Against the law: why judges are under attack, by the Secret Barrister – The Guardian

‘Branded “enemies of the people” by the media and falsely accused of taking sides in Brexit by Conservative ministers, the judiciary is under threat – as is democracy.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 22nd August 2020

Source: www.theguardian.com

Judicial review: ‘Snarling’ not the way to get reform, says former top judge – BBC News

Posted March 16th, 2020 in brexit, judges, judicial review, news, parliament, prorogation by sally

‘”Shouting and snarling” is not the way to get judges to accept curbs to their powers, a former top judge has warned.’

Full Story

BBC News, 13th March 2020

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

10 cases that defined 2019 – UK Human Rights Blog

‘And so, we reach the end of another year. And what a year it has been. As well perhaps the most tumultuous period in British politics for decades, this year saw the first ever image taken of a black hole, a victory for the England men’s cricket team at the World Cup, the discovery of a new species of prehistoric small-bodied human in the Philippines and signs that humpback whale numbers in the South Atlantic have bounced back thanks to intensive conservation efforts. And the law? Well, rather a lot has happened really. As the festive season draws near, what better way is there to celebrate than to rewind the clock and relive the 10 cases which have defined 2019?’

Full Story

UK Human Rights Blog, 19th December 2019

Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com

Adam Perry: Enforcing Principles, Enforcing Conventions – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Did the UK Supreme Court enforce a constitutional convention in Miller (No 2)? Most writers say no. I say yes.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd December 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Landmarks in law: the Brexit court ruling that thwarted Boris Johnson – The Guardian

‘By declaring the prorogation of parliament to be unlawful, the Supreme Court made a decision with huge legal consequences.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 29th November 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

‘Deplorable and terrible’: Bar warned of UK’s dwindling role on world stage – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The United Kingdom’s legal status on the global stage is under threat, an international law expert has warned, citing Brexit, the prorogation of Parliament and the dwindling count of UK judges serving on the benches of international judges.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 25th November 2019

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Miller 2, the Supreme Court and the politics of constitutional interpretation – Counsel

Posted November 20th, 2019 in brexit, constitutional law, news, parliament, prorogation, Supreme Court by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

Counsel, November 2019

Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk

Ten years on: how has the Supreme Court fared? – Counsel

‘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.’

Full Story

Counsel, November 2019

Source: www.counselmagazine.co.uk

David Dennis: Llewellyn, Hart and Miller 2 – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 29th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Finnian Clarke: Habeas Corpus and the Nature of “Nullity” in UK Public Law – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

The UK Supreme Court’s “One Off” Judgment – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘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.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th October 2019

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Theodore Konstadinides, Noreen O’Meara and Riccardo Sallustio: The UK Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller/Cherry: Reflections on Its Context and Implications – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘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.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

In Court – Stephen Sedley – London Review of Books

Posted October 2nd, 2019 in brexit, constitutional law, Crown, news, parliament, prorogation by sally

‘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.’

Full Story

London Review of Books, 10th October 2019

Source: www.lrb.co.uk

Anurag Deb: A Constitution of Principles: From Miller to Minerva Mills – UK Constitutional Law Assocation

‘In a succinct and surprisingly unanimous judgment in Miller and Cherry [2019] UKSC 41 the UK Supreme Court delivered an unprecedented rebuke to the Prime Minister in deciding that he had not shown “any reason – let alone a good reason” to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament, ruling that the prorogation was unlawful, void and of no effect. While the Court was anxious (and perhaps over-eager) to stress that the judgment was a “one-off”, constitutional lawyers have and will continue to debate the far-reaching effects of the ruling on the UK Constitution for decades to come. One discrete point that will divide commentators is the precise juridical basis for the decision, with eyebrows raised at the repeated appeals by the Court to common law constitutionalism in arriving at its decision. Aiden O’Neill QC, for the Cherry respondents referenced the landmark Marbury v Madison ruling of the US Supreme Court to highlight the significance of Wightman v Brexit Secretary and perhaps remind the Supreme Court of the momentousness of the prorogation appeals before it. Indeed, commentators have made comparisons between the UK Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court in the course of the increasingly fraught recent constitutional cases. While such comparisons may mushroom in the days (and years) to come, I argue that a tellingly apposite comparison in the underlying ratio of Miller and Cherry lies with a constitutional court on the other side of the world: The Supreme Court of India.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Ep 95: A Rogue Prorogation – Law Pod UK

‘Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Jo Moore and Jon Metzer from 1 Crown Office Row about the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland.’

Full Story

Law Pod UK, 27th September 2019

Source: audioboom.com

After 10 years, the supreme court is confident in its role – The Guardian

‘Next Tuesday, 1 October, marks the 10th anniversary of the supreme court. Over the past decade, its neo-gothic portico, beneath which lawyers, litigants, protesters and politicians parade, has become an increasingly recognisable feature of national life.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 26th September 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

Sam Fowles: Cherry/Miller: What’s Next? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous judgement in Cherry and Others v The Advocate General and Miller v the Prime Minister. The court found that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful and, consequently, null and void. This article aims to identify some of the immediate constitutional and political impacts of that decision.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th September 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Parliament was not prorogued: Michael Zander QC assesses the Supreme Court’s remarkable decision – New Law Journal

‘The decision of the Supreme Court is remarkable for many reasons. One is that it was produced in such a short time. Another, of immense importance, is that it is unanimous. A third is that it rejects the reasoning of the Divisional Court’s unanimous decision given by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President that the issue was not justiciable.’

Full Story

New Law Journal, 24th September 2019

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful, judges rule – BBC News

‘Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled.’

Full Story

BBC News, 24th September 2019

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

John Major’s lawyer attacks No 10 prorogation claims as ‘misleading’ – The Guardian

‘Downing Street put out “misleading” statements about the prorogation of parliament and published excuses for Boris Johnson’s five-week suspension of the Commons that are “not the true reasons”, the supreme court has been told by a lawyer for the former prime minister John Major.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 19th September 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com