Richard Ekins KC (Hon) is Head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project and Professor of Law and Constitutional Government, University of Oxford.
The main business for Parliament this week will be to consider the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. Enacting the bill will make it possible for the UK to ratify the withdrawal agreement and thus to leave the EU later this month in an orderly fashion, with EU law set to continue in force in the
Who runs Britain? When Boris Johnson’s lawyers made their case in front of the Supreme Court this week, defending his right to prorogue parliament, they in effect brought it back to this simple question. This was a controversy for politicians to settle, not courts. Judges, they said, should think twice about ‘entering the political arena’
The Court of Session has ruled today that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, and the prorogation that followed, was unlawful and so is null and of no effect. This is a startling – and misconceived – judgment. It does not though seem itself to recall Parliament into session, if that
In our tradition, courts do not and should not stand in judgment over parliament. It is for parliament, in conversation with the people, to choose what the law should be and the duty of courts is to uphold those choices. In the years before the UK decided to leave the EU, some judges reasoned that
The political campaign against the UK’s immigration laws secured an important victory yesterday, with the High Court denouncing sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014 as racially discriminatory – not by discriminatory intent or design but “indirectly”, by side effect. Those “right to rent” provisions make it unlawful for private landlords to rent property to
Faced with the prospect of the UK’s departure from the EU, some Britons are contemplating urgent measures, whether applying for an Irish passport or migrating to New Zealand. Nothing wrong with either, of course, but the latter is an odd reaction. After all, one of the implications of Brexit is that it restores the fundamental
A key question in the Brexit talks is how any deal between the EU and UK will be upheld. The government has begun to address this today, publishing a paper on enforcement and dispute resolution. One thing is clear: ministers are committed to extricating the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice
In widely reported remarks earlier this week, Lord Neuberger, the outgoing President of the Supreme Court, called for Parliament to tell our judges very clearly how rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are to be dealt with after Brexit. Lord Neuberger’s concern is to avoid judges being left without guidance,
The question of whether assisted suicide should be legalised is back before the courts. The High Court this week is being invited to declare that the Suicide Act 1961, which prohibits assisted suicide, is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to respect for private life. Whatever
The Government has set out the White Paper in advance of its proposed Great Repeal Bill. The Bill is not necessary for the UK to leave the EU. The Prime Minister has triggered Article 50, relying on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, and the UK is now on its way out of
The Supreme Court has today rejected the Government’s appeal from the High Court judgment by a majority of eight justices to three. The decision means that a new Act of Parliament will now be required before the Government may lawfully trigger Article 50. However, the Court has also unanimously dismissed the devolution challenges, which argued
Ordinarily, the Supreme Court sits in panels of no more than nine. All 11 justices will hear the government’s appeal, to avoid any suggestion that the composition of the panel might make a difference to the outcome. Caution is understandable: judges differ in philosophy, temperament and in how they understand their role. Lord Neuberger has been
