header-logo header-logo

Lord Neuberger’s salutary warning

05 November 2018 / Dr Michael Arnheim
Issue: 7816 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Parliament’s power to revoke any court decision is woefully under-utilised, says Dr Michael Arnheim

Shortly before his retirement as president of the UK Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger sounded a salutary warning, which, however, has gone almost totally unnoticed. He concluded his 2017 Neill Lecture to the Oxford Law Faculty with these words: ‘[I]n a speech concerned with the role of judges under a constitutional system based on Parliamentary sovereignty, it is perhaps appropriate to end with a reminder that any judicial decision can be revoked by Parliament through a statute.’

All the subsequent propositions flow from the first one; namely the sovereignty of Parliament, the bedrock principle of the British Constitution—which, however, is not as familiar to members of the legal profession as might have been expected. An open letter to then prime minister David Cameron signed by 1,054 barristers (reportedly including over a hundred QCs) on 9 July 2016 correctly pointed out that the Brexit referendum result had no binding force in law—but failed to recognise that the reason for this was the sovereignty
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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll