| Risk, responsibility and reconfiguration: Penal adaptation and misadaptation F McNeill, N Burns, S Halliday, N Hutton, C Tata Punishment & Society 11 (4), 419-442, 2009 | 213 | 2009 |
| Street‐level bureaucracy, interprofessional relations, and coping mechanisms: A study of criminal justice social workers in the sentencing process S Halliday, N Burns, N Hutton, F McNeill, C Tata Law & Policy 31 (4), 405-428, 2009 | 147 | 2009 |
| Sentencing as craftwork and the binary epistemologies of the discretionary decision process C Tata Social & Legal Studies 16 (3), 425-447, 2007 | 135 | 2007 |
| Assisting and advising the sentencing decision process: The pursuit of ‘quality’in pre-sentence reports C Tata, N Burns, S Halliday, N Hutton, F McNeill The British Journal of Criminology 48 (6), 835-855, 2008 | 103 | 2008 |
| In the interests of clients or commerce? Legal aid, supply, demand, and ‘ethical indeterminacy’in criminal defence work C Tata Journal of Law and Society 34 (4), 489-519, 2007 | 60 | 2007 |
| Conceptions and representations of sentencing decision process C Tata JL & Soc'y 24, 395, 1997 | 60 | 1997 |
| A sense of justice: The role of pre-sentence reports in the production (and disruption) of guilt and guilty pleas C Tata Punishment & Society 12 (3), 239-261, 2010 | 54 | 2010 |
| Shadow writing and participant observation: A study of criminal justice social work around sentencing S Halliday, N Burns, N Hutton, F McNeill, C Tata Journal of Law and Society 35 (2), 189-213, 2008 | 49 | 2008 |
| The failure of recall to prison: early release, front-door and back-door sentencing and the revolving prison door in Scotland B Weaver, C Tata, M Munro, M Barry European journal of probation 4 (1), 85-98, 2012 | 48 | 2012 |
| The Application of Judicial Intelligence and Rules to Systems Supporting Discretionary Judicial Decision-Making C Tata Artif. Intell. Law 6 (2-4), 203-230, 1998 | 46 | 1998 |
| Sentencing: A social process C Tata Springer International Publishing, 2020 | 44 | 2020 |
| Accountability for the sentencing decision process: Towards a new understanding C Tata Ashgate, 2002 | 41 | 2002 |
| What'rules' in sentencing? Consistency and disparity in the absence of'rules' C Tata, N Hutton International journal of the sociology of law 26 (3), 339-364, 1998 | 29 | 1998 |
| Sentencing and society: International perspectives C Tata, N Hutton Routledge, 2017 | 27 | 2017 |
| Resolute ambivalence: Why judiciaries do not institutionalize their decision support systems C Tata International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 14 (3), 297-316, 2000 | 27 | 2000 |
| A Sentencing Exception-Changing Sentencing Policy in Scotland N Hutton, C Tata Fed. Sent'g Rep. 22, 272, 2009 | 26 | 2009 |
| 'Swings and Roundabouts'’: Do Changes to the Structure of Legal Aid Remuneration Make a Real Difference to Criminal Case Management and Case Outcomes? C Tata, F Stephen Criminal Law Review, 722-74, 2006 | 26 | 2006 |
| Incentives, criminal defence lawyers and plea bargaining FH Stephen, G Fazio, C Tata International Review of Law and Economics 28 (3), 212-219, 2008 | 22 | 2008 |
| Representations of Knowledge and Discretionary Decision-Making by Decision-Support Systems: the Case of Judicial Sentencing'. 1996 (2) C Tata, JN Wilson, N Hutton The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), 1996 | 22 | 1996 |
| Connecting legal and social justice in the neo-liberal world? The construction, interpretation and use of pre-sentence reports S Field, C Tata Punishment & Society 12 (3), 235-238, 2010 | 21 | 2010 |
Fergus McNeillProfessor of Criminology & Social Work, University of GlasgowVerified email at glasgow.ac.uk
