Reform and the future of the UK constitution
Codification, devolution, House of Lords, the HRA, electoral reform, and Scotland — the principal reform debates and the political conditions for change.
Constitutional Reform Act 2005
CRA 2005
6 landmark · 0 recent judgments · 30 semantic matches for “Reform and the future of the UK constitution”
Courts cannot invalidate Acts of Parliament regardless of international law breaches.
Ratification of Maastricht Treaty a non-justiciable matter of high policy.
House of Lords confirms EU law supremacy over UK Acts of Parliament
UK's blanket prisoner voting ban violates European human rights law
Extradition case clarifying consent boundaries and deceptive conduct in sexual offences.
Certain statutes have constitutional status and cannot be impliedly repealed.
EU law supremacy requires domestic courts to disapply conflicting national legislation.
House of Lords allows courts to consult Hansard for statutory interpretation
European Court rules UK thalidomide injunction breached press freedom
Supreme Court strikes down employment tribunal fees as barrier to justice
Ministers cannot use prerogative powers to frustrate Parliament's statutory scheme
House of Lords rules prerogative powers subject to judicial review
Transgender rights triumph as Europe rules UK must recognise gender reassignment
Pre-HRA courts cannot directly apply European Convention rights in judicial review.
Supreme Court guarantees prisoners' right to fair parole hearings
Courts cannot question the validity of Acts of Parliament once properly enacted.
Parliamentary privilege does not protect MPs from criminal prosecution for expenses fraud
Apollo Engineering, represented by its director Mr Politakis acting in person due to lack of funds, sought to appeal two interlocutors from a stated case concerning a contractual dispute with James Scott Ltd over pipe construction work from 1990. The Court of Session had refused his motion to represent himself and made orders treating the proceedings as incapable of achieving value. The Supreme Court considered whether the interlocutor was appealable and the balance between fair hearing rights a