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 … Continue reading
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 … Continue reading
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 … Continue reading
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 … Continue reading
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 … Continue reading
Hayley J. Hooper: Balancing Access to Justice and the Public Interest: Privacy International and Ouster Clauses in the Broader Constitutional Context
In November 2017, the Court of Appeal in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal unanimously held that a so-called “ouster clause” in respect of the of the Investigatory Powers … Continue reading
Thomas Fairclough: Privacy International: Constitutional Substance over Semantics in Reading Ouster Clauses
I have previously written on this blog and elsewhere about statutory interpretation and the rule of law. In the previous blog post I stated that the idea “that the courts … Continue reading
Joe Tomlinson: Ouster Clauses Inside-out
Last week’s decision in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin) gained immediate attention among public lawyers (see Paul Daly’s blog article here and Mark Elliott’s blog article … Continue reading
TT Arvind and Lindsay Stirton: Why the Judicial Power Project Is Wrong about Anisminic
Editors’ note: Following discussion with the editors of the Judicial Power Project (JPP) Blog, the UK Constitutional Law Blog is prepared, subject to editorial decision, to print replies to JPP … Continue reading
Mark Aronson: Statutory Interpretation or Judicial Disobedience?
In Australia as in England, courts began “reading down” legislative grants of broad and seemingly unfettered discretionary power long before the currently fashionable “principle of legality” entered the public lawyer’s … Continue reading
