Constitutional Law: The Big Picture II — Judicial Review

In the first post in this series, I explained that the aim of the accompanying set of videos — which began life as a series of lectures to Cambridge undergraduate Law students — is to address the nature of the UK constitution by posing a particular question about it. The question that I ask is … Continue reading Constitutional Law: The Big Picture II — Judicial Review

Constitutional Law Matters: A new project and a job opportunity

During the academic year 2021­-22, Professor Alison Young and I will be leading a new project entitled ‘Constitutional Law Matters’. At the heart of the project, which is generously supported by the Gatsby Foundation, will be two objectives. First, the project will engage with and attempt to answer the question, ‘Does the UK constitution (still) … Continue reading Constitutional Law Matters: A new project and a job opportunity

Oxford/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

Constitutional Law: The Big Picture I — Introduction

Each year, the lectures in Constitutional Law for undergraduate students at Cambridge are rounded off by a series entitled ‘The Big Picture’. This year, of necessity, they were delivered online rather than in-person, and so I thought I would take the opportunity to make the lectures available here in case they might be of more … Continue reading Constitutional Law: The Big Picture I — Introduction

Judicial review reform IV: Culture war? Two visions of the UK constitution

This is the final in my series of four posts concerning the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it. Focussing particularly on the direction of travel that is envisaged in the latter, I have addressed the potential implications for the doctrine of nullity, the efficacy of ouster clauses and the courts’ … Continue reading Judicial review reform IV: Culture war? Two visions of the UK constitution

Judicial review reform III: Substantive review and the courts’ constitutional role

In the first and second posts in this series on the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it, I addressed questions surrounding the doctrine of nullity, potential changes to the effect of remedies and the Government’s wish to reinvigorate ouster clauses. All of those proposals are united by at least one … Continue reading Judicial review reform III: Substantive review and the courts’ constitutional role

Judicial review reform II: Ouster clauses and the rule of law

In my first post on the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it, I considered proposals concerning the status of unlawful administrative action and the limitation of the effect of remedies. I turn, in this second post in the series, to the matter of ouster clauses (on … Continue reading Judicial review reform II: Ouster clauses and the rule of law

Judicial review reform I: Nullity, remedies and constitutional gaslighting

This is the first in a series of four short posts reflecting on the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL). Although the Government set notably broad terms of reference for the Review (on which I commented here), the IRAL report itself is generally measured and eschews many of the far-reaching reform … Continue reading Judicial review reform I: Nullity, remedies and constitutional gaslighting

The Miller II Case in Legal and Political Context

I recently completed a paper examining the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Miller II case, in which it was held that an attempt to prorogue the UK Parliament for period of several weeks in 2019 was unlawful. The following excerpt, drawn from the introduction to the article, gives a sense of the terrain that … Continue reading The Miller II Case in Legal and Political Context

The UK-EU Brexit Agreements and ‘sovereignty’: Having one’s cake and eating it?

When he was Theresa May’s Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson famously said, apropos of Brexit, that his ‘policy on cake’ was ‘pro having it and pro eating it’ — in other words, having the best of both worlds. Although the Prime Minister doubled down on that view yesterday, claiming that he had delivered the 'cakeist' fantasy … Continue reading The UK-EU Brexit Agreements and ‘sovereignty’: Having one’s cake and eating it?