This blog covered Lord Sumption’s speech here. Sir Stephen’s response in the London Review of Books takes issue with Lord Sumption’s assertion of excessive judicial interference in political matters, with the words:
there is a repeated insinuation that judicial interference in the political process regularly occurs: ‘The judicial resolution of inherently political issues is difficult to defend.’ It is not only difficult to defend; it does not happen.
Sir Stephen deconstructs the purported examples of excessive interference cited in Lord Sumption’s speech with a view to demonstrating that they are no such thing, leading him to castigate the Supreme Court Justice for presenting “exiguous evidence” in support of his thesis (a serious criticism of any lawyer, let alone one who is also an esteemed historian).
This, after accusing his Lordship of conflating government and legislature
in order to suggest that both ought to be equally immunised by their democratic credentials from judicial oversight.
The broadside is rounded off with the opinion that Lord Sumption’s critique
harms the standing of the judiciary and confidence in the law.
The debate rages on.
Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS
Related posts
- Sir Stephen Sedley’s Essay (Legal blogger Obiter J’s take on the article)
- Top judge speaks! Are the judiciary becoming too outspoken?
- One of the “great unspoken problems” about human rights law
- Bratza bites back
- Lord Justice Wall lays down law on family court privacy
