The Econmist - USA (2021-11-06)

52 Britain The Economist November 6th 2021

anappeals process: whatsort ofappeal

courtiscontrolledbythegoverningpoliti­

calparty?Otherpartiessaidthattheirmps

wouldrefusetositonit.

Asiftoacknowledgetheseshortcom­

ings, the government appeared to back

downaswewenttopress.Itwould,Mr

Rees­Moggsaid,bringaboutreformona

“cross­party”basisandbreakthelinkbe­

tweenMrPaterson’scaseandfuturecases.

Today’ssystemisitselftheproductof

thecash­for­questionsimbroglioin 1994

andtheparliamentaryexpensesscandalof

2009.Yetthegovernmentisnowdisman­

tlingittowishawayanothermoney­relat­

edscandal.Almosta quarter ofthe 59 back­

benchers who signed Dame Andrea’s

amendmenthadpreviouslybeenfoundin

breachofparliamentarystandards.David

Cameron,theprimeministerfrom 2010 to

2016,wasrecentlyhauledoverthecoalsfor

lobbyingonbehalfofGreensillCapital,a

financialcompanythatlaterfailed.Yetthe

governmenthasnowprotectedyetanother

Torympwhousedhisofficetolobby.

ThePatersonaffairlookslikelytofur­

therunderminepublictrustinpoliticians

ingeneralandToriesinparticular.How

will richrewards for lobbyinggo down

withtheConservativeParty’snewwork­

ing­class votersin northernconstituen­

cies?Thatmps votedfortheamendmentby

just 250 to232,despitea governmentma­

jorityof 80 anda three­linewhip,suggests

manyTorymps areuneasy.MrRees­Mogg

closedhisspeechbysayingthat“some­

timestodotherightthing,onehastoac­

cepta degreeofopprobrium”.Thegovern­

menthasjustearneda greatdealofoppro­

briumbydoingthewrongthing.n

Judicialindependence

Government v judges

Tory claims that judges intrude too far into politics are wrong-headed

M

inisters neverlike seeing their de­

cisions  overturned.  But  in  a  rules­

based system, they must usually live with

it. Yet Britain’s government has concluded

that such reversals happen too often—and

wants to change the rules to curb one pur­

ported cause, an obstructive judiciary. This

raises constitutional concerns.  

Exhibit one is a bill now going through

Parliament  that  seeks  to  curb  judicial  re­

views, in which senior judges consider the

legality or otherwise of a public body’s ac­

tions.  They  have  certainly  become  more

common  in  recent  decades.  Ministers

from  both  parties  have  at  times  sought  to

limit  their  scope  or  even  stop  them  alto­

gether, partly to save money. The draft bill

is  actually  quite  mild.  But  it  includes  an

ouster  clause  that  would  prevent  judicial

review of controversial immigration cases.

David  Davis,  a  former  Conservative

minister,  opposes  the  bill  for  this  reason.

He fears that the ouster clause may become

a model for obstructing review of employ­

ment­tribunal  or  social­security  deci­

sions.  Yet  some  prefer  to  broaden  the  bill

instead. Richard Ekins, an Oxford academ­

ic  who  runs  the  judicial­power  project  at

Policy Exchange, a think­tank, says exces­

sive judicial review has led unaccountable

judges into areas that should be decided by

politicians accountable to Parliament.

Some  ministers  agree.  Dominic  Raab,

the  lord  chancellor  and  justice  secretary,

has  criticised  some  judicial­review  deci­

sions, notably relating to Brexit. He wishes

to  stop  the  powers  of  Parliament  being

whittled away by what he characterises as

“judicial legislation”. To this end, he wants

an unspecified mechanism to allow Parlia­

ment  swiftly  to  “correct”  what  ministers

deem to be wrong judgments. Mark Elliott,

a Cambridge academic specialising in pub­

lic law, finds this idea deeply troubling, es­

pecially if it is done through secondary leg­

islation or applied retrospectively.  

Yet  it  is  favoured  by  Suella  Braverman,

the  attorney­general.  In  a  recent  speech

she said judicial review was being used “as

a  political  tool  by  those  who  have  already

lost  the  arguments”,  and  that  litigation

must not be the continuation of politics by

other means. She took aim at court rulings

in two Brexit cases: one that the process for

leaving  the  eu could  only  be  started

through primary legislation, the other nul­

lifying a prorogation of Parliament. 

It  seems  bizarre  that  law  officers  nor­

mally  expected  to  defend  the  judiciary

should attack it instead. It is also mislead­

ing  of  critics  to  claim  that  the  judges  in

these two cases were trying to frustrate the

Brexit  referendum  (the  Daily Mail head­

lined its report on one “Enemies of the Peo­

ple”). In fact the judgments sought to bol­

ster  the  role  of  Parliament,  supposedly  a

big goal of Brexiteers.

A  similar  confusion  besets  another  of

Mr Raab’s targets: foreign judges. He wants

not  just  to  end  any  role  for  the  European

Court  of  Justice  in  Luxembourg,  but  to

overhaul the Human Rights Act, which ob­

liges  domestic  judges  to  take  account  of

rulings by the separate European Court of

Human  Rights  in  Strasbourg.  But  the

echr’s  role  derives  from  the  European

Convention  on  Human  Rights,  to  which

Britain is a signatory (indeed, British law­

yers wrote most of the treaty). To withdraw

would make Britain one of only two signif­

icant European countries outside its juris­

diction (the other is Belarus).

David  Gauke,  a  former  Tory  lord  chan­

cellor,  points  out  that  gutting  the  Human

Rights Act could, perversely, see more cas­

es going direct to Strasbourg. It would also

send an unhelpful signal about the impor­

tance of international law. Britain has long

been a firm supporter of the concept. Any

reversal  would  be  especially  unfortunate

at  a  time  when  countries  such  as  Poland

and  Hungary  are  under  attack  for  under­

mining judicial independence.

This anti­judicial agenda seems at odds

with the separation of powers. Britain has

never been purist about this (Lord Mackay,

another former Tory lord chancellor, used

to say he was its antithesis, as a judge serv­

ing in the cabinet and also a member of the

legislature).  But  the  British  constitution

broadly accepts that the legislature, execu­

tive and judiciary should be separate.

If there is a problem, it is surely an over­

weening executive. Parliamentary scrutiny

of government can be feeble. A good exam­

ple, as it happens, was the Brexit trade deal,

which  saw  a  treaty  of  over  1,000  pages

rushed through with minimal debate (Tory

mps have only just woken up to the impli­

cations  for  Northern  Ireland  of  measures

they  enthusiastically  voted  for).  Under­

mining international law and intimidating

judges  will  hardly  improve  checks  on  the

executive.  Some  45  years  ago  Lord  Hail­

sham,  yet  another  former  Tory  lord  chan­

cellor, talked of the risks of “elective dicta­

torship”. He hadinmind a Labour govern­

ment,  but  his  wordsmay  apply  more  to  a

Conservative one.n