header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Battle of the giants

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
20 February 2015 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 7641 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

Geoffrey Bindman QC analyses a judicial confrontation

When two senior judges cross swords over a fundamental constitutional question we sit up and take notice. The judges are Dean Spielmann, president of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and Lord Judge, recently retired Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. The question is whether decisions and opinions of the Strasbourg Court override or “trump” the authority of the UK Parliament. It is particularly significant because the prime minister has declared that if his party is elected to government in May it will seek to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and remove any binding effect on the UK of rulings of the Court of Human Rights. The promise is to “end the ability of the European Court to change British laws”. In its press release announcing this policy, the Conservative party quotes Lord Judge, implying his support for its proposals.

Criticisms

Judge Spielmann in “A View from Strasbourg” (Counsel, April 2014), defends his court against these criticisms. In particular

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Firm strengthens catastrophic injury capability with partner promotions

DWF—Dean Gormley

DWF—Dean Gormley

Finance and restructuring team offering expands in Manchester with partner hire

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Firm announces appointment of head of remortgage

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Failure to deliver in Getty v Stability AI
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
NLJ this week: Spotlight on the Supreme Court in 2025
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
NLJ this week: Mind the registration gap
Delays at HM Land Registry are no longer a background irritation but a growing source of professional risk. Writing in NLJ this week, Phil Murrin of DAC Beachcroft explores how the ‘registration gap’—now stretching up to two years in complex cases—is fuelling client frustration, priority disputes, and negligence claims
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll