The Supreme Court’s judgment in Miller/Cherry  UKSC 41 holds that Parliamentary sovereignty needs to be judicially protected against the power of the Government to prorogue Parliament. This paper shows that the Judgment was wholly unjustified by law. It wrongly transfers the conventions about prorogation into the domain of justiciable law.
Paul Yowell’s new book, Constitutional Rights and Constitutional Design, argues that courts were not designed for the kind of moral and empirical reasoning they now routinely undertake. To consider these questions and respond to the argument of the book, Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project has solicited commentary from leading scholars and jurists.
In his recent study for Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, Sir Noel Malcolm (All Souls College, Oxford) considers European Human Rights law and finds it wanting. In February 2018, Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project convened a panel discussion to address Sir Noel’s critique of European human rights law – and his robust conclusion that the UK ought to withdraw from the Convention. The panellists committed their further thoughts to writing in this commentary series.
In this new paper the Honourable Dyson Heydon AC QC, former Justice of the High Court of Australia, asks Does Political Criticism of Judges Damage Judicial Independence?
This collection reflects on the place of judicial power in the common law constitutional tradition. It is framed around two lectures by John Finnis.
In this collection of short essays, leading political and legal thinkers reflect on the left’s traditional scepticism towards expansive judicial power.