Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:00:18.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE RULE OF LAW, PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY, AND A MINISTERIAL VETO OVER JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2015

Get access

Extract

R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 813 is a case of real constitutional interest and importance. The division of opinion within the Supreme Court reflects divergent conceptions of fundamental principle. While all the Justices affirmed the principles of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, they understood them differently, resulting in disagreement about their correct reconciliation on the facts of the case. The majority of Justices achieved a real integration of these basic principles in a manner that the dissentients’ superficially more straightforward approach did not.

Type
Case and Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)