Professor Graham Gee
Judicial Power Project
Graham Gee is a Professor of Public Law at the University of Sheffield. He writes on public law in the UK, and recently completed (with colleagues at UCL and Queen Mary) a three-year AHRC-funded project on “The Politics of Judicial Independence in the UK’s Changing Constitution”. His research has been cited by the Lord Chief Justice, the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the House of Commons Library and the House of Lords Constitution Committee.
Related News
Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project submits evidence to Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry on the 20th anniversary of the Human Rights Act 1998
Richard Ekins (University of Oxford and Head of the Judicial Power Project) and Graham Gee (University of Sheffield) have submitted written evidence to the inquiry by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights on 20 Years of the Human Rights Act. Download our submission or read online via Parliament’s website.
Policy Exchange's Professor Graham Gee gives evidence to Lords committee on Brexit
Professor Graham Gee of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project gave evidence to the House of Lords’ EU Justice Sub-Committee on Brexit: Enforcement and dispute resolution.
Policy Exchange Judicial Power Project's letter to Financial Times Editor published
Policy Exchange's Judicial Power Project Head, Professor Richard Ekins and Professor Graham Gee wrote to the Financial Times in responce to a recent editorial, 'Brexit places Britain’s judges in the line of fire', explaining that it wrongly states that refusal to concede a continuing role for the European Court of Justice after Brexit creates a predicament for UK judges. Their letter, entitled 'UK judges’ future looks robust, not fragile' was published in the paper and online.Related Publications
Reforming the Lord Chancellor’s Role in Senior Judicial Appointments
Download Publication Online Reader The system for appointing senior judges needs to be reformed. In this paper, we explain what has gone wrong and what should now be done to put it right. We take senior appointments to include the High Court, the Court of Appeal, leadership roles such as the Lord Chief Justice (the Head of the Judiciary in England and Wales) and Heads of Division (Master of the […]Related Blogs
Putting Judicial Power In Its Place
Assertions of judicial power and controversies about its proper exercise are nothing new. Still, constitutional law and practice are not static and the scope of judicial power in any particular jurisdiction may wax or wane over time. The common law world has long shared a particular tradition of adjudication and legislation, although a tradition that has splintered, not least into distinct British and American models of constitutional government. In many […]
Will the UK’s new senior judge change the Supreme Court?
Richard Ekins and Graham Gee of Policy Exchange's Judicial Power Project ask what the appointment of Lady Hale as President of the UK's Supreme Court means for the law. Pointing out that 'one should not overstate the importance of her new office', and that she will retire no later than 2020, they explain that she is, nonetheless, taking up 'an important public office, which she will discharge conscientiously and with good humour', and that, from her long judicial service, it is clear that she adopts a 'relatively expansive view of judicial power'.A Tale of Two Constitutional Duties: Liz Truss, Lady Hale, and Miller
A great deal has been written about the High Court’s judgment in Miller, some of it on the Judicial Power Project website. The importance of Miller, and the intensity of the reactions that the judgment has provoked, can be seen in the separate controversies over Liz Truss and Lady Hale. In this post, I reflect on the two controversies in order to highlight a striking asymmetry in the legal community’s overreaction to […]Judicial Power Project: ALBA Papers on Judicial Activism
This paper was given at the Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association (‘ALBA’) summer conference, held in Cambridge in July 2016Graham Gee responds to Joshua Rozenberg: There is no shame in debating judicial power
Joshua Rozenberg’s ‘A judge-shaming list is bad for justice’, published in The Guardian on 12 May 2016. A judge-shaming list is bad for justice Judges shouldn’t be frightened to set precedents. A list of those that have ‘gone too far’ – including over a Guardian freedom of information request on the Prince of Wales’s letters – risks deterring justice Was the UK supreme court’s judgment last year allowing the Guardian to publish letters written […]Richard Ekins and Graham Gee: How not to dismiss human rights law reform
In line with its manifesto commitment, the Government proposes to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and to replace it with a British Bill of Rights. The details of the proposal have not yet been made public. Notwithstanding this lack of detail, defenders of the HRA have (understandably) been anxious to discredit it in advance and have seized on Monday’s report from the Lords EU Scrutiny Committee as an authoritative refutation of […]