header-logo header-logo

Judicial independence: A warning from America

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll