I agree with this thread (though there are real issues with the design of a scrutiny process - and a serious risk, very real with the current government - of executive interference).
The temptation is to pretend that court composition doesn’t matter and that judges don’t vary - on grounds that are “political” in any meaningful sense - in their approach to questions of how the law should apply in human rights cases or cases raising big societal questions.
The problem with that pretence is that it just isn’t true: and it’s always a bad idea to rely on a proposition that isn’t true.
The case for a bit of transparency and honesty about this is strong.
Would being more frank about judicial variation and “political” differences of approach harm the judiciary? I don’t think so, if well done. The hapless US model is not the only alternative.
Nor would it harm the case for judicial review and human rights review: which doesn’t (in my view) depend on a a claim that judges are apolitical mouthpieces of impersonal law. Which is just as well, because they aren’t.
(NB because this is Twitter - I should make it clear that you can and must expect judges to be outside party and personal politics. But everyone has political and ethical views, and the law is always raising political and ethical questions - even outside public law.)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with George Peretz QC

George Peretz QC Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgePeretzQC

15 Oct
I’m not knowledgeable enough about NI politics to speak confidently about them, but it’s worth noting why some issues raised by the current UK government (in some cases for the first time) in its July paper aren’t playing out as practical problems on the ground there.
Read 7 tweets
12 Oct
No need to comment on this as there is nothing in it that is new or, apart from the irrelevant quotes from Burke, even interesting. The only thing worth commenting on would be the legal text that is being kept from us. Image
Because, as we know, it is legal text, not fluffy rhetoric, that matters.
But on the fluffy rhetoric: I don’t see much hope of a better relationship with the EU until we (a) admit the current government’s trust-destroying blunders to date and (b) stop lecturing our democratic neighbours on our allegedly greater democratic credentials.
Read 5 tweets
10 Oct
The Polish rule of law crisis obviously matters. But I don’t think this article by @SBarrettBar offers much help in understanding it or what (if any) U.K. “angle” to it there might be.
The article talks about the “Brexit deal” in a loose way: but it is (and to be fair makes clear when you read it thoroughly) that it’s talking about the TCA. So forget any thought that it might be relevant to the current government’s attacks on the NI Protocol that it negotiated.
The point being made is that Article 693 of the TCA (minor gripe: the piece uses the old numbering not the now correct one) allows either side to suspend the part of the TCA dealing with judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Read 9 tweets
10 Oct
This article has as its thesis the idea that “triggering Article 16” would require legislation in order to avoid a “clash with the judges”. But it isn’t explained why. telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/…
The domestic legal position is that, under s7A of the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 (a new section added in 2020 as part of implementing Johnson’s “oven ready deal” on which he won the election) the Withdrawal Agreement is supreme in U.K. law. Including the Protocol.
The effect of that is that, essentially, as matters stand any power exercised by Ministers will be, in domestic law, of no legal effect if it infringes the Protocol. The courts could (and would have to) quash any such measure or declare it unlawful.
Read 17 tweets
7 Oct
In which Martin Howe QC reveals why a U.K. Bill of rights won’t happen. Because our “priority as a nation” would be a right to free health care at the point of need. A priority that no Tory government would ever agree should have constitutional force. telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/0…
NB too that “strengthening free speech” would of necessity include strengthening the right to speak in objection to others’ speech (and to refuse to hear their speech or urge boycotts of those who publish their speech).
Ultimately, a debate about what our constitutional rights should be is not a debate that today’s Tory party (or probably any Tory party) wants to see happen, when it pauses for a moment to think about the issues that it would raise.
Read 7 tweets
4 Oct
This article is confused. Important to separate out two things.
1. Use of Article 16 does not “replace the Protocol”: it allows a limited and conditional suspension of parts of it. And for other “problematic” parts (eg Article 10 on State aid) there is no arguable legal basis for Article 16 measures.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(