ‘Rethinking Vulnerability’ in M. de Chesney and B. Anderson
(eds) Caring for the Vulnerable: Perspectives in Nursing Theory, Practice, and Research.
London: Jones and Bartlett Learning, 15–24.
Motenko, A. and Greenberg, S. (1995) ‘Reframing Dependence in Old Age: A Positive
Transition for Families’ Social Work 40(3), 382–390.
Noddings, N. (1984) Caring, a Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (2010) ‘Complexity in Caring and Empathy’ Abstracta 6(2), 6–12.
Nussbaum, M. (2001) The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and
Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pritchard-Jones, L. (2016) ‘The Good, the Bad, and the “Vulnerable Older Adult”’ Journal of
Social Welfare and Family Law 38(1), 51–72.
Ranzijn, R. (2010) ‘Active Ageing – Another Way to Oppress Marginalized and Disadvantaged
Elders? Aboriginal Elders as a Case Study’ Journal of Health Psychology 15(5), 716–723.
Sabat, S. et al (2011) ‘The “Demented Other” or Simply “A Person”? Extending the
Philosophical Discourse of Naue and Kroll Through the Situated Self’ Nursing Philosophy 12(4),
282–292.
Sarvimäki, A. and Stenbock-Hult, B. (2016) ‘The Meaning of Vulnerability to Older Persons’
Nursing Ethics 23(4), 372–383.
Shildrick, M. (2002) Embodying the Monster: Encounters with the Vulnerable Self. London:
Sage.
Stenbock-Hult, B. and Sarvimäki, A. (2011) ‘The Meaning of Vulnerability to Nurses Caring for
Older People’ Nursing Ethics 18(1), 31–41.
ten Have, H. (2016) Vulnerability: Challenging Bioethics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Toombs, K. (2006) ‘Vulnerability and the Meaning of Illness: Reflections on Lived Experience ’
in C. Taylor and R. Dell’Oro (eds) Health and Human Flourishing. Washington, D.C., MD:
Georgetown University Press, 119–140.
Wendell, S. (2008) ‘Towards a Feminist Theory of Disability’ in A. Bailey and C. Cuomo (eds)
The Feminist Philosophy Reader. New York: McGraw Hill, 826–841.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) Active Ageing: A Policy Framework. Geneva: WHO.
A London Local Authority v JH [2011] EWHC 2420 (COP)
DL v A Local Authority [2012] EWCA Civ 253
IIBCC v LG [2010] EWHC 1527
LLBC v TG, JG and KR
London Borough of Redbridge v G [2014] EWCOP 17
Re MM (an adult) [2007] EWHC 2003
Impoverishing care
Association of Directions of Adult Social Services (ADASS) (2016) Annual Budget Survey
Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. London: ADASS. Available at:
www.adass.org.uk/adass-budget-survey-2016-full-report
BBC Radio 4 (2016) You and Yours, 4 May.
Baldwin, J. , Cave, M. and Lodge, M. (2012) Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy and
Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Black, J. (2002) ‘Critical Reflections on Regulation’ (LSE Centre for the Analysis of Risk and
Regulation Discussion Paper 4, 2002). Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35985/
Black, J. and Baldwin, J. (2010) ‘Really Responsive Risk-Based Regulation’ Law and Policy
132(2), 81.
Bradley, P. (2016) ‘Minimum wage and working time for care providers’ 26 September.
Available at: www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge/legal-articles/2016/09/26/minimum-wage-and-
working-time-care-providers/
Burns, D. , Cowie, L. , Earle, J. , Folkman, P. , Froud, J. , Hyde, P. , Johal, S. , Rees Jones , I.,
Killett, A. and Williams, K. (2016) Where does the Money Go? Financialised Chains and the
Crisis in Residential Care. London: Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (CRESC).
Burton, J. (2017) What’s Wrong with CQC? A proposal to reform the regulation of social care.
London: The Centre for Welfare Reform.
Care Quality Commission (CQC) (2014) Human Rights Approach for our Regulation of Health
and Social Care Services. London: CQC.
CQC (2015) Market Oversight of ‘Difficult to Replace’ Providers of Adult Social Care. Guidance
for Providers. London: CQC.
Corlett, C. (2017) As Time Goes By: Shifting Incomes and Inequality Between and Within
Generations. London: Resolution Foundation.
Cunningham, I. (2016) ‘Non-profits and the “Hollowed Out” State: The Transformation of
Working Conditions through Personalizing Social Care Services During an Era of Austerity’
Work, Employment & Society 30(4), 649.
D’Arcy, C. and Kelly, G. (2015) Analysing the National Living Wage Impact and Implications for
Britain’s Low Pay Challenge. London: The Resolution Foundation.
Department of Health (DH) (2015) The NHS Constitution: The NHS Belongs to Us All. London:
DH.
Dilnot Inquiry (2011) Fairer Care Funding The Report of the Commission on Funding of Care
and Support. Available at: www.wp.dh.gov.uk/carecommission/files/2011/07/Fairer-Care-
Funding-Report.pdf
Gardiner, L. (2015) Care to Pay? Meeting the Challenge of Paying the National Living Wage in
Social Care. London: Resolution Foundation.
Gray, J. and Hamilton, J. (2006) Implementing Financial Regulation: Theory and Practice.
London: Wiley and Sons.
Hopkins, N. and Laurie, E. (2015) ‘Social Citizenship, Housing Wealth and the Cost of Social
Care: Is the Care Act 2014 “Fair”?’ Modern Law Review 78(1), 112.
Hudson, B. (2016) The Failure of Privatised Adult Social Care in England: What is to be Done?
London: The Centre for Health and the Public Interest.
Humphries, R. , Hall, P. , Charles, A. , Thorlby, R. and Holder, H. (2016) Social Care for Older
People: Home Truths. London: King’s Fund/Nuffield Trust.
Institute of Public Care (2016) Market Shaping Review: What is Market Shaping? Oxford:
Oxford Brookes.
James, G. and Spruce, E. (2015) ‘Workers with Elderly Dependants: Employment Law’s
Response to the Latest Care-giving Conundrum’ Legal Studies 35(3), 463.
Jarrett, T. (2017) Social Care: The State of the Care Home Market (England) Briefing Paper
Number 07463. London: House of Commons Library.
Laing, P. (2017) The Bottom Line. BBC Radio 4, 4 February.
Leach, R. , Phillipson, C. , Biggs, S. and Money, A. (2008) ‘Sociological Perspectives on the
Baby Boomers Quality’ Ageing 9(4), 19.
Mazzucato, M. (2012) The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Private v Public Sector Myths.
London: Anthem.
Morgan, B. (2003) ‘The Economization of Politics: Metaregulation as a Form of NonJudicial
Legality’ Social and Legal Studies 12(4), 489.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2016) Overview of the UK Population: February 2016.
London: ONS.
Prosser, T. (2010) The Regulatory Enterprise: Government, Regulation, and Legitimacy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sloan, B. (2016) ‘Adult Social Care and Property Rights’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 36(2),
428.
Sodha, S. (2016) ‘Underfunded and overstretched – the crisis in care for the elderly’ The
Observer, 10 December.
Stewart, A. (2012) ‘From Family to Personal Responsibility: The Challenges for Care of the
Elderly in England’ Journal of Social Welfare and the Family Law 34(2), 179.
Willetts, W. (2011) The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future – And Why
They Should Give it Back. London: Atlantic Press.
Older prisoners, gender, and family life
All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System (2011) Women in the Penal
System: Second Report on Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice
System. London: Howard League.
Berberet, R. (2014) Women, Crime and Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Chiu, T. (2010) It’s About Time: Ageing Prisoners, Increasing Costs and Geriatric Release. New
York: VERA Institute of Justice.
Corston Report (2007) The Corston Report: A Review of Women with Particular Vulnerabilities
in the Criminal Justice System. London: Home Office.
Crawley, E. and Sparks, R. (2005) ‘Surviving the Prison Experience? Imprisonment and Elderly
Men’ Prison Service Journal 160.
Crewe, B. (2006) ‘Male Prisoners’ Orientation towards Female Officers in an English Prison’
Punishment and Society 8, 394.
Crewe, B. (2009) The Prisoner Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Department of Health (DH) (2007) A Pathway to Care for Older Offenders: A Toolkit for Good
Practice. London: DH.
DH (2009) The Bradley Report: Lord Bradley’s Review of People with Mental Health Problems
or Learning Disabilities in the Criminal Justice System. London: DH.
Easton, S. (2008) ‘Dangerous Waters: Taking Account of Impact in Sentencing’ Criminal Law
Review 2, 105.
Easton, S. (2011) Prisoners’ Rights, Principles and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Easton, S. and Piper, C. (2016) Sentencing and Punishment: The Quest for Justice, 4th edn.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fazel, S. , Hope, T. , Donnell, I. , Piper, M. and Jacoby, R. (2001) ‘Health of Elderly Male
Prisoners: Worse than the General Population, Worse than Younger Prisoners’ Age and Ageing
30(5), 403.
Fry, D. (2005) ‘Managing Older Prisoners at HMP Wymott’ Prison Service Journal, 160.
House of Commons Justice Committee (2013) Older Prisoners: Fifth Report of Session
2013–14. HC 89. London: The Stationery Office.
House of Commons Justice Committee (2015) Women Offenders: Follow-up, HC 314. London:
The Stationery Office.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (HMCIP ) (2004) No Problems – Old and Quiet: Older Prisoners
in England and Wales. London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP).
HMCIP (2008) Older Prisoners in England and Wales: A Follow-up to the 2004 Thematic
Review by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. London: HMIP.
HMCIP (2016) Annual Report 2015–16. London: HMIP.
HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) (2014) Expectations: Criteria for Assessing the Treatment of
and Conditions for Women in Prison. London: Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
Loucks, N. (2007) No One Knows: The Prevalence and Associated Needs of Offenders with
Learning Difficulties and Learning Disabilities. London: Prison Reform Trust.
Mann, N. (2012) Doing Harder Time? The Experiences of an Ageing Male Prison Population in
England and Wales. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Ministry of Justice (MOJ) (2013) Government Response to the Justice Committee’s Fifth Report
of Session 2013–2014: Older Prisoners, Cm 8739. London: The Stationery Office.
MoJ (2016a) Prison Population Projections 2016–2021 England and Wales, Ministry of Justice
Statistics Bulletin. London: MoJ.
MoJ (2016b) Prison Safety and Reform, Cm 9350. London: MoJ.
Moll, A. (2013) Losing Track of Time: Dementia and the Ageing Prison Population: Treatment
Challenges and Examples of Good Practice. London: Mental Health Foundation.
National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders ( NACRO ) (2009a) Working
with Older Prisoners Workshop. London: NACRO.
NACRO (2009b) A Resource Pack for Working with Older Prisoners. London: NACRO.
Omolade, S. (2014) The Needs and Characteristics of Older Prisoners: Results from the
Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) Survey. London: MoJ.
Piper, C. (2007) ‘Should impact constitute mitigation? Structured discretion versus mercy’
Criminal Law Review 141.
Prison Reform Trust (2003) Growing Old in Prison. London: Prison Reform Trust.
Prison Reform Trust (2008) Doing Time: The Experiences and Needs of Older People in Prison.
London: Prison Reform Trust.
Prison Reform Trust (2015) Bromley Briefings: Prison Factfile. London: Prison Reform Trust.
Prison Reform Trust (2016) Bromley Briefings: Prison Factfile. London: Prison Reform Trust.
van Wormer, K. (2011) ‘Female Prison Families: How are they Dysfunctional?’ International
Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 11(1–2), 263.
Wahidin, A. (2004) Older Women in the Criminal Justice System: Running Out of Time. London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Young, Baroness (2014) The Young Review: Improving Outcomes for Young Black and/or
Muslim Men in the Criminal Justice System. London: Black Training and Enterprise Group
(BTEG).
Dickson v UK App. No. 44362/04 (4 December 2007)
Papon v France App. No. 64666/01 (7 June 2001)
R(P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 1018 (Admin)
Wainwright v UK App. No. 12350/04 (26 September 2006)