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

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 soverei...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cambridge law journal 2015-11, Vol.74 (3), p.385-388
Main Author: Allan, T.R.S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attorneys general
CASE AND COMMENT
Decision making models
Freedom of information
Judicial process
Law and legislation
Parliamentary procedure
Rule of law
Social aspects
Sovereignty
Vetoes
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0008-1973
1469-2139
DOI:10.1017/S000819731500077X