The first two pieces in this set of blogposts introduced the series of accompanying lectures and considered the role of judicial review. The overarching purpose of the series is to explore the nature of the United Kingdom’s constitution by asking whether it is better understood as ultimately malleable and flexible — such that a sovereign… Continue reading Constitutional Law: The Big Picture III — Human Rights
The Faculty of Law at Cambridge, jointly with the University of Oxford’s Law Faculty, hosted a ‘virtual roadshow’ on 2 June 2021 as part of the Independent Human Rights Act Review. The event brought together members of the IHRAR Panel, academics from the two universities and members of the public. The aim of the event… Continue reading Video: Oxford and Cambridge Independent Human Rights Act Review event
As many readers of this blog will know, the Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR) was launched in December 2020 to examine the framework of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), how it is operating in practice and whether any change is required. The Review is being conducted by a Panel of eight members, chaired… Continue reading Oxford/Cambridge Independent Human Rights Act Review Event
In this post, Mark Elliott, Stephen Tierney and Alison L Young consider the implications of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill for human rights protection — and how the Bill might be amended if the protections afforded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights are to be maintained after Brexit
The Unison case is an important victory for workers who wish to enforce their rights in Employment Tribunals. But the Supreme Court's judgment also implicates some key principles of UK constitutional law — and raises a question about how far courts can go in upholding such principles.
The Conservative Party — which, barring an electoral surprise that would make the election of Donald Trump look pedestrian, will form the next UK administration — has published its manifesto. What does it reveal about the constitutional aspects of the party's programme for government?
In Secretary of State for Work & Pensions v Carmichael, the Government argued that the First-tier Tribunal could not intervene when housing benefit was reduced under ECHR-incompatible regulations. The Upper Tribunal disagreed. In doing so, it was on strong constitutional ground.
Theresa May argues that the UK should remain in the EU but withdraw from the ECHR. Her thinking may be politically comprehensible, but does it stack up in legal or constitutional terms?
The Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, gave evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee earlier today. In this brief post, I pick up on just one of the issues raised by his evidence, namely the notion that the UK Supreme Court might be made, by a British Bill of Rights, into what… Continue reading The UK Supreme Court as a constitutional ‘longstop’: Michael Gove’s evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee
I briefly wrote yesterday about John Finnis' recent lecture on judicial power. Although Finnis examines his topic through a lens that takes in far more than simply questions about human-rights protection, some of his fire is trained upon the European Convention on Human Rights and what it requires, or has been understood to require, courts… Continue reading Philippe Sands’ Elson Lecture: Britain, Europe and Human Rights