Account
Coffee House

Do our Supreme Court judges have too much power?

Share
R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers TribunalSection 67(8)
'Except to such extent as the Secretary of State may by order otherwise provide, determinations, awards and other decisions of the Tribunal (including decisions as to whether they have jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or be liable to be questioned in any court.'
R (DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions,Privacy International v Investigatory Powers TribunalAnisminicpurportedAnisminicthe courtswhether
“In conclusion on the second issue, although it is not necessary to decide the point, I see a strong case for holding that, consistently with the rule of law, binding effect cannot be given to a clause which purports wholly to exclude the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to review a decision of an inferior court or tribunal, whether for excess or abuse of jurisdiction, or error of law. In all cases, regardless of the words used, it should remain ultimately a matter for the court to determine the extent to which such a clause should be upheld, having regard to its purpose and statutory context, and the nature and importance of the legal issue in question; and to determine the level of scrutiny required by the rule of law.” (emphasis added)
Jackson v Attorney General Jackson

Richard Ekins is head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project and associate professor at the University of Oxford

R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal
Already registered? Log in to your account
R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal

Try a month free of unlimited access to our writing and podcasts

SUBSCRIBE
Written by

Richard Ekins is Head of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project and Professor of Law and Constitutional Government, University of Oxford.

Share

Topics