‘In recent months there have been growing media reports of anti-lockdown protests, supported by conspiracy theorists, in which demonstrators have made bizarre and outlandish claims. The conspiracies – unsupported by scientific evidence – are often couched in terms of “civil liberties” and “freedoms”.’
Each Other, 25th September 2020
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘Huge controversy has already been generated over provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill granting Ministers the power to disapply the Withdrawal Agreement. Most of the debate (Elliott, Armstrong) has been focused on the potential breaches of international law. This could severely damage the reputation of the United Kingdom in the world. However, what has been relatively overlooked is that this Bill is also a flagrant attack on the Rule of Law at the UK domestic level. This remains the case even if amendments proposed by Sir Bob Neill MP (and apparently accepted by the Government) pass.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 23rd September 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘During a pandemic, it seems like a good idea for politicians to “follow the science.” But what does this actually mean? The claim that the Government is “following the science” is in many respects laudable, but is it also a convenient way to avoid or limit accountability? Due to a lack of transparency, it is unclear whether and to what extent substantive decisions are being made by scientists, or if this is just a politically helpful turn of phrase. A recent Institute for Government report Decision Making in a Crisis: First Responses to the Coronavirus Pandemic potentially provides some insight into this question. The report says that when deciding whether to lockdown the country in March, the Government looked to science for “answers” for what to do, rather than as part of a range of inputs into a decision-making process. Is the Government delegating decisions for which, under statute, it is exclusively responsible? Possibly. It is necessary to consider how decision-making and accountability mechanisms for decision-makers must be modified to reflect this change in who exercises power in the United Kingdom and how. It is often argued that scientists should be “on tap but not on top.” This post asks if this “on tap not on top” relationship is possible during a pandemic, and to assess the challenges for legal and democratic accountability if it is not.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 21st September 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The government’s approach to the coronavirus is creating risks for the rule of law, politicians have warned in a report looking at the human rights implications of Covid-19.’
Law Society's Gazette, 21st September 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The former president of the supreme court says parliament “surrendered” its role over emergency laws restricting freedoms amid the coronavirus pandemic, in an intervention expected to embolden MPs threatening a Commons revolt.’
The Guardian, 20th September 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Ex-Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke has been jailed for two years for sexually assaulting two women.’
BBC News, 15th September 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘On 31 July 2020 the Government launched an independent review to examine whether there is a need to reform the judicial review process in the UK. The terms of reference of the review are available here. The review follows pledges in the Conservative manifesto to ensure judicial review is “not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create endless delays”. The terms of reference make it clear that the review aims to consider whether judicial review has encroached too far into the work of the executive branch of government.’
Law Society's Gazette, 6th August 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘MPs could be banned from foreign trips or made to take anger management classes under a proposed revamp of Parliament’s sanctions regime.’
BBC News, 21st July 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Parliament’s sleaze watchdog has warned that a lack of openness is undermining the Westminster standards system, as she appealed for a new right to name MPs who are under investigation.’
The Independent, 15th July 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Proposed legislation removing fault from the divorce process could be days from receiving Royal assent as it goes through the remaining stages of its parliamentary journey today [17 June].’
Law Society's Gazette, 17th June 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Peers are preparing plans to legalise the gene-editing of crops in England, a move that scientists say would offer the nation a chance to develop and grow hardier, more nutritious varieties. The legislation would also open the door to gene-editing of animals.’
The Guardian, 14th June 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The concept of executive dominance should be split into two: natural and excessive executive dominance. Executive dominance is the executive’s power to control, impede or perform the role of another branch of the constitution. The UK constitution lacks a clear-cut distinction between the three organs of the state and has evolved to achieve a balance between the three branches. The relationship between and the responsibilities of the executive and legislature are overlapping. In this evolved constitutional setup, natural executive dominance is necessary for the executive to carry out its constitutional role and the UK’s constitution to operate efficiently. Natural dominance is a consequence of the working of the UK constitution.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th June 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Since the Conservative government’s landslide victory in the 2019 general election, constitutional reform has been on top of its agenda. The most high-profile target of its attention has been the Supreme Court, whose performance came under sustained Conservative criticism during Brexit, most notably in Miller II/Cherry. Few details have so far been published about the Government’s constitutional reform plans, and it remains possible that these never reach fruition, especially in the face of concerted political opposition. Nevertheless, given the government’s considerable parliamentary majority and the high priority given to constitutional reform at the political level, it seems that the Supreme Court’s days might indeed be numbered. Hence, it is worth considering, without offering an opinion on the desirability of reforming the Supreme Court, some possible options for change.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th June 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 21 April, the House of Commons passed a motion approving the introduction of “hybrid proceedings” to minimise the need for physical attendance in Parliament during the coronavirus lockdown. Since then, electronic voting has been facilitated to allow MPs to participate remotely in parliamentary votes (“divisions”). MPs cast their first remote vote on 12 May. However, the provision for remote voting has now lapsed. On 2 June, MPs are being asked to approve a motion which would make it mandatory for them to attend Parliament in order to participate in divisions. The proposal has caused consternation for MPs who are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus, or who live with vulnerable family members, as well as adverse comment from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.’
Cloisters, 2nd June 2020
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘The Speaker of the House of Commons has said he will suspend parliament if physical distancing rules are breached in the Commons chamber – in effect ending government hopes that MPs can return to business as usual.’
The Guardian, 13th May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘ Today the Joint Committee on Human Rights will take evidence from the Information Commissioner, academics and the CEO of NHSX on the risks to the right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) if a contact tracing app is introduced to track and slow the spread of the coronavirus. This is helpful scrutiny of the government’s plans. Yet if the government goes ahead with its proposed contact-tracing application it is essential that the processing of large amounts of personal data by the state, even if done in the public interest, needs a clear legal basis in the form of specific legislation.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 4th May 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘In this post I argue, with reference to Privacy International, that the nature of legislation as a speech act entails that the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law is not as profound as is often thought.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 20th April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 and the counterpart regulations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, impose the most drastic restrictions on liberty ever seen in the United Kingdom. On 16 April 2020 they reach their first review point and it is a clear that they will be continued, probably initially for a further period of three weeks and thereafter quite likely for a much longer period either in their current form or in modified form.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 16th April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Parliament can do anything – except replace the House of Lords? For over a century, replacing the House of Lords has brooked no delay. Now, at last, the Government seems tempted to dam the brook, by substituting an elected Senate for the old Second Chamber. At first glance, this is constitutionally straightforward. Whatever Parliament enacts is law – so surely an Act of Parliament can lawfully replace the House of Lords? But such an Act may be open to challenge.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th April 2020
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
© Inner Temple Library 2024