I am interested in this topic as well, having taught a course this summer in England. Here is what I picked up: In June, the Blair government announced a package of legal reforms (not yet enacted). The main points, as summarized by the Times of London, July 15: 1) New supreme court for the U.K., separate from the legislature (not a comm. of the House of Lords, as is true now); 2) 15 member judicial appointments commission to recommend judges for appointment; 3) targets set to boost numbers of women and ethnic minority judges; 4)judicial ombudsman to oversee complaints and judicial discipline; 5) Queen's Counsel system to be abolished; 6) Lord Chief Justice will be head of judiciary (instead of Lord Chancellor); 7) Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will have role of guarding judicial independence (whatever that means).
The article also stated: "Ministers have ruled out a US-style model with power to strike down legislation, a specific constitutional court or one whose role was to give preliminary rulings on points of law. Nor will there be US-style confirmation hearings before Parliament, with MPs or peers assessing candidates." It seems the British (I saw other stories on this) view the Bork and Thomas hearings as showing that legislative scrutiny of judicial nominees is a bad idea. So there still is no "US-style" judicial review in the U.K. because the British constitution is not viewed as a source of law capable of overturning parliamentary sovereignty. However, it is settled law (my impression) that treaties to which the U.K. is a party (such as the original EC and now EU treaties) are enforceable in British courts and so limit parliamentary sovereignty. The specific application of the European Convention on Human Rights has been made easier by the Human Rights Act of 1998, making lawsuits to enforce the convention possible in ordinary British courts (rather than going directly and expensively to the European court). Can't answer the question about injunctions. It seems the issue of whether the U.K. should have a bill of rights has been solved indirectly through the Human Rights Act. Stephen M. Griffin Vice Dean of Academic Affairs Rutledge C. Clement, Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law Tulane Law School 6329 Freret Street New Orleans, LA 70118 (504) 865-5933 (voice) (504) 862-8856 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Louise Weinberg Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 8:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Judicial review in England? August 24, 2003 To the list: Please excuse my ignorance but I am hoping someone on the list can point me in the right direction. I have three questions about judicial review in the U.K. First, I am aware that European law is now or was recently furnishing a kind of super-law under which acts of Parliament in theory are or were subject to judicial review. Apart from this, my understanding is that judicial review is irrepressible and does occur, but that British courts tame statutes through construction and interpretation. I have a vague recollection, though, that there were certain reforms (apart from the reception of European law) which might have introduced some modes of judicial review more analogous to ours. Does anybody know? Second, what happens in the U.K. when domestic law is clearly superior (better, more rational, progressive, fairer, whatever) than European super-law? The third question is a parallel question about administrative law. The few cases I have seen suggest that English injunction suits against government officials are by now quite similar to ours. Is this true? If so, is there some special court or arrangement for these, or would any court have jurisdiction? Thanks, louise
