The continuing failure of our law of public protest was made vivid again last week, when Amanda Kelly, a District Judge, found four members of Insulate Britain not guilty of the offence of wilful obstruction of the highway.
Channel crossings are a specific challenge that warrant a robust response: the Home Secretary should be mandated to ensure all who arrive by such means are removed.
As drafted it would let many of those who block highways and vandalise property get away with it, just as they do today.
What is needed is legislation that would shift the default, making it mandatory for the Government to act and thus not leaving it with the option of stopping when Strasbourg objects.
The Court has simply made up its jurisdiction to provide interim relief. More specific to this case, it had no proper application before it.
The Government’s plan may mean a change from the Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council – widening the set of judges who sit.
The fifth of a series of pieces from Policy Exchange looking at specific issues that arise from the Brexit trade deal.
Worse, its judgement has knock-on implications for the effectiveness of government. Urgent corrective legislation is needed.
This is the first of a three-part ConHome mini-series from Policy Exchange on the judges, public policy and the election.
Courts should not interefere in Parliamentary processes, it is not their role, and the Supreme Court has no power to quash the prorogation.
Lord Reed’s presidency will hopefully lead to a return to a humbler, more traditional approach to the balance between the judiciary and Parliament.
If MPs want to disrupt the constitution and limit prerogative powers, they should say so in terms, not indirectly with a nudge and a wink.
A number of important points about his view have been overlooked or misunderstood by some MPs and commentators.
The European Court of Justice has always played fast and loose with the law to drive forward EU integration.
They have been introduced in response to backbench pressure – with the Government seeming to accept the argument that the Bill as introduced was vulnerable to litigation. Parliament should accept them, but should be aware that some risks remain.