0

What are abuses of executive power that

  1. the UK Parliament and parliamentary oversight failed to adequately safeguard against,

  2. judicial oversight ought to be increased for?

    Please list multiple ones! Please don't discuss Miller II [2019] UKSC 41 that I already grasp. A unanimous UKSC ruled that Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament in 2019 was unlawful and void.

I don't think Miller I [2017] UKSC 5 involved one. On the first point, just 8 of the 11 justices ruled that "an Act of Parliament is needed before Brexit can be triggered".

Of the three judges who dissented on the question of whether legislation is needed, Lord Reed gave the fullest judgment. He argued that EU law is not a source of UK law, but is rather a distinct body of law, and that the 1972 Act merely gives effect to EU law in the UK to the extent that the UK’s treaty obligations require. If, said Lord Reed, the UK leaves the EU and therefore no longer has any relevant treaty obligations, that will not cut across the Act. Parliament had not intended that people in the UK should have or retain any particular EU rights, merely that UK and EU law should be aligned for the duration of membership.

  • While I heartily agree with your sentiment, I strongly suspect this question will (in its current form) be closed as off-topic. I recommend that you reword it to make it more objective, cite references to examples where the executive exceeded the law and judicial powers put them in their place (I don't think you should have difficulty finding some of them) and then phrase the question in a way that is constructively answerable. – GeoffAtkins Feb 20 at 7:55
  • 2
    @GeoffAtkins Thanks. does my edit improve things? "examples where the executive exceeded the law and judicial powers put them in their place (I don't think you should have difficulty finding some of them) " - i can think of just one. – Lady in England Feb 20 at 7:59
4

One of the principal powers of the court is to judicially review secondary legislation. Unlike primary legislation, the judges can quash secondary legislation if it was not made properly, or if it doesn't fit with the aims or scope of the primary legislation.

Some examples (taken from blog)

  • The executive abused its powers to create secondary legislation restricting the access of overseas visitors to health services, without considering its duties under the Equality Act 2010.

  • The executive abused its powers to vary teacher's contracts (with regards to access to higher levels of pay) by not following any of the correct procedures.

These are no major constitutional issues. The laws to correct these abuses already existed. It was, therefore, a judicial process to rectify the abuse, not a Parliamentary one. Parliament failed to adequately protect against these, only in the sense that the primary legislation was not sufficiently clear that the executive believed it could "get away with it".

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .