Several legal tweeps (, ) drew attention to Lady Hale's speech to the @ScotPLG last week (1/n)
In that speech, she claimed that "devolution of legislative- as opposed to executive – power turns the United Kingdom Supreme Court into a genuinely constitutional court" (2/n)
I couldn't work out whether I was hearing something new or not, so I went back to previous remarks by justices of the @UKSupremeCourt to find out. I think it's fair to say they've flip-flopped in the direction of "yes, some of the time" (3/n)
Clarke (2010): "It is important to note that the Supreme Court is not a constitutional court"
supremecourt.uk/docs/speech_10…
supremecourt.uk/docs/speech_10…
Neuberger (2015): "We are not, of course, a constitutional court, because, in common with only Israel and New Zealand, the UK has no constitution"
supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-15…
supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-15…
Hale (2015): "In a sense undreamt of in Victorian times, the Supreme Court has become a real constitutional court"
supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-15…
supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-15…
Neuberger (2017): "As in all common law countries the UK Supreme Court is also the constitutional court and the supreme administrative court"
Hale (2018): "devolution of legislative- as opposed to executive – power turns the United Kingdom Supreme Court into a genuinely constitutional court"
supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-18…
supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-18…
If anything, Hale (2018) is a less dramatic, more qualified statement than Hale (2015).
Does this matter? I think it's more useful as a window on to the (differing/changing) attitudes of justices of the UKSC than as a factor shaping how the court is received. (/end)
