header-logo header-logo

23 February 2024 / Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC
Issue: 8060 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Constitutional law , International
printer mail-detail

Judicial independence: A warning from America

160023
Do we want a written constitution? Sir Geoffrey Bindman KC sees a problem

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom replaced the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in 2009, as directed by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The Judicial Committee was an anomaly. It was the final court of appeal in the judicial system, yet—defying the axiomatic separation between legislators and judiciary—it was embedded in Parliament. The Supreme Court is now physically as well as constitutionally independent of the legislature. It is the ultimate arbiter of what is lawful but must obey legislation enacted by Parliament. In this it differs from the Supreme Court of the United States, which can nullify legislation and its effect by declaring it incompatible with the written US constitution.

We of course have never had any such overriding document. Recent investigations and proposals considered whether we should adopt one. They culminated in the government’s Bill of Rights Bill, recently abandoned following the departure from ministerial office of Dominic Raab

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll