@adam.publiclaw.space
Constitutional lawyer at University of Liverpool & Bingham Centre. Interested in legislative power and its limits. Currently finishing book on parliamentary sovereignty But easily distracted esp by delegated legislation, and statutory interpretation.
He also said we're on the brink of civil war, Reform share the MAGA world view, civil service needs dismantling, he doesn't talk to people not in his camp - and more.
Interviewer's (sanewashing) reaction? He's an imp, he looks less right wing than when he was a tory, maybe even ready for power.
Chamberlain J
- refuses interim relief in Rupert Lowe's application for judicial review of Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
but also
- as the parliamentary privilege point is "complicated" and novel, it's not "clear that there is no serious question to be tried"
so
- full hearing in March
Ooh I thought this wasn't due until tomorrow.
Text from linked news story, which reads: "Royal sources indicated on Saturday that King Charles would not stand in the way of parliament if it wanted to ensure the former prince could never ascend to the throne"
This rather presupposes that the King sees himself as having some kind of power - which in this instance he has decided not to deploy - to obstruct Parliament when it wants to legislate...
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026...
There's a certain tension between (older) case law on fettering and (more modern) cases requiring fidelity to policies - which can/do (necessarily?) limit discretion
It can't be resolved that bluntly
(The failure to cite authorities, including on this issue, throughout this judgment is unhelpful)
It's a further point (sorry I am mixing them) that I think the court ends up with notion of irrelevant consideration - even self-imposed - that is so broad that it can be read as foreclosing too many plainly relevant consequentialist considerations. I just think it'll need tightening to survive.
But here, it only became an irrelevant consideration because the Home Secretary made it so (via the policy). Otherwise, ground 5 would have been upheld. Even if she did tie her hands in that way...she just has to untie them.
A final aside on the delegated legislation context - the court rightly gives short shrift (at 102) to the idea that the fact that proscriptions take effect through statutory instruments somehow insulates them from the full force of judicial review because they are "legislative". A pleasant surprise
And importantly, and unlike A, the government cannot overcome finding B by reformulating the policy or remaking the decision based on some other more carefully crafted pretext etc
It's grounded in facts about the nature of (i) the proscription regime and (ii) Palestine Actions and its activities.
So here we have the additional rule of law virtue (not always present in judicial review cases...) that the legal flaw which emerges from applying multiple systematised grounds of review ultimately maps fairly directly onto the moral flaw in the decision which was the real problem all along.
B on the other hand is emphatic (and surely correct). The fair balance finding (at 140) clearly and simply captures what makes this proscription an abuse of discretionary power. And is carefully tied to evidence etc over several paragraphs.
When it's put like that, it is quite weird.
Any higher court minded to uphold this finding will probably also want to reformulate the policy issue - at least so it can't be glossed like that.
My v quick evaluation
A is a bit awkward in its detail. It seems to rely on the finding (see the court's own gloss at 149) that the Home Secretary has managed to lumber herself with a policy that makes "the advantages to be had...consequent on proscription" into an irrelevant consideration.
Now, the factor which drives 2 is simply the finding at 1. So those two stand or fall together. The duplication means the court really only identified just 2 legal flaws in the proscription:
A the failure to follow the policy (doubly unlawful - common law and HRA)
B the lack of fair balance (HRA)
Some quick thoughts on Ammori (apologies if I miss stuff, or misstate things)
The court finds the proscription unlawful at 3 junctures here
1. The failure to apply the policy (common law)
2. The "legal basis" and 3. The "fair balance" stages of the proportionality test for human rights (HRA)
The Representation of the People Bill has been introduced to Parliament and published:
bills.parliament.uk/bills/4080
This (the Telegraph, not Andrew's riposte) is constitutional mischief making.
Changes of PM do not trigger general elections, even if accompanied by a change of policy direction (even a real one, like, say, Sunak's - let alone, like in this case, one found in the imagination of an unnamed source)
Looks like the effectiveness of electoral law may be facing a test:
manchestermill.co.uk/exclusive-re...
@manchestermill.bsky.social really does some extraordinary work.
On access by Palantir (and other companies) to the UK's national security infrastructure, this recent paper sets out developments in contracting out UK national security protection and raises questions about what this means for the UK's operational independence: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
I rather like the drafting of this Bill - which explains the tangle of primary and secondary legislation it is revoking as it goes along.
Neatly avoids the risk of over-complication, good for the public understanding of law, good for the rule of law. Kudos to the drafters whoever they are.
Ooh - there's a rare non-parliamentary-sovereignty usage of "manner and form" in here.
(Amongst other, more significant, virtues)
Call for papers for a workshop on Economic Aspects of the Constitution: www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_...
"Permanently" I wonder how?
(Strictly speaking it's neither in the text of Milliband's speech nor the Labour manifesto. But still)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
File this alongside "all primary schools must offer swimming lessons"...
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
Just a reminder that from tomorrow, 30th September 2025, the process for accessing legal advice from GMIAU will be changing.
To help, here is an updated guide outlining how professionals can make referrals to GMIAU under the new system. Please use and share with anyone who may need it.
Visas are a means, not an end. So this also requires policies which would give these people a reason to want/need that visa - mould an attractive working environment, ensure stability for them and their families, foster a public culture which isn't relentlessly anti-immigrant. Etc.
Over 1600 people have now been arrested for offences like "wearing or displaying clothing" that arouses suspicion that they support Palestine Action. Impossible to overstate how repressive this is.
There are serious rule of law and human rights issues with how proscription under s3 of the Terrorism Act leads automatically - indiscriminately, for all proscribed organisations - to the prohibition(s) in s13 grounded in (mere) "circumstances" which (merely) "arouse reasonable suspicion" of support
Fascism isn't "a gimmick"
Destroying our entire national community, wiping out the economy, and ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens - who now live with the fact that threat was taken seriously as a policy proposal - is not the endpoint of any "reasonable concerns"
This is the worse exposé ever!
"It was easy to buy black market tickets. 100% of the ones we bought worked fine and one even came with a free pint! Here's a handy graphic of the sellers who sorted us out, with prices. By the way, please don't do this."
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articl...