Interesting discussion. Two great contributions by Lord Sumption, responding to Martin Howe.
In response to Howe’s attack on Miller/Cherry (citing Finnis against but not mentioning the general support for the SC in the academic community): the common law has never accepted that a public officer can exercise a public power and be accountable to no one.
In response to Howe’s attempt to distinguish between JR of measures affecting individuals and measures of public policy: that amounts to saying that an unlawful act can’t be subject to JR as soon as it is said to be a matter of policy.
He’s also right to point out that turning Howe’s complaints (and the complaints of @Policy_Exchange’s Judicial Power Project) into meaningful and coherent law is going to be quite hard. I explained some of the reasons why here ...
... and here.
NB (as he made clear both this evening and in his Reith lectures) Sumption is sceptical about some recent JR decisions and about the HRA. So he is no judicial activist.
