‘The government should not select judges on the basis of their political views as they do in the US, the outgoing president of the supreme court, Lady Hale, has warned.’
The Guardian, 18th December 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Did the UK Supreme Court enforce a constitutional convention in Miller (No 2)? Most writers say no. I say yes.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd December 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘By declaring the prorogation of parliament to be unlawful, the Supreme Court made a decision with huge legal consequences.’
The Guardian, 29th November 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘In the aftermath of the Miller 2/Cherry judgment, delivered on 24 September 2019, the Supreme Court has come under attack for making a ‘political’ intervention. This had led to some calls for political supervision of judicial appointments on the basis that the Supreme Court is now a ‘political player’. In reality these arguments do not seem to have gained much traction but these criticisms, nevertheless, raise some important questions about the boundaries between law and politics in the UK.’
Counsel, November 2019
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘An assessment of the court’s performance in decision-making delivered over its first ten years; and what bearing, if any, the Article 50 and Prorogation cases have on the big picture.’
Counsel, November 2019
Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk
‘The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill is intended to give effect in the UK to the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) agreed by the UK with the EU-27 on 1 October 2019. The Bill received its second reading on 22 October 2019 and is currently in ‘limbo’ pending the start of the committee stage. If and when it is adopted, the Bill will make significant amendments to (inter alia) the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA).’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 4th November 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The decision in Miller 2 has been described by Martin Loughlin as effecting a paradigmatic shift in constitutional law, displacing constitutional review based on common law reasoning of case law and precedent to one based on some overreaching framework of constitutional principles of which the Court acts as guardian.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘During 2019, the Brexit process has radically changed the dynamics between the prime minister and the House of Commons. Normally the United Kingdom’s government, led by the prime minister and her Cabinet, provides leadership, and drives and implements policy while Parliament exercises control over the government by scrutinising its actions and holding it to account. This is a carefully balanced relationship, although a government with a strong majority can dominate decision making in the House of Commons.’
OUP Blog, 30th October 2019
Source: blog.oup.com
‘The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill (“WAB”) is (to put it mildly) a web of complexity.’
Monckton Chambers, 25th October 2019
Source: www.monckton.com
‘Has the court in Miller (No 2) done the very thing it said it wouldn’t do in Miller (No 1)? Has it given legal enforceability to the constitutional convention of ministerial accountability? Several authors appear to suggest that is has (here, here and here). Indeed, conventions were given rather peculiar judicial treatment in Miller (No 1) not least when placed against Miller (No 2), but also due to the general unenforceability of ‘statutory conventions’ (more here). But back to the apparent elevation of the convention of ministerial accountability (CoMA) to a constitutional principle – or what I refer to as the principle-isation of the convention.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Scotland’s highest court is to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson has fully complied with a law requiring him to ask for a Brexit delay.’
BBC News, 21st October 2019
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘ On 14 October 2019, the Upper Tribunal (UT) handed down judgment in SSHD v De Souza, immediately dividing commentators both in and outside Northern Ireland. Briefly, the UT had heard the Home Secretary’s appeal against the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision which had declared that the American claimant (respondent in the UT) was entitled to apply to reside in Northern Ireland under the EU Citizen’s Directive because his wife was permitted to self-identify as an Irish national in accordance with the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). British nationality, the FTT declared, could not be “imposed” on her at birth, flying in the face of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA), section 1 of which, it was argued, does precisely that. The UT allowed the appeal and overturned the FTT judgment, revealing a tension which goes far beyond immigration law.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Lady Hale has thrown her wig into the debate on whether the law, represented by the courts, is gaining power while politics in Parliament is losing it. She is not the first to critique Lord Sumption’s Reith Lectures, as they were covered at ALBA’s Annual Conference too (see Law Pod UK episodes 88, 89, and 91).’
UK Human Rights Blog, 16th October 2019
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘This is the second of a two-part discussion of this theme. The first part addressed the obligations under the Benn Act and the legal response to attempts to frustrate it; this second part addresses non-confidence motions, resignation and change of Government. Heading numbering is continued from Part 1.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 10th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘This is the first of a two-part discussion of this theme. This first part addresses the obligations under the Benn Act and the legal response to attempts to frustrate it; the second part will address non-confidence motions, resignation and change of Government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In the case of The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Supreme Court briefly directed its focus to its understanding of the nature of “nullity” following a finding of administrative unlawfulness. Its approach surprised some commentators, but in this post I will suggest that, far from being completely novel, the distinctions it appears to draw are familiar within the law of habeas corpus. This comparison will, I suggest, cast light upon the shifting and somewhat complex idea of “nullity” in UK public law.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘It was a “one off”. A conclusive determination on a series of seismic constitutional clashes: representative democracy versus direct democracy, the executive versus Parliament, and the role of the Court in the separation of powers. Judges examining the constitution against a seething political background. But the lions emerged from beneath the throne, unanimously, in a judgment that unlocked the doors of Parliament and clearly, soberly reasserted our sovereign legislature.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th October 2019
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Boris Johnson seems caught in an impossible bind. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act – the Benn Act for short – obliges him to seek an extension of Article 50 on 19 October. He can extend, honour the law, but break his promises. He can refuse to extend, honour his promises, but break the law. Or he can resign. The Benn Act appears to trap the Prime Minister between these unpalatable options. Nevertheless, he may be able to escape. For the Act may ask the impossible.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 24 September, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, and that the resulting Order in Council and subsequent prorogation were ‘null, void and of no effect’. The litigation on the justiciability of prorogation and the lawfulness of the Prime Ministerial advice has led to one of the most engaging constitutional cases of recent times. As observers at the High Court and Supreme Court hearings, this post considers the context of the ruling, and certain striking implications of the judgment for the current and future Prime Ministers.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘For at least four centuries the courts have contested the claims of monarchs to untrammelled authority. ‘The king,’ Chief Justice Coke said in 1611, ‘hath no prerogative but what the law of the land allows him.’ Although the historic settlement of 1688-89, which gave us today’s constitutional monarchy, left in existence a wide swathe of prerogative powers, these have become subject to two governing principles. One is that they cannot be enlarged. The other is that both their constitutional extent and their lawful use are subject to judicial review. If the rule of law is to mean anything, it has to mean this.’
London Review of Books, 10th October 2019
Source: www.lrb.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024