Parliament Proposes Controversial “Interpretation Bill”

According to The Times, ‘Downing Street is to begin a fresh war with judges over a plan to let ministers throw out any legal rulings they do not like’.[1] The Bill has been termed the “Interpretation Bill” and would allow MPs to ‘strike out findings from judicial reviews with which the government does not agree’.[2] Arguably, such a Bill would be a clear affront to fundamental constitutional principles governing the UK. The rule of law requires that no individual is above the law, including the legislature and the executive. Therefore, it is arguable that MPs being able to strike down judgments they do not like could be an infringement upon the rule of law as the legislature and executive should not have a say in the actions of the judiciary.

It seems that Boris Johnson’s willingness to weaken the courts’ ability to challenge ministerial decisions through judicial review is motivated by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the R (Miller) v The Prime Minister[3] case. The Court held that Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue parliament was ‘unlawful, void and of no effect’.[4] According to Government lawyers ‘justices should not enter into such a politically sensitive area, which was legally “forbidden territory”’.[5] Therefore, such a decision was strongly opposed on the grounds that the Supreme Court is not adequately equipped to deal with such – political in nature – matters. Since the judgment was a huge victory for remainers and those opposing the Conservative party, it significantly angered Boris Johnson. As a result, Downing Street has actively been trying to limit the courts’ ability to conduct similar activities in the future.

As reported by The National, Boris Johnson ‘reportedly clashed with Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, over the plans’[6] – quite unsurprising given the nature of the proposed Bill. Arguably, this was the main reason why Buckland was replaced by Dominic Raab in September’s cabinet reshuffle. These actions seem to point to the conclusion that Downing Street is actively and unapologetically removing any opposition to the proposed Bill – an undemocratic approach to an unconstitutional Bill. According to The Independent, Mr Raab has been tasked ‘with toughening plans to reform judge’s powers to rule on the legality of minister’s decisions’.[7]  

If the proposed Bill comes to fruition, it would truly be a dark day for the UK’s constitutional order. The rule of law is such a fundamental constitutional principle that any democratic society must unequivocally adhere to it or otherwise risk heading in the direction of authoritarianism. Time will tell whether Downing Street comes to the same conclusion and foregoes the “Interpretation Bill” plans.

[1] Tom Newton Dunn and Jonathan Ames, ‘Boris Johnson plans to let ministers throw out legal rulings’ (The Times, 6 December 2021) <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-plans-to-let-ministers-throw-out-legal-rulings-qxdwm0jw5#> accessed 6 December 2021  

[2] Ibid

[3] [2019] UKSC 41

[4] Owen Bowcott, Ben Quinn and Severin Carrell, ‘Johnson’s suspension of parliament unlawful, supreme court rules’ (The Guardian, 24 September 2019) <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-supreme-court-rules-prorogue> accessed 6 December 2021

[5] Ibid

[6] Xander Richards, ‘Fury as Boris Johnson plots to let ministers rip up court rulings’ (The National, 6 December 2021) <https://www.thenational.scot/news/19764084.fury-boris-johnson-plots-let-ministers-rip-court-rulings/> accessed 6 December 2021

[7] Ella Glover, ‘Boris Johnson “planning reforms which would let ministers overrule judicial decisions”’ (The Independent, 6 December 2021) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-reforms-judicial-review-b1970290.html> accessed 6 December 2021