The following article was first published by The Telegraph. Could the Supreme Court really strike down the Rwanda Bill? Former Attorney General Sir Geoffrey Cox appears to think so. In a letter to the Telegraph written with other senior barristers, he urges support for the Government’s Safety of Rwanda Bill as currently drafted, arguing that there would be grave risks if it went even further in seeking to sideline the courts. An even tougher Bill, they say, might risk a constitutional showdown with the courts that could sound the death knell of parliamentary sovereignty. Cox and his fellow bar ..read more

In an earlier post, I noted that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, at least as traditionally understood, would prevent a UK court, such as the Supreme Court, from simply refusing to apply the Rwanda Bill as unconstitutional. I also noted, however, that some senior judges have questioned the orthodox view that parliamentary sovereignty admits of no exceptions. The latter point is developed in a letter to the Daily Telegraph by four senior barristers, including former Attorney General Sir Geoffrey Cox MP. They set out several reasons why, in their view, it would be mistaken to press for ..read more

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill has been published with much fanfare, following the conclusion a treaty between the UK and Rwanda that provides for some asylum-seekers to be removed to Rwanda. Importantly, the ‘Rwanda policy’ would not involve such asylum-seekers being held in Rwanda while their claims are determined by the UK: rather, their asylum claims would be determined by the Rwandan authorities, and successful claims would result in their remaining in Rwanda rather than returning to the UK. This post seeks to answer four key legal and constitution questions about the ..read more

On 9 June 2023, Boris Johnson announced that he was resigning as an MP. He did so having been sent a draft of a report in which the House of Commons Committee of Privileges concluded that Johnson had deliberately misled the House and the Committee in relation to the so-called Partygate affair. Had Johnson not resigned, the Committee would have recommended that Johnson be suspended from the House of Commons for a period of 90 days. Since Johnson’s decision to resign as an MP and the subsequent publication of the report, a narrative has been advanced by Johnson and certain others to the effect t ..read more

As is well known, the Committee of Privileges is currently holding an inquiry into whether the Prime Minister committed a contempt of Parliament when addressing the House of Commons in relation to matters concerning ‘Partygate’. To a report published on 21 July, the Committee appended a memorandum from its legal adviser, Sir Ernest Ryder, concerning matters of procedure and a paper from the Clerk of the Journals on the notion of contempt. Today saw the publication on the UK Government website of a legal opinion written by Lord Pannick and Jason Pobjoy of Blackstone Chambers concerning the same ..read more

Until indications emerged this morning that Boris Johnson accepted what everyone else had known for some time — namely, that his position as leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister had become untenable — there was a good deal of talk about a ‘constitutional crisis’. But was there really such a crisis? And, relatedly, was it fair to suggest that the relevant rules were unclear or that matters would have been better dealt with under a written constitution? I’m not sure it was. The relevant constitutional principles are both straightforward and clear — even if some of those principles ..read more

The British Government has announced its intention to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 and replace it with a new Bill of Rights. What will this mean for human rights protection in the UK? Some things are not changing. The UK will remain part of the European Convention on Human Rights. This has nothing to do with the European Union. The Convention is an international agreement, or ‘treaty’, that the UK (along with many other countries) has agreed to abide by. As a result, the UK is required by international law to ensure that people in the UK can exercise the rights set out in the Convention. I ..read more

When the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) was introduced 25 years ago, it was accompanied by a White Paper that proclaimed the Act would ‘bring rights home’ by enabling the enforcement in UK courts of a suite of rights — set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — that were at least in part inspired by the common law tradition and by the work of British lawyers. How things have changed. The UK Government now proposes to repeal the HRA and replace it with a Bill of Rights Bill. Introducing that Bill in the House of Commons this week, the Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, distanced him ..read more

Less than three years into his premiership, Boris Johnson will (presumably) soon be appointing his third Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests. Today, the most recent incumbent, Lord Geidt, resigned. In a resignation statement that was Delphic and succinct in equal measure, he said: ‘With regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post as Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.’ Geidt’s resignation comes less than two years after that of his predecessor, Sir Alex Allan, who resigned in November 2020 when the Prime Minister refused to accept Allan’s finding that the ..read more

Interviewed on LBC, Boris Johnson said that his Government was proposing to legislate in order to make ‘trivial’ changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol. In this post, I will explain what the planned legislation will do, why the changes are not ‘trivial’, why it is, in fact, legally impossible for the UK to make unilateral changes — trivial or otherwise — to the Protocol, and why the legislation will likely place the UK in breach of international law. The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a ..read more