Lord Pannick: Meet the lawyer representing Boris Johnson and Manchester City – BBC News
‘How often does a member of the House of Lords get cheered from the football terraces?’
BBC News, 14th February 2023
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Category: prorogation
Lord Hodge, The Scope of Judicial Law-making in Constitutional Law and Public Law – Supreme Court
‘The scope of judicial law-making in constitutional law and public law.’
Supreme Court, 27th October 2021
Source: www.supremecourt.uk
Neuberger ‘unconvinced’ by JR reform arguments – Law Society’s Gazette
‘The former president of the Supreme Court has revealed that he is ‘unconvinced’ by a major argument used to justify the government’s controversial judicial review reforms.’
Law Society's Gazette, 22nd October 2021
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
Max Taylor: The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill: Missed Opportunities – UK Constitutional Law Association
‘The newly introduced Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (“the Bill”) – like the Draft Fixed-term Parliaments Act (Repeal) Bill which preceded it – is a missed opportunity. It has failed to unify and define the scope and exercise of the powers of proroguing and dissolving Parliament, in one statute, which were in need of clarification post-Miller II. Now that the Government has decided on the form which it would like the Bill repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to take, the moment has gone and, as a niche of constitutional law, it is unlikely to garner enough political capital for these issues to be deemed worth addressing for the meantime.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 18th May 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
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.’
The Guardian, 22nd August 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
Judicial review: ‘Snarling’ not the way to get reform, says former top judge – BBC News
‘”Shouting and snarling” is not the way to get judges to accept curbs to their powers, a former top judge has warned.’
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?’
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.’
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.’
The Guardian, 29th November 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
Miller 2, the Supreme Court and the politics of constitutional interpretation – Counsel
‘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
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.’
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.’
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.’
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.’
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.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd October 2019
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
In Court – Stephen Sedley – London Review of Books
‘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
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.’
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.’
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.’
The Guardian, 26th September 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
