Law According To A King

What is the rule of law? In my opinion, it does not exist. It simply cannot exist. There are too many contradictions, too many gaps, and too many criteria that even the most utopian society could not declare itself subject to the rule of law. But to disregard it, we must first understand what it claims to be. Nick Barber wrote that the rule of law “asks what it means to be governed by law, rather than men.” The first societies decided their own unofficial laws based on the ideas of their leaders, whereas the first civilisations decided their laws based on the ideas of their people, with the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago. For a period of about 2 million years, hominid groups (primarily hunter-gatherers) appeared to have distributed justice based on the views of a council of elders, or often a simple individual Their laws were likely based on superstition, natural ideas of justice, and the hocus-pocus of the leaders themselves. When civilisations were developed, while brutalis...

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is far less known than the US Supreme Court, and is far less politicised in its appointment mechanisms, and so the Justices who make the most important judicial decisions in the country are often forgotten, even by law students. As such, I have written brief biographies of the twelve Justices who make up the Supreme Court, and listed some of their more famous judgments, which I urge you to read to gain an understanding of how they think and their judicial philosophies. So, here goes...  Lady Brenda Hale  Hale became President of the Supreme Court in September 2017, succeeding Lord Neuberger, after a distinguished career as a judge and an academic. She sat on the High Court for five years, the Court of Appeal for a further five, and then joined the House of Lords Judicial Committee (the precursor to the Supreme Court) in 2004.  A Cambridge graduate, Hale mostly practised in family and social welfare law, teaching these su...

Yesterday, the UK Supreme Court ruled on what is possibly the most important constitutional law case in a generation. In the case of R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41, the court handed down a judgment that we will be seeing the reverberations of for decades to come. It is an intensely political case, but the court were keen to set aside partisanship and rule simply on the law as they saw it. You may recall, a few weeks ago when Johnson announced the prorogation of Parliament, I wrote a post saying that it was a legal exercise of the prerogative powers, but evidently I was too hasty in making this judgment. Lady Hale, the President of the court, handed down a unanimous judgment that declared the prorogation was illegal, and thus, in effect, didn't happen at all. But let's look at how they came to this decision, and the key parts of their judgment... For some background: The UK decided in a referendum in 2016 to leave the EU. Whilst the result was not legally bind...