In @Philip_Thompson’s world a minister can simply ignore the requirements of statute, make an unlawful decision, enact it, and then tell the court “oh well its done now, soz”.
And face punishment after the fact.
If you break the law then you can be punished after the fact. But yes its done then. So both the law and the voters should be able to enact punishment after the fact.
I believe in general crimes should be punished after they're committed not before they are.
I’ve been watching “Legal Masses” on YouTube. He is an American lawyer who specialises in copyright law, but has been commenting on some of the stuff happening in Portland and in particular the injunctions.
It is a very different legal system in many ways, but one thing that struck me time and again was the concept of “irreparable harm” which is required for an injunction, in other words something is likely to happen that cannot be put right with money.
When you talk of punishment for a minister who gets this wrong it is highly unlikely that that will mean prison or even a fine for them personally. They might get sacked (though I wouldn’t hold my breath) but more likely the department will have to pay damages; but not all wrongs can be set right with money.
The problem arises I think when Judicial Review is used not because the government got anything wrong in law but because the plaintiff is politically opposed to the policy and, having lost the political argument, wants to delay it as much as possible.
Perhaps a compromise would be to continue to allow judicial review for the executive decisions made by government or its agencies, but to prevent it for Acts of Parliament or anything which has been voted on House of Commons?
That is already the case! You cant judicially review Parliament, because it is against the law (as enacted by Parliament) which the courts are judging unlawfulness!
There is nothing to change, because that’s already the system.
This seems to be an attempt at a Judicial Review of something that was in the budget and so has been voted on by Parliament. Are you saying it has no chance of success or am I missing something?
Parliament passes law X on the climate change. Parliament passes law Y on air quality. Parliament passes budget allocating money towards theoretical scheme Z.
Government then proceeds with scheme Z but without taking into account the law of X and Y. It can then be judicially reviewed, as the Government is not taking into account the law that Parliament has passed.
If they wanted to, they could pass a 1 sentence law that exempts the scheme from the provisions in law X and Y, or amends law X and Y to not apply to scheme Z. In which case JR would not be possible.
People have to remember that the Government governs through Parliament. Not in spite of it. We all must follow laws that are already written.
Is the budget not law then?
This is where I do part company from you then: judicial review of Acts of Parliament.
I dont think that's the answer. They just need to draft legislation better and be clear if they want to override another law.
Like the whole binding referendum business. Either they thought referendums were automatically binding as some argued later should have been the case, and thus wrong, or left it out intentionally or otherwise. But if theyd drafted it to clarify the point it would not have arisen as a question.
Drafters arent perfect. But if it's not explicit that certain laws are disspplied then it seems reasonable ground to challenge on the basis parliament must be clear in its intentions and theres a conflict.
And they need reminding over and over that ministerial statements and guidance arent law.
I've started getting into Grand Designs. [Is this the start of being middle aged?] Incredible to me how cheaply they seem to build houses, particularly the ones out of wood.
And yet also how badly they estimate costs. It usually ends up 2-3 times what they thought it would
I haven't seen any of those massive cost overrun episodes yet. But huge overruns in time.
Be warned, it can be an addictive show. Look out for how many times they have no experience of managing such a project. Sometimes it works. Other times...
Grand Designs is entirely driven by story and narrative ie showbusiness.
If you are planning to go on it, have a couple of preplanned crises, otherwise they will create some.
I recommend "Your House Made Perfect" over GD any time, or "The House that 100k Built", or even Sarah Beany's "Double the House for Half the Money".
Far more realistic.
And remember that McCloud's basic profession is interior decoration. Though he has broadened his horizons a little.
I also strongly suspect Mcloud records several versions of his monologues during the process, so they can pick the right, most prescient, version for the show...
You are assuming the monologues are not created after the fact.....
I remember one, where a Northern Irish shop fitting contractor built a huge house, where McCloud seemed upset that the whole thing worked out so smoothly.
Fair point! I was hoping they were recorded at the time. Yep - a great house, built on time, and within budget has no drama at all. Who wants to see that? My favourite was a house in Bath that ran hilariously over-budget. The couple of course said they would be staying, but it was mysteriously on the market fairly soon after it was finally finished. (Stone cladding delayed by the suppliers was the story, but I suspect most suppliers want to get paid for stuff..)
Comments
NEW THREAD
Like the whole binding referendum business. Either they thought referendums were automatically binding as some argued later should have been the case, and thus wrong, or left it out intentionally or otherwise. But if theyd drafted it to clarify the point it would not have arisen as a question.
Drafters arent perfect. But if it's not explicit that certain laws are disspplied then it seems reasonable ground to challenge on the basis parliament must be clear in its intentions and theres a conflict.
And they need reminding over and over that ministerial statements and guidance arent law.
Enough armchair legality for me.
I appreciate that may be an alien concept!