Tag: Anisminic
-
Raffael N. Fasel: Ouster Clauses and the Silent Constitutional Crisis
In a recent comment on the Government’s Rwanda Bill and on speculations about an unprecedented strike down by the Supreme Court, Professor Mark Elliott asked a question that has been on many UK public lawyers’ minds lately: “Are we headed for a constitutional crisis?” This question, to be sure, is not new. However, with a…
-
Lewis Graham: On Ouster Clauses (Again)
When we think of the most important ouster clauses in the law of judicial review, we might think of the relevant parts of the Foreign Compensation Order considered in Anisminic, or section 67(8) the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, crucial to the decision in Privacy International. We might consider section 2 of the Judicial Review…
-
Finnian Clarke: Habeas Corpus and the Nature of “Nullity” in UK Public Law
Introduction In the case of The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Supreme Court briefly directed its focus to its understanding of the nature of “nullity” following a finding of administrative unlawfulness. Its approach surprised some commentators,…
-
Alison Young: Prorogation, Politics and the Principle of Legality
Constitutional lawyers often point to key cases as milestones in public law. Recently, the Supreme Court decision in Privacy International joined the ranks of leading public law cases, adding to the cases discussing ouster clauses and the extent to which courts can review decisions of inferior courts and tribunals in Anisminic and Cart. As Privacy…
-
Hanna Wilberg: The Limits of the Rule of Law’s Demands: Where Privacy International Abandons Anisminic
Statutory ouster of judicial review has long been considered to offend the rule of law. But just what does the rule of law demand in this context, and is ouster really inconsistent with those demands in all circumstances? Some interesting answers to these questions feature in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal. At least…
-
Tom Spencer: The Sovereignty of Parliament, the Rule of Law, and the High Court of Parliament
Introduction The treatment of ouster clauses in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal has been said to violate parliamentary sovereignty. This post disagrees. That assertion, it argues, misapprehends the rule of law as founded upon the sovereignty of ‘Parliament’ by ‘the High Court of Parlyament’ as recognised in the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act…
-
Mike Gordon: Privacy International, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Synthetic Constitution
The case of R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the latest in a series of high profile judicial engagements with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The case concerned the legal status of s.68(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and in particular, whether this provision constituted a successful attempt to oust…
-
Anurag Deb: Privacy International: A Matter of Constitutional Logic and Judicial Trust?
Introduction The High Court and Court of Appeal decisions in Privacy International v IPT have ignited the debate on the ‘validity’ or otherwise of ouster clauses in the UK constitution (see analyses in the Admin Law Blog and the UKCLA Blog). At one end is the argument that ouster clauses prevent the correction of legal…
-
Adam Tucker: Parliamentary Intention, Anisminic, and the Privacy International Case (Part Two)
In Part 1, I cast Anisminic as an example of a common law doctrine of interpretation which can require courts to depart from the intention of Parliament when interpreting ouster clauses. Here, I examine how that bears on Privacy International. The Limited Relevance of Anisminic Anisminic demonstrates that the court must distinguish between those decisions…
-
Adam Tucker: Parliamentary Intention, Anisminic, and the Privacy International Case (Part One)
Introduction Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard argument in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal. This litigation has already attracted substantial scholarly attention in the published literature (notably in articles by Paul Scott and Tom Hickman in Public Law) and online (including a symposium at the Administrative Law in the Common Law World…