LAWYERS have reacted with fury to reports that Downing Street is plotting to allow ministers to rip up any judicial rulings they don’t agree with.
The Times claims that plans have been drawn up by Justice Secretary Dominic Raab and Attorney General Suella Braverman at the behest of the Prime Minister.
The top Tories are planning to have an “Interpretation Bill” pass the Commons on an annual basis, allowing the Government to summarily dismiss any court rulings they did not like from that particular year.
READ MORE: Question of meaning of 'sex' in Scotland's census heads for court battle
Johnson had reportedly clashed with Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, over the plans. Buckland was replaced in the role by Dominic Raab in September’s reshuffle, ostensibly removing the opposition to the Prime Minister’s plans.
Joanna Cherry commented that Buckland's approach had been "too vanilla" for Johnson, adding: "These proposals are an affront to democracy and the rule of law."
Johnson is reportedly still fuming about the Supreme Court ruling on a case brought by Cherry which found his prorogation of Parliament in the run-up to one of the multiple Brexit “deadlines” was unlawful.
The Prime Minister’s allies will argue that the bill reinforces the idea of constitutional sovereignty, prioritising the decisions of elected ministers over unelected judges.
Braverman (above) said previously: “If we keep asking judges to answer inherently political questions, we are ignoring the single most important decision-maker in our system: the British people.”
However, the plans have sparked outrage in the legal community.
Edward Garnier QC, solicitor-general in David Cameron’s administration, told The Times that Johnson’s government had been reminded by the Supreme Court “that this is a country under the rule of law and not under a dictatorship”.
He added: “This government seems to forget that like all of us it, too, is subject to the law.”
Human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar also drew comparisons to authoritarian regimes.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson 'taking people for mugs' in row over No10 Christmas parties
He wrote: “Usually the final step to dictatorship, no more rule of law, no more equality before the law, accountability to or fairness in application of law, @BorisJohnson wants to end our rights to his government enacting law in an open and transparent manner, it’s about democracy.”
Good Law Project director Jolyon Maugham QC said the Government was aiming to “secure a more compliant judiciary”.
He added: “It's the same strategy as the Government successfully adopts with the BBC. Attack it, keep it fearful of its future, and you win obeisance.”
Dr Mike Galsworthy commented: “It really is more than ‘one rule for them’ … It’s a case of ‘we are above the law - and we’ll throw it out when we don’t like it’.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel