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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll