Download Publication Online Reader The government’s Rwanda plan has been roundly denounced by the leaders of the main Christian churches in Britain. Notably, the Archbishop of Canterbury devoted his Easter sermon to the subject and the Lords Spiritual have jointly attacked the Rwanda plan in the press. Policy Exchange’s new paper answers the moral and theological critique which has been advanced in recent months. The contributors to the paper, two […]
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo. Download Publication What rights and protections does the Refugee Convention 1951 require the UK to afford to persons it recognises as Convention refugees? In answering this question, the Ninth and Twelfth Reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Nationality and Borders Bill fundamentally misunderstand the Convention, unwarrantably truncate its […]
Download Publication Online Reader This paper traces the history of several judicially demanded or created obstacles to preventing unlawful entry or removing illegal migrants. The decisions to create these obstacles, it argues, were well-motivated but unauthorised and even unprincipled. This is a story in which European courts and our own courts all have a part. In the lead was the Strasbourg Court. Our courts have sometimes criticized and slowed the […]
The Supreme Court’s prorogation judgment, Miller/Cherry, was contrary to the settled law of the constitution. This paper, which complements and completes an earlier critique, refutes attempts to deny the judgment’s revolutionary character, attempts that cannot be squared with key facts about prorogation in the run-up to the Bill of Rights 1689, with Erskine May’s Law and Practice of Parliamentary, and with the primary 20th century textbook on the law of the constitution. The paper details the factual misjudgements and injustices at the heart of the Supreme Court’s judgment, and confirms the wisdom of the law of non-justiciability that the judgment casts aside.
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Miller/Cherry [2019] UKSC 41 holds that Parliamentary sovereignty needs to be judicially protected against the power of the Government to prorogue Parliament. But the Judgment itself undercuts the genuine sovereignty of Parliament by evading a statutory prohibition – art. 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 – on judicial questioning of proceedings in Parliament.This was wholly unjustified by law.
Below is the text of the speech delivered by Professor John Finnis FBA at the relaunch of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, with an introduction from Lord Chancellor Rt Hon Michael Gove MP and a Vote of Thanks from Rt Hon Lord Justice Elias, himself a distinguished former academic. You can also download a copy of the speech in pdf format here. A video of the event is available here. Introduction As […]
