Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
More Annotations
A complete backup of domingkeyring.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of geoengineeringwatch.org
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of santorinirentarib.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of paddleboston.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of ascpskincare.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of edinburghgin.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
Favourite Annotations
A complete backup of aussiehelpers.org.au
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of themarinedetective.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of felipe-silva.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of alizons-psychic-secrets.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
A complete backup of innsbrookafterhours.com
Are you over 18 and want to see adult content?
Text
answer
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM I: NULLITY, REMEDIES AND Judicial review reform I: Nullity, remedies and constitutional gaslighting. Posted on April 6, 2021. April 7, 2021 by. Mark Elliott. This is the first in a series of four short posts reflecting on the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL). Although the Government set notably broad terms ofreference for
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM IV: CULTURE WAR? TWO VISIONS OF THESEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COM 1,000 WORDS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN CHERRY 1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2) This short piece, which forms part of my 1,000 words series of posts, aims to set out in an accessible way the key points of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case. For a more detailed and technical analysis of the judgment, see this post. JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM II: OUSTER CLAUSES AND THE RULE OF In my first post on the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it, I considered proposals concerning the status of unlawful administrative action and the limitation of the effect of remedies. I turn, in this second post in the series, to the matter of ouster clauses (on which I have written at greater length in a chapter that I A NEW APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION? MILLER IISEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COM THE UK-EU BREXIT AGREEMENTS AND ‘SOVEREIGNTY’: HAVING ONE When he was Theresa May’s Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson famously said, apropos of Brexit, that his ‘policy on cake’ was ‘pro having it and pro eating it’ — in other words, having the best of both worlds.Although the Prime Minister doubled down on that view yesterday, claiming that he had delivered the ‘cakeist’ fantasy that he had promised, the story of the last four and a REPEALING THE FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS ACT The days of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 — adopted almost a decade ago as part of the Coalition Agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties — appear to be numbered. The Government has published draft legislation to repeal the Act along with a statement of principles concerning the exercise of the prerogative power of dissolution that would be revived if the MANDALIA V HOME SECRETARY UKSC 59: LEGITIMATE The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant's visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency's own policy, the applicant THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN FINUCANE This is the first of two posts on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review UKSC 7. The second post can be found here. Legitimate expectation has long occupied an uncertain place within the broader doctrinal landscape of English administrative law. It sits, PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE May 27, 2021. May 26, 2021. Mark Elliott. During the academic year 2021-22, Professor Alison Young and I will be leading a new project entitled ‘Constitutional Law Matters’. At the heart of the project, which is generously supported by the Gatsby Foundation, will be two objectives. First, the project will engage with and attempt toanswer
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM I: NULLITY, REMEDIES AND Judicial review reform I: Nullity, remedies and constitutional gaslighting. Posted on April 6, 2021. April 7, 2021 by. Mark Elliott. This is the first in a series of four short posts reflecting on the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL). Although the Government set notably broad terms ofreference for
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM IV: CULTURE WAR? TWO VISIONS OF THESEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COM 1,000 WORDS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN CHERRY 1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2) This short piece, which forms part of my 1,000 words series of posts, aims to set out in an accessible way the key points of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case. For a more detailed and technical analysis of the judgment, see this post. JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM II: OUSTER CLAUSES AND THE RULE OF In my first post on the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it, I considered proposals concerning the status of unlawful administrative action and the limitation of the effect of remedies. I turn, in this second post in the series, to the matter of ouster clauses (on which I have written at greater length in a chapter that I A NEW APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION? MILLER IISEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COM THE UK-EU BREXIT AGREEMENTS AND ‘SOVEREIGNTY’: HAVING ONE When he was Theresa May’s Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson famously said, apropos of Brexit, that his ‘policy on cake’ was ‘pro having it and pro eating it’ — in other words, having the best of both worlds.Although the Prime Minister doubled down on that view yesterday, claiming that he had delivered the ‘cakeist’ fantasy that he had promised, the story of the last four and a REPEALING THE FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS ACT The days of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 — adopted almost a decade ago as part of the Coalition Agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties — appear to be numbered. The Government has published draft legislation to repeal the Act along with a statement of principles concerning the exercise of the prerogative power of dissolution that would be revived if the MANDALIA V HOME SECRETARY UKSC 59: LEGITIMATE The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant's visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency's own policy, the applicant THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN FINUCANE This is the first of two posts on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review UKSC 7. The second post can be found here. Legitimate expectation has long occupied an uncertain place within the broader doctrinal landscape of English administrative law. It sits, PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE In this post I analyse and reflect upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union UKSC 5. In particular, I comment on the disagreements that divided the majority and dissenting Justices, and reflect on the wider constitutional implications of JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM II: OUSTER CLAUSES AND THE RULE OF In my first post on the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it, I considered proposals concerning the status of unlawful administrative action and the limitation of the effect of remedies. I turn, in this second post in the series, to the matter of ouster clauses (on which I have written at greater length in a chapter that I THE UK CONSTITUTION UNDER PRESSURE: A LOST AGE OF CIVILITY First comes the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which, at least in orthodoxy, renders every aspect of the system vulnerable to change by a Government with effective command of a majority in the House of Commons. Second is the necessary reliance within such a system upon political forms of control — including, critically, self-control MANDALIA V HOME SECRETARY UKSC 59: LEGITIMATE The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant's visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency's own policy, the applicant ANALYSIS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN MILLER In this post I analyse and reflect upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union UKSC 5. In particular, I comment on the disagreements that divided the majority and dissenting Justices, and reflect on the wider constitutional implications of HUMAN RIGHTS, PROPORTIONALITY AND THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION: R The Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Carlile) v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 60 (press summary) (judgment) raises some interesting and significant points about the role of the courts when applying the proportionality test in cases concerning interferences with qualified human rights. The central question was whether the Home Secretary had OSBORN: THE COMMON LAW, THE CONVENTION, AND THE RIGHT TO I wrote recently about the what might happen if—as is an increasingly less-fanciful prospect—human rights law in the UK were to be fundamentally altered through repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and perhaps even withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. In that piece, I suggested that while such changes would be far from insignificant, their importance ought not 1,000 WORDS / IF EU LAW IS SUPREME, CAN PARLIAMENT BE The answer is ‘yes’. Parliament can insist that domestic legislation — either generally, or in respect of particular Acts — is to prevail over EU law. This follows because the default primacy enjoyed by EU law in the UK is itself attributable to an Act of Parliament — that is, the 1972 Act — and Parliament remainscapable of
ALI V UNITED KINGDOM : ARTICLE 6(1) ECHR AND To say that the extent to which Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights applies to administrative decision-making is a vexed issue would be something of an understatement. That it is such a problematic area is thanks in large part to the somewhat chaotic case law of the Strasbourg Court in this area. FACTORTAME AND THE VOLUNTARY ACCEPTANCE OF LIMITS ON I recently wrote a 1,000 words post on parliamentary sovereignty and the supremacy of EU law. In response, Professor David Mead wrote a thought-provoking blogpost in which he expresses doubt about the notion—invoked by Lord Bridge in the seminal Factortame case—of Parliament having ‘voluntarily accepted’ any limits upon its sovereignty implied by EU membership. PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE May 27, 2021. May 26, 2021. Mark Elliott. During the academic year 2021-22, Professor Alison Young and I will be leading a new project entitled ‘Constitutional Law Matters’. At the heart of the project, which is generously supported by the Gatsby Foundation, will be two objectives. First, the project will engage with and attempt toanswer
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM I: NULLITY, REMEDIES AND Judicial review reform I: Nullity, remedies and constitutional gaslighting. Posted on April 6, 2021. April 7, 2021 by. Mark Elliott. This is the first in a series of four short posts reflecting on the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL). Although the Government set notably broad terms ofreference for
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM IV: CULTURE WAR? TWO VISIONS OF THESEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COM 1,000 WORDS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN CHERRY 1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2) This short piece, which forms part of my 1,000 words series of posts, aims to set out in an accessible way the key points of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case. For a more detailed and technical analysis of the judgment, see this post. A NEW APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION? MILLER IISEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COM THE UK-EU BREXIT AGREEMENTS AND ‘SOVEREIGNTY’: HAVING ONE When he was Theresa May’s Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson famously said, apropos of Brexit, that his ‘policy on cake’ was ‘pro having it and pro eating it’ — in other words, having the best of both worlds.Although the Prime Minister doubled down on that view yesterday, claiming that he had delivered the ‘cakeist’ fantasy that he had promised, the story of the last four and a MANDALIA V HOME SECRETARY UKSC 59: LEGITIMATE The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant's visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency's own policy, the applicant THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN FINUCANE This is the first of two posts on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review UKSC 7. The second post can be found here. Legitimate expectation has long occupied an uncertain place within the broader doctrinal landscape of English administrative law. It sits, ALI V UNITED KINGDOM : ARTICLE 6(1) ECHR AND To say that the extent to which Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights applies to administrative decision-making is a vexed issue would be something of an understatement. That it is such a problematic area is thanks in large part to the somewhat chaotic case law of the Strasbourg Court in this area. THE DUTY TO GIVE REASONS AND THE NEW STATUTORY “MAKES NO I wrote in December about what might loosely be termed the “makes no difference” principle introduced by section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which inserts new provisions into section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The effect is that in judicial review proceedings the High Court must refuse relief if it appears “to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE May 27, 2021. May 26, 2021. Mark Elliott. During the academic year 2021-22, Professor Alison Young and I will be leading a new project entitled ‘Constitutional Law Matters’. At the heart of the project, which is generously supported by the Gatsby Foundation, will be two objectives. First, the project will engage with and attempt toanswer
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM I: NULLITY, REMEDIES AND Judicial review reform I: Nullity, remedies and constitutional gaslighting. Posted on April 6, 2021. April 7, 2021 by. Mark Elliott. This is the first in a series of four short posts reflecting on the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL). Although the Government set notably broad terms ofreference for
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM IV: CULTURE WAR? TWO VISIONS OF THESEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COM 1,000 WORDS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN CHERRY 1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2) This short piece, which forms part of my 1,000 words series of posts, aims to set out in an accessible way the key points of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case. For a more detailed and technical analysis of the judgment, see this post. A NEW APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION? MILLER IISEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COM THE UK-EU BREXIT AGREEMENTS AND ‘SOVEREIGNTY’: HAVING ONE When he was Theresa May’s Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson famously said, apropos of Brexit, that his ‘policy on cake’ was ‘pro having it and pro eating it’ — in other words, having the best of both worlds.Although the Prime Minister doubled down on that view yesterday, claiming that he had delivered the ‘cakeist’ fantasy that he had promised, the story of the last four and a MANDALIA V HOME SECRETARY UKSC 59: LEGITIMATE The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant's visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency's own policy, the applicant THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN FINUCANE This is the first of two posts on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review UKSC 7. The second post can be found here. Legitimate expectation has long occupied an uncertain place within the broader doctrinal landscape of English administrative law. It sits, ALI V UNITED KINGDOM : ARTICLE 6(1) ECHR AND To say that the extent to which Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights applies to administrative decision-making is a vexed issue would be something of an understatement. That it is such a problematic area is thanks in large part to the somewhat chaotic case law of the Strasbourg Court in this area. THE DUTY TO GIVE REASONS AND THE NEW STATUTORY “MAKES NO I wrote in December about what might loosely be termed the “makes no difference” principle introduced by section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which inserts new provisions into section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The effect is that in judicial review proceedings the High Court must refuse relief if it appears “to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE In this post I analyse and reflect upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union UKSC 5. In particular, I comment on the disagreements that divided the majority and dissenting Justices, and reflect on the wider constitutional implications of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THE BIG PICTURE I Each year, the lectures in Constitutional Law for undergraduate students at Cambridge are rounded off by a series entitled ‘The Big Picture’. This year, of necessity, they were delivered online rather than in-person, and so I thought I would take the opportunity to make the lectures available here in case they might be of more REPEALING THE FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS ACT The days of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 — adopted almost a decade ago as part of the Coalition Agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties — appear to be numbered. The Government has published draft legislation to repeal the Act along with a statement of principles concerning the exercise of the prerogative power of dissolution that would be revived if the THE MILLER II CASE IN LEGAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT The Miller II Case in Legal and Political Context. I recently completed a paper examining the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in the Miller II case, in which it was held that an attempt to prorogue the UK Parliament for period of several weeks in 2019 was unlawful. The following excerpt, drawn from the introduction to the article, gives asense
PROROGATION AND JUSTICIABILITY: SOME THOUGHTS AHEAD OF THE A good deal has been said in recent days about whether the Government’s advice to the Queen concerning the prorogation of Parliament raises a legal question on which courts can properly adjudicate. As is well-known, English and Scottish courts have so far differed sharply on this point: in the Cherry case, the Inner House of MANDALIA V HOME SECRETARY UKSC 59: LEGITIMATE The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant's visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency's own policy, the applicant THE UK CONSTITUTION UNDER PRESSURE: A LOST AGE OF CIVILITY First comes the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which, at least in orthodoxy, renders every aspect of the system vulnerable to change by a Government with effective command of a majority in the House of Commons. Second is the necessary reliance within such a system upon political forms of control — including, critically, self-control DOES THE UK HAVE A CONSTITUTION? The 2021 Cambridge Sixth Form Law Conference was recently held online. I was pleased to record a talk for the conference on Constitutional Law. I took ask my title the question: 'Does the UK have a constitution?' The question is worth asking — and attempting to answer — for at least a 1,000 WORDS / IF EU LAW IS SUPREME, CAN PARLIAMENT BE The answer is ‘yes’. Parliament can insist that domestic legislation — either generally, or in respect of particular Acts — is to prevail over EU law. This follows because the default primacy enjoyed by EU law in the UK is itself attributable to an Act of Parliament — that is, the 1972 Act — and Parliament remainscapable of
THE DUTY TO GIVE REASONS AND THE NEW STATUTORY “MAKES NO I wrote in December about what might loosely be termed the “makes no difference” principle introduced by section 84 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which inserts new provisions into section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The effect is that in judicial review proceedings the High Court must refuse relief if it appears “to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE May 27, 2021. May 26, 2021. Mark Elliott. During the academic year 2021-22, Professor Alison Young and I will be leading a new project entitled ‘Constitutional Law Matters’. At the heart of the project, which is generously supported by the Gatsby Foundation, will be two objectives. First, the project will engage with and attempt toanswer
A NEW APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION? MILLER IISEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COMMEET THE MILLERS 2WE ARE THE MILLER 2WE ARE THE MILLERS FILMWERE THE MILLERS 2 SEQUELWE RE THE MILLERS 2 TRAILERWE RE THE MILLERS AFDAH 1,000 WORDS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN CHERRY 1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2) This short piece, which forms part of my 1,000 words series of posts, aims to set out in an accessible way the key points of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case. For a more detailed and technical analysis of the judgment, see this post. PROROGATION AND JUSTICIABILITY: SOME THOUGHTS AHEAD OF THE A good deal has been said in recent days about whether the Government’s advice to the Queen concerning the prorogation of Parliament raises a legal question on which courts can properly adjudicate. As is well-known, English and Scottish courts have so far differed sharply on this point: in the Cherry case, the Inner House of MANDALIA V HOME SECRETARY UKSC 59: LEGITIMATE The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant's visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency's own policy, the applicant 1,000 WORDS / PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY 1,000 words / Parliamentary sovereignty. Since writing this post, I have written a longer piece examining the the constitutional implications of the UK’s membership of, and departure from, the European Union, with particular reference to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. An overview of the paper can be found here;the full text can
ANALYSIS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN MILLER THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN FINUCANE This is the first of two posts on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review UKSC 7. The second post can be found here. Legitimate expectation has long occupied an uncertain place within the broader doctrinal landscape of English administrative law. It sits, OSBORN: THE COMMON LAW, THE CONVENTION, AND THE RIGHT TO I wrote recently about the what might happen if—as is an increasingly less-fanciful prospect—human rights law in the UK were to be fundamentally altered through repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and perhaps even withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. In that piece, I suggested that while such changes would be far from insignificant, their importance ought not CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE HIGH COURT’S JUDGMENT IN Critical reflections on the High Court’s judgment in. Miller. The judgment of the High Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union EWHC 2768 (Admin), decided on 3 November 2016, has been subjected to astonishing and wholly misguided criticism by politicians and the press. Let us be clear, then, at theoutset
PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE May 27, 2021. May 26, 2021. Mark Elliott. During the academic year 2021-22, Professor Alison Young and I will be leading a new project entitled ‘Constitutional Law Matters’. At the heart of the project, which is generously supported by the Gatsby Foundation, will be two objectives. First, the project will engage with and attempt toanswer
A NEW APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL ADJUDICATION? MILLER IISEE MORE ON PUBLICLAWFOREVERYONE.COMMEET THE MILLERS 2WE ARE THE MILLER 2WE ARE THE MILLERS FILMWERE THE MILLERS 2 SEQUELWE RE THE MILLERS 2 TRAILERWE RE THE MILLERS AFDAH 1,000 WORDS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN CHERRY 1,000 words / The Supreme Court’s Judgment in Cherry/Miller (No 2) This short piece, which forms part of my 1,000 words series of posts, aims to set out in an accessible way the key points of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Cherry/Miller (No 2) case. For a more detailed and technical analysis of the judgment, see this post. PROROGATION AND JUSTICIABILITY: SOME THOUGHTS AHEAD OF THE A good deal has been said in recent days about whether the Government’s advice to the Queen concerning the prorogation of Parliament raises a legal question on which courts can properly adjudicate. As is well-known, English and Scottish courts have so far differed sharply on this point: in the Cherry case, the Inner House of MANDALIA V HOME SECRETARY UKSC 59: LEGITIMATE The Supreme Court gave judgment today in Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department UKSC 59. The question for the Court was whether the UK Border Agency had acted lawfully by refusing the appellant's visa-extension application without first allowing him to submit certain information concerning his application. According to the Agency's own policy, the applicant 1,000 WORDS / PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY 1,000 words / Parliamentary sovereignty. Since writing this post, I have written a longer piece examining the the constitutional implications of the UK’s membership of, and departure from, the European Union, with particular reference to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. An overview of the paper can be found here;the full text can
ANALYSIS / THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN MILLER THE SUPREME COURT’S JUDGMENT IN FINUCANE This is the first of two posts on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in In the matter of an application by Geraldine Finucane for Judicial Review UKSC 7. The second post can be found here. Legitimate expectation has long occupied an uncertain place within the broader doctrinal landscape of English administrative law. It sits, OSBORN: THE COMMON LAW, THE CONVENTION, AND THE RIGHT TO I wrote recently about the what might happen if—as is an increasingly less-fanciful prospect—human rights law in the UK were to be fundamentally altered through repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and perhaps even withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. In that piece, I suggested that while such changes would be far from insignificant, their importance ought not CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON THE HIGH COURT’S JUDGMENT IN Critical reflections on the High Court’s judgment in. Miller. The judgment of the High Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union EWHC 2768 (Admin), decided on 3 November 2016, has been subjected to astonishing and wholly misguided criticism by politicians and the press. Let us be clear, then, at theoutset
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THE BIG PICTURE III The first two pieces in this set of blogposts introduced the series of accompanying lectures and considered the role of judicial review.The overarching purpose of the series is to explore the nature of the United Kingdom’s constitution by asking whether it is better understood as ultimately malleable and flexible — such that a sovereign Parliament can, from time to time, impose whatever VIDEO: OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE INDEPENDENT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT The Faculty of Law at Cambridge, jointly with the University of Oxford’s Law Faculty, hosted a ‘virtual roadshow’ on 2 June 2021 as part of the Independent Human Rights Act Review. The event brought together members of the IHRAR Panel, academics from the two universities and members of the public. The aim of the event 2021 – PAGE 2 – PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE Posts about 2021 written by Mark Elliott. I recently completed a paper examining the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Miller II case, in which it was held that an attempt to prorogue the UK Parliament for period of several weeks in 2019 was unlawful. JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM I: NULLITY, REMEDIES AND Judicial review reform I: Nullity, remedies and constitutional gaslighting. Posted on April 6, 2021. April 7, 2021 by. Mark Elliott. This is the first in a series of four short posts reflecting on the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL). Although the Government set notably broad terms ofreference for
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM IV: CULTURE WAR? TWO VISIONS OF THE This is the final in my series of four posts concerning the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it. Focussing particularly on the direction of travel that is envisaged in the latter, I have addressed the potential implications for the doctrine of nullity, the efficacy of ouster clauses and the courts’ PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE The Admin Law Blog is a new multi-author blog concerning administrative law in the common law world. I am pleased, at the request of the editors, to cross-post the following piece, in which they announce the launch of their site and set out their vision forit.
THE JUDICIAL REVIEW REVIEW I: THE REFORM AGENDA AND ITS The UK Government has announced a review of judicial review — the Independent Review of Administrative Law — with notably broad terms of reference. This post is the first in a series that will consider some of the potential changes to judicial review that the Government appears to be contemplating. Subsequent posts, which will be THE FUNDAMENTALITY OF RIGHTS AT COMMON LAW I recently completed a paper, to be published in a forthcoming edited collection, on 'The Fundamentality of Rights at Common Law'. The concern of the paper is with the senses in, and the extent to, which common law constitutional rights can properly be regarded as fundamental. In the context of the United Kingdom’s constitution,that
THE UNITED KINGDOM’S CONSTITUTION AND BREXIT: A I recently completed work on an article for a special issue of the Japanese legal journal Horitsu Jiho. The theme of the special issue is the impact of the forces of globalisation and nationalism on constitutional law and the study of it. In my contribution, I consider the potential implications of the United Kingdom's departure OSBORN: THE COMMON LAW, THE CONVENTION, AND THE RIGHT TO I wrote recently about the what might happen if—as is an increasingly less-fanciful prospect—human rights law in the UK were to be fundamentally altered through repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 and perhaps even withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. In that piece, I suggested that while such changes would be far from insignificant, their importance ought notSkip to content
PUBLIC LAW FOR EVERYONE Professor Mark Elliott☰ Menu
* Books
* Public Law
* Common Law Constitutional Rights * The UK Constitution After Miller * Administrative Law* Categories
* 1,000 words
* Brexit
* Administrative Law * Constitutional Law* Human Rights
* Students
* Useful resources
* Study advice
* Guide to Twitter and BlogsMay 28, 2021
Mark Elliott
In the first post in this series, I explained that the aim of the accompanying set of videos — which began life as a series of lectures to Cambridge undergraduate Law students — is to address the nature of the UK constitution by posing a particular question about it. The question that I ask is… Continue reading Constitutional Law: The Big Picture II — Judicial Review →SHARE
*
Posted in Constitutional Law,
Studying & Teaching
Tagged
2021 , big picture
lectures ,
constitutional law
, studying
law
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MATTERS: A NEW PROJECT AND A JOB OPPORTUNITY May 27, 2021May 26, 2021Mark Elliott
During the academic year 2021-22, Professor Alison Young and I will be leading a new project entitled ‘Constitutional Law Matters’. At the heart of the project, which is generously supported by the Gatsby Foundation, will be two objectives. First, the project will engage with and attempt to answer the question, ‘Does the UK constitution (still)… Continue reading Constitutional Law Matters: A new project and a job opportunity →SHARE
*
Posted in Constitutional Law,
Studying & Teaching
Tagged
2021 , constitutional law,
constitutional law matters OXFORD/CAMBRIDGE INDEPENDENT HUMAN RIGHTS ACT REVIEW EVENTMay 26, 2021
Mark Elliott
As many readers of this blog will know, the Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR) was launched in December 2020 to examine the framework of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), how it is operating in practice and whether any change is required. The Review is being conducted by a Panel of eight members, chaired… Continue reading Oxford/Cambridge Independent Human Rights Act Review Event →SHARE
*
Posted in Human RightsTagged 2021
, human rights
, Human Rights
Act
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: THE BIG PICTURE I — INTRODUCTION May 24, 2021May 28, 2021Mark Elliott
Each year, the lectures in Constitutional Law for undergraduate students at Cambridge are rounded off by a series entitled ‘The Big Picture’. This year, of necessity, they were delivered online rather than in-person, and so I thought I would take the opportunity to make the lectures available here in case they might be of more… Continue reading Constitutional Law: The Big Picture I — Introduction →SHARE
*
Posted in Constitutional Law,
Studying & Teaching
Tagged
2021 , big picture
lectures ,
constitutional law
, studying
law
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM IV: CULTURE WAR? TWO VISIONS OF THE UKCONSTITUTION
April 28, 2021April 28, 2021Mark Elliott
This is the final in my series of four posts concerning the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it. Focussing particularly on the direction of travel that is envisaged in the latter, I have addressed the potential implications for the doctrine of nullity, the efficacy of ouster clauses and the courts’… Continue reading Judicial review reform IV: Culture war? Two visions of the UK constitution →SHARE
*
Posted in Administrative Law,
Constitutional Law
Tagged
2021 , Administrative Law,
constitutional law
,
constitutional reform, Faulks
review of judicial review,
judicial review
, parliamentary
sovereignty
,
rule of law ,
separation of powers JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM III: SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW AND THE COURTS’CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE
April 17, 2021April 18, 2021Mark Elliott
In the first and second posts in this series on the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it, I addressed questions surrounding the doctrine of nullity, potential changes to the effect of remedies and the Government’s wish to reinvigorate ouster clauses. All of those proposals are united by at least one… Continue reading Judicial review reform III: Substantive review and the courts’ constitutional role →SHARE
*
Posted in Administrative Law,
Constitutional Law
Tagged
2021 , Administrative Law,
constitutional law
,
constitutional reform, Faulks
review of judicial review,
judicial review
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM II: OUSTER CLAUSES AND THE RULE OF LAW April 11, 2021April 11, 2021Mark Elliott
In my first post on the Report of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and the Government’s Response to it, I considered proposals concerning the status of unlawful administrative action and the limitation of the effect of remedies. I turn, in this second post in the series, to the matter of ouster clauses (on… Continue reading Judicial review reform II: Ouster clauses and therule of law →
SHARE
*
Posted in Administrative Law,
Constitutional Law
Tagged
2021 , Administrative Law,
constitutional law
,
constitutional reform, Faulks
review of judicial review,
judicial review
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORM I: NULLITY, REMEDIES AND CONSTITUTIONALGASLIGHTING
April 6, 2021April 7, 2021Mark Elliott
This is the first in a series of four short posts reflecting on the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL). Although the Government set notably broad terms of reference for the Review (on which I commented here), the IRAL report itself is generally measured and eschews many of the far-reaching reform… Continue reading Judicial review reform I: Nullity, remedies and constitutional gaslighting →SHARE
*
Posted in Administrative Law,
Constitutional Law
Tagged
2021 , constitutional law, Faulks
review of judicial review,
judicial review
, reform
DOES THE UK HAVE A CONSTITUTION? March 28, 2021April 1, 2021Mark Elliott
The 2021 Cambridge Sixth Form Law Conference was recently held online. I was pleased to record a talk for the conference on Constitutional Law. I took ask my title the question: 'Does the UK have a constitution?' The question is worth asking — and attempting to answer — for at least a couple of reasons.… Continue reading Does the UK have a constitution? →SHARE
*
Posted in Other
Tagged 2021
, constitutional law, feature
, public law
THE MILLER II CASE IN LEGAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT January 14, 2021April 1, 2021Mark Elliott
I recently completed a paper examining the UK Supreme Court's judgment in the Miller II case, in which it was held that an attempt to prorogue the UK Parliament for period of several weeks in 2019 was unlawful. The following excerpt, drawn from the introduction to the article, gives a sense of the terrain that… Continue reading The Miller II Case in Legal and Political Context →SHARE
*
Posted in Constitutional LawTagged
2021 , constitutional law, feature
POSTS NAVIGATION
Older posts
Website Powered by WordPress.com.
Public Law for Everyone Website Powered by WordPress.com.
Write a Comment...
Email (Required) Name (Required) WebsiteLoading Comments...
Comment
×
Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email AddressCancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Email check failed, please try again Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.* FollowFollowing
* Public Law for Everyone*
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.*
* Public Law for Everyone* Customize
* FollowFollowing
* Sign up
* Log in
* Report this content * Manage subscriptions* Collapse this bar
Details
Copyright © 2024 ArchiveBay.com. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | DMCA | 2021 | Feedback | Advertising | RSS 2.0