Conservatives Attack On The Judiciary.

[Gromit]

After several embarrassing defeats in the Courts of the Conservative Government, and Boris in particular, the Tories, in their manifesto published today, plan to clamp down on the courts of the law to uphold the law and keep our politicians accountable.

Hidden in the manifesto is this threat:
// We will ensure that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays. In our first year we will set up a Constitution, Democracy & Rights Commission that will examine these issues in depth, and come
up with proposals to restore trust in our institutions and in how our democracy operates. //

Fascism here we come.

[Peter Pedant]

// And parliament isn't above the law.//

erm Bill of Rights 1689 - courts will not take on cases concerning the proceedings of parliament

so erm in this sense - it is....

(this was one of the defences to the MIller case and the judges did not like the idea of prorogation being a proceeding in parliament)

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, the manifesto says, "After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our
constitution: the relationship between
the Government, Parliament and the
courts; the functioning of the Royal
Prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for
ordinary people."

[THECORBYLOON]

For some reason, the formatting goes to pot when I copy and paste from a pdf document.

[THECORBYLOON]

Ignore this post
After Brexit we also need to look
at the broader aspects of our
constitution: the relationship between
the Government, Parliament and the
courts; the functioning of the Royal
Prerogative; the role of the House
of Lords; and access to justice for
ordinary people.

[THECORBYLOON]

That's what like it looked when I pasted it and even when I changed it, the formatting was wrong.

[Barmaid]

I'd wholeheartedly support access to justice for ordinary people. The wholesale cuts in legal aid and the massive hike in court fees have made it very difficult for people to fight cases which could change their lives. I've done 3 pro bono cases recently where I've gone as far as I can but the Court fees have made pushing matters to a conclusion impossible. The other side in every case who hold the purse strings know this and use it to their advantage.

On a different issue, in my view it is fundamental that the government must govern within the law and an independent judiciary having the ability to scrutinise this is crucial. I didnt agree with Gina Miller's endgame, but I did agree with the plea that what was done must be done legally - in some ways she scored a massive own goal by the Court ruling as it did and Parliament having to act accordingly. Any attempt to limit the ability of the Court to ensure that even Parliament must follow the law must, in my view, be strongly resisted.

[THECORBYLOON]

If the Government has done something found by a court to be unlawful or illegal, why should it matter who prompted the court action?

[Gromit]

The Independent has finally noticed the attack.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-brexit-latest-boris-johnson-article-50-second-referendum-a9217656.html

[Barmaid]

In my view it doesnt TCL, I just mentioned GM because I thought I saw her name mentioned earlier on the thread (although it might have been another thread). The importance is that I do not believe the Court's ability to rule on the actions of the government should be limited (if that is what is proposed).