Philip Murray
@philipmurray.bsky.social
Law lecturer @robinsoncollege.bsky.social / @cambridgelaw.bsky.social.
This is constitutionally confused. Policy and legal instructions to officials do not constitute Parliament's intention. Statutory language, context and, in cases of ambiguity, ministerial statements and explanatory notes, do. www.theguardian.com/world/2025/a...
April 29, 2025 at 8:39 AM
This is constitutionally confused. Policy and legal instructions to officials do not constitute Parliament's intention. Statutory language, context and, in cases of ambiguity, ministerial statements and explanatory notes, do. www.theguardian.com/world/2025/a...
Why not Lady Hale? First female Law Lord, first female President of the Supreme Court, first female Chancellor of Cambridge? (And both Oxbridge Chancellors would, rather marvellously, be "of Richmond"!)
April 28, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Why not Lady Hale? First female Law Lord, first female President of the Supreme Court, first female Chancellor of Cambridge? (And both Oxbridge Chancellors would, rather marvellously, be "of Richmond"!)
While Oxford elected Lord Hague of Richmond, Cambridge will fight it out between Gina Miller and the host of QI.
April 28, 2025 at 5:36 PM
While Oxford elected Lord Hague of Richmond, Cambridge will fight it out between Gina Miller and the host of QI.
Law, as ordinance of reason, recognises due process as vital. By subjecting governmental acts to law, the one who has the care of the community treats shows the law's subjects to be respected partners in public reason.
April 17, 2025 at 9:35 PM
Law, as ordinance of reason, recognises due process as vital. By subjecting governmental acts to law, the one who has the care of the community treats shows the law's subjects to be respected partners in public reason.
Lex nihil est aliud, quam quaedam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, ab eo, qui curam communitatis habet, promulgata (cf ST IaIIae 90.4).
April 16, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Lex nihil est aliud, quam quaedam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, ab eo, qui curam communitatis habet, promulgata (cf ST IaIIae 90.4).
This from Conor Casey at Sussex tackles some of the common complaints. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
April 16, 2025 at 3:13 PM
This from Conor Casey at Sussex tackles some of the common complaints. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
For a second time now the government has recognised the vulnerability of assisted suicide laws to challenges under Article 14 ECHR. Even without the amendment discussed here, the bill discriminates on grounds of illness and disability; the prospect of legal challenge is real.
February 26, 2025 at 9:25 AM
For a second time now the government has recognised the vulnerability of assisted suicide laws to challenges under Article 14 ECHR. Even without the amendment discussed here, the bill discriminates on grounds of illness and disability; the prospect of legal challenge is real.
My Sunday afternoon is being spent re-reading the Thoburn case. The most interesting thing about it, I think, is that Laws LJ's development of the idea of constitutional statutes was totally unnecessary. Counsel for Sunderland argued there was no implied repeal issue in the case.
February 16, 2025 at 3:49 PM
My Sunday afternoon is being spent re-reading the Thoburn case. The most interesting thing about it, I think, is that Laws LJ's development of the idea of constitutional statutes was totally unnecessary. Counsel for Sunderland argued there was no implied repeal issue in the case.
I know these online polls don't count for much, but the one run by the Times has, until now, regularly shown its readers to be broadly in favour. The tide has clearly turned.
February 16, 2025 at 11:25 AM
I know these online polls don't count for much, but the one run by the Times has, until now, regularly shown its readers to be broadly in favour. The tide has clearly turned.
And she doesn't understand why the Bill won't be amended to include proper multi-disciplinary involvement right from the moment a patient requests assisted suicide. "This feels like rushed, slapdash, on-the-hoof legislation, and I believe my patients deserve better."
February 16, 2025 at 11:20 AM
And she doesn't understand why the Bill won't be amended to include proper multi-disciplinary involvement right from the moment a patient requests assisted suicide. "This feels like rushed, slapdash, on-the-hoof legislation, and I believe my patients deserve better."
Clarke isn't against the principle of assisted suicide. But what she's seen of this process worries her. She criticises members of the committee for being overly adversarial, or for scrolling on their phone whenever inconvenient truths are presented to them.
February 16, 2025 at 11:20 AM
Clarke isn't against the principle of assisted suicide. But what she's seen of this process worries her. She criticises members of the committee for being overly adversarial, or for scrolling on their phone whenever inconvenient truths are presented to them.
Clarke says the model proposed by Leadbeater is nothing like a proper multi-disciplinary team. It's a panel of people who don't know the patient. It comes at the end, not the beginning, of the patient's decision-making process, when the patient's at "peak vulnerability".
February 16, 2025 at 11:20 AM
Clarke says the model proposed by Leadbeater is nothing like a proper multi-disciplinary team. It's a panel of people who don't know the patient. It comes at the end, not the beginning, of the patient's decision-making process, when the patient's at "peak vulnerability".
The Committee was assured when it heard evidence that the assisted suicide bill wouldn't be challenged on Article 14 ECHR grounds because of the wide "margin of appreciation" afforded by Strasbourg. Yet now the government is opposing amendments on the ground they could lead to Article 14 challenges.
February 11, 2025 at 10:42 PM
The Committee was assured when it heard evidence that the assisted suicide bill wouldn't be challenged on Article 14 ECHR grounds because of the wide "margin of appreciation" afforded by Strasbourg. Yet now the government is opposing amendments on the ground they could lead to Article 14 challenges.
Not especially keen on DeepSeek, to be honest.
February 1, 2025 at 6:27 PM
Not especially keen on DeepSeek, to be honest.
The argument based on the rule of law and IRAL was also rejected. "That may be an interesting topic for academics, but it was not the IRAL that passed the legislation; it was the UK Parliament."
![[47] Without going so far as to exclude the possibility of extreme cases of the type postulated
by Lord Steyn in R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2006] 1 AC 262 (at para 102), it is not legitimate
for a court to undermine a provision of an Act of the UK Parliament by arguing that the
material upon which it was based, in this case in part the Independent Review of
Administrative Law, was in some way flawed. That may be an interesting topic for academics,
but it was not the IRAL that passed the legislation; it was the UK Parliament. The reasons for it
doing so become largely irrelevant. The statistics may have contained an error but the message
which the IRAL conveyed, and which Parliament must have accepted, was that too much
resource was being spent on the very few applications for judicial review that resulted, not just
in the quashing of the Upper Tribunal’s decision to refuse permission to appeal, but also in
ultimate success on the merits of the applications. That is a concern which Parliament was
entitled to address by considering what the scope of judicial review should be where an
application had already been considered by a First-tier and an Upper Tribunal, both of which
are judicial in nature, and where the latter will often have a superior court judge presiding.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2marnk5dij7wjd7busn4q4kh/bafkreigwfkdjpfmyee6wrggbjtw7zsvsik5nijfauviqtf2yjsr2unpq24@jpeg)
January 27, 2025 at 10:26 AM
The argument based on the rule of law and IRAL was also rejected. "That may be an interesting topic for academics, but it was not the IRAL that passed the legislation; it was the UK Parliament."
It was held, for reasons set out in para [45], here, that s 11A did not interfere with Art XIX.
![not been excluded. The Court of Session remains as the supreme civil court in Scotland. It
retains its supervisory jurisdiction but, as was said by Lord Hope in Eba (at para 8), that
jurisdiction is limited in the interests of finality. There may, over the years, have been a
restructuring of the immigration and asylum tribunal system, including the introduction of an
internal appeal route, but the Court of Session’s authority remains intact. If anything,
section 11A may be seen simply as a return to the scope of review as defined by the Lord
President (Emslie) in Watt v Lord Advocate 1979 SC 120 (at 131). The court will only interfere
where the UT did not have a valid application before it, was not properly constituted, had acted
in bad faith or where, as section 11A(4) says, the UT has acted “in such a procedurally defective
way as amounts to a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice”. In such
circumstances, as Lord Stephens concluded in In re Allister [2023] 2 WLR 457 (at para 66), the
constitutional issue is academic. There is no interference with Article XIX.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2marnk5dij7wjd7busn4q4kh/bafkreidb6haglm6q4p5dtvlztp3zl7hbmg6zuea2zt6diusmtj26oqllly@jpeg)
January 27, 2025 at 10:26 AM
It was held, for reasons set out in para [45], here, that s 11A did not interfere with Art XIX.
If Trump didn't like Mariann Budde's preaching, he'd have hated St Basil the Great's. stjohngoc.org/st-basil-the...
January 24, 2025 at 9:43 AM
If Trump didn't like Mariann Budde's preaching, he'd have hated St Basil the Great's. stjohngoc.org/st-basil-the...
And it's regrettable that government ministers whose voices have been hitherto smothered by an unconstitutional conception of government neutrality are now permitted by No 10 to sit on the committee, though curiously only if they're in favour of the change.
December 18, 2024 at 10:58 AM
And it's regrettable that government ministers whose voices have been hitherto smothered by an unconstitutional conception of government neutrality are now permitted by No 10 to sit on the committee, though curiously only if they're in favour of the change.
If Leadbeater cared about subjecting her Bill to proper scrutiny, she'd have involved some of the MPs who have spoken so eloquently from their own experience: Florence Eshalomi; Meg Hillier; Jess Asato. Dr Ben Spencer is uniquely qualified in this area but has been sidelined.
December 18, 2024 at 10:58 AM
If Leadbeater cared about subjecting her Bill to proper scrutiny, she'd have involved some of the MPs who have spoken so eloquently from their own experience: Florence Eshalomi; Meg Hillier; Jess Asato. Dr Ben Spencer is uniquely qualified in this area but has been sidelined.
An excellent column by Madeline Grant showing how Kim Leadbeater has stacked the Assisted Suicide Bill committee in favour of reform before it even sets to work. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12...
December 18, 2024 at 10:58 AM
An excellent column by Madeline Grant showing how Kim Leadbeater has stacked the Assisted Suicide Bill committee in favour of reform before it even sets to work. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12...
Worrying to see one of the core supporters of Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide Bill apparently mooting that the judicial safeguard could only be retained for exceptional cases. Committee should be for strengthening the Bill’s lacklustre safeguards, not reducing them.
December 3, 2024 at 9:59 PM
Worrying to see one of the core supporters of Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide Bill apparently mooting that the judicial safeguard could only be retained for exceptional cases. Committee should be for strengthening the Bill’s lacklustre safeguards, not reducing them.
We see a similar correlation when we drill down into the health deprivation and disability scores (again, 1 = most deprived). The more deprivation there was by health, the greater the amount of disability, the more likely the Labour MP was to vote No.
December 1, 2024 at 3:50 PM
We see a similar correlation when we drill down into the health deprivation and disability scores (again, 1 = most deprived). The more deprivation there was by health, the greater the amount of disability, the more likely the Labour MP was to vote No.
There's a clear link between the deprivation ranking of an MP's constituency and their vote. On the index of multiple deprivation, where 1 = most deprived, the higher the level of deprivation in their constituency, the more likely the MP was to vote No to assisted suicide.
December 1, 2024 at 3:50 PM
There's a clear link between the deprivation ranking of an MP's constituency and their vote. On the index of multiple deprivation, where 1 = most deprived, the higher the level of deprivation in their constituency, the more likely the MP was to vote No to assisted suicide.