Legal academic. Author of 'The Making of Constitutional Democracy' (OA @HartPublishing 2022). Customary disclaimers
2 subscribers
Dec 6, 2023 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
My assessment: the bill breaches the most important constitutional boundary in the common law constitutional tradition and threatens the type of constitutional Armaggedon scenario which so far has been the subject only of obiter dicta, scholarly work, and exam papers./1
As I argue in my work, this crucial constitutional boundary is the 'nemo iudex in causa sua' principle: that is, the basic rule of natural justice that no one - and especially not the government - should be a judge in their own cause. /2
It's on, unfortunately. Where has the proverbial British pragmatism gone? What happens as a consequence of this can only have catastrophic effects for the British economy - at this particular historical moment of economic crisis, of all times!
Given that the *grossly mistaken* view expressed by Steven below is getting traction in the 'usual' circles - and might also vaguely underpin the current approach by the gov't - it is in dire need to be corrected. @DavidGauke is of course right. A short thread /1
In his tweet, Steven is displaying a remarkable confusion about what the doctrine of dualism in international means. Quite incredibly, he argues that the decision in R (on the application of SC, CB) [2021] UKSC 26 confirms his view, whereas it doesn't do any such thing./2
May 17, 2022 • 5 tweets • 3 min read
In a nutshell: if you participate in two protests in the space of five years, *just because of that* (ie even if you were not convicted of any offence), you can be subject to an SDPO which includes restrictions on your liberty, electronic surveillance, and more. #PublicOrderBill
To recap: the House of Lords throws out some of the most contentious provisions from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (now law) because they were manifestly authoritarian in nature, and the Gov't now doubles down on them in the #PublicOrderBill? This is scary stuff
Feb 2, 2022 • 16 tweets • 5 min read
This new @UKSupremeCourt's decision will be debated for quite a while, as it effectively confirms that there is not such thing as a *right* to be registered as a British citizen on the basis of Section 1(4) of the 1981 Act. Why not? /1
Because despite the wording of the provision in question ('shall be entitled'), the same Act (Section 42(3)) makes such 'entitlement' conditional on the payment of the associated fees. For 20 years, these were fixed so as to recover the full costs of processing the application./2
