So the good news is that the bill to exonerate the SubPostmasters gained Royal Assent last night, freeing up the fixed compensation scheme for those whose convictions are now quashed (or allowing them to apply to have their individual case assessed).
The, perhaps, not so good news, as much legal commentary has been focusing on is the (potential) precedent it sets for governments to reverse the decisions of Courts.
In this case it would seem pretty just, but in the future?
@ChrisMayLA6 I've never been sure how significant the precedent actually is, because it's inherent to Parliamentary supremacy that Parliament can always put itself above the Courts. And the Courts can ultimately only do as Parliament instructs (as we've seen with the Rwanda legislation).
Consequently, whether a similar principle is applied in future must depend on having a Parliamentary majority in favour; that has always been the only protection we ever have against a Government preventing its allies from being sentenced. Or, indeed, preventing its opponents from being acquitted.
All said, we don't have a balance of power between legislative, executive and judiciary. I happen to think that we should, but I don't expect any change in my lifetime.
I also think there are a couple of existing precedents which are tangentially related. The plan to not prosecute JR Campbell in 1924 isn't quite the same, as it hadn't reached court, but is still a case of party political interests overruling the exercise of law (albeit an unsuccessful one, because of the lack of majority in Parliament).
And going much further back, the execution of Strafford in 1641 was possible because he was considered to be generally guilty by a majority in Parliament, even though he wasn't guilty of an actual crime. If that seems too long ago to be relevant, Churchill had a plan to use Bills of Attainder to extrajudicially execute leading Nazis during the war, should they fall into British hands.
Yes, these are interesting Q.s - much of the commentary was on the potential of offer a precedent that might be miss-used... I still have some residual belief in the rule of law & so am perhaps a little less of the opinion that Courts do what the state suggests/requires. I agree that judges are under a lot of peer pressure & come from the very class exerting that pressure, for the most art, but the norm of the rule of law remains salient (albeit damaged & compromised in aspects)
@ChrisMayLA6 But the rule of law is the rule of Parliament's law. Executive actions are different; if the Government wishes to breach a law, then the Courts' duty is to overrule them.
But if Parliament passes a law, then it is the law, and adhering to the rule of law means imposing that new law.
Only in very limited situations of legislation contradicting previous law without expressly amending/abolishing it can the Courts say that primary legislation contradicts the rule of law. And Parliament is always free to overrule that.
Even with common law, that has not come from Parliament, it is expressly and immutably the case that statute law always takes precedence. There is no law, and no rule of law, other than that Parliament decrees it or acquiesces to it.
Aha, well here we are slightly talking at cross purposes - I was talking about the norm of the rule of law, whereas you are more focussed on the practice of the (rule of) law... these are of course closely connected but not quite the same.... ten years ago I ruminated on these issues at length, even if I now think I marked the high-water mark of the norm rather than (as I entitled the book) the consolidation of a common-sense.
@RolloTreadway@ChrisMayLA6 With you Rollo, up to your concluding sentence, to which i might venture to add that the Courts also take into account principles of justice, fairness (equity) equality before the law, international norms & decisions of other Common Law jurisdictions, and the admissible scope of ministerial & administrative powers under, in particular, secondary legislation. Throw in a few 2000 year old precepts from Roman jurisprudence, too. So may it continue.
@RolloTreadway@ChrisMayLA6
With all due respect, I think you are describing rule by law rather than rule of law, and more particularly the application of law within the jurisdiction of England & Wales.