Professor Mark Elliott
In an earlier post, I addressed the question whether the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Commons. Here, I reflect briefly on some interesting points that have been raised in response to my original piece, which raise fundamental questions about the nature of constitutional conventions, including the appropriate extent of reliance on historical precedent when attempting to discern the content of the contemporary constitution.
In his judgment in Ismailov v Foreign Secretary, Saini J appears to endorse two incompatible views of the principle of legality. One of those views reconfigures a principle that has traditionally brought normatively independent common law constitutional principles into relationship with legislation, instead casting it as a tool for determining the “true intention” of Parliament. This forms part of a wider trend in the courts’ constitutional case law that amounts…
A complete list of posts can be found in the archive
The Chişinău Declaration, issued by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on 15 May 2026, is an attempt by signatory States to reframe how the European Convention on Human Rights affects national governments’ capacity to control migration. Meanwhile, concerns about the limits imposed by human rights law in this area are a driving force…
Uncertainty about the position of the Prime Minister has raised the question whether Andy Burnham, currently the Mayor of Greater Manchester, might return to the House of Commons in order to challenge for the leadership of the Labour Party. Some commentators have even suggested that Burnham could, on an interim basis, become Prime Minister before…
As prorogation and a King’s Speech approach, the Terminally Ill Adults Bill cannot now be enacted before the end of the current parliamentary session. By blocking the Bill, has the House of Lords constitutionally overreached?
The forthcoming King’s Speech, it is reported, will include a Bill to facilitate “dynamic alignment” with some EU rules, attracting criticism from some politicians that sovereignty regained through Brexit is now to be sacrificed, subverting the “will of the people”. Such arguments, however, cannot withstand scrutiny.
In the Ammori case, the High Court held that the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful. But a quashing order has not been issued and the government now plans to appeal. In those circumstances, are media reports correct to say that, for the time being, Palestine Action…
The High Court has ruled that the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful, holding that the decision contravenes the government’s own policy on proscription as well as breaching the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. This post examines the legal reasoning that led the…