Mark Elliott
@profmarkelliott.bsky.social
Professor of Public Law, University of Cambridge. Fellow, St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Blog: www.publiclawforeveryone.com. Website: www.markelliott.org
I wrote a short piece on their '50 problematic cases' (publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/05/09/a...) and also a response to John Finnis's lecture that (I think) launched the JPP (publiclawforeveryone.com/2015/11/05/j...)
Judicial Power’s 50 “problematic” cases and the limits of the judicial role
The Judicial Power Project has published a list of 50 “problematic” cases. It makes for interesting reading. The aim of the Judicial Power Project is to address the “problem” of “judicial overreach…
publiclawforeveryone.com
November 3, 2025 at 9:31 AM
I wrote a short piece on their '50 problematic cases' (publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/05/09/a...) and also a response to John Finnis's lecture that (I think) launched the JPP (publiclawforeveryone.com/2015/11/05/j...)
One of the highlights of one of the Covid lockdowns was the arrival of hard copies of the new edition of my textbook; the feline member of the household, who loves boxes rather than books, was also delighted.
October 29, 2025 at 8:09 AM
One of the highlights of one of the Covid lockdowns was the arrival of hard copies of the new edition of my textbook; the feline member of the household, who loves boxes rather than books, was also delighted.
Congratulations, Hester! I’m so pleased to see this.
October 28, 2025 at 4:12 PM
Congratulations, Hester! I’m so pleased to see this.
Agree. But, as I say in my blogpost, the fact that they felt able to include (irrelevant) information about their current view undermines their argument that they considered themselves wholly bound by the previous government's view, and underlines that they could have, but chose not to, say more.
October 16, 2025 at 9:43 AM
Agree. But, as I say in my blogpost, the fact that they felt able to include (irrelevant) information about their current view undermines their argument that they considered themselves wholly bound by the previous government's view, and underlines that they could have, but chose not to, say more.
Many thanks. I agree with much of your analysis, although I think it was open to the DNSA to reflect in statements 2 and 3 the *current* government's view of the 2021-23 threat. Full argument here in a post reflecting on the witness statements: publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/16/n...
No winners in the China espionage blame game: Six outstanding questions for prosecutors and ministers
Now-published Government witness statements submitted to prosecutors in the China espionage case cast only limited light on what happened. In this post, I outline six key questions that remain to b…
publiclawforeveryone.com
October 16, 2025 at 9:26 AM
Many thanks. I agree with much of your analysis, although I think it was open to the DNSA to reflect in statements 2 and 3 the *current* government's view of the 2021-23 threat. Full argument here in a post reflecting on the witness statements: publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/16/n...
Ultimately, while the witness statements move things on to a degree, much remains unclear, with outstanding questions for both the CPS and the government. 6/6
October 15, 2025 at 9:26 PM
Ultimately, while the witness statements move things on to a degree, much remains unclear, with outstanding questions for both the CPS and the government. 6/6
If so, was the decision not to do so taken without reference to the NSA or Ministers? If so, why, given the Deputy NSA’s witness statements are in part reflecting the current government’s policy that he cannot unilaterally formulate and for which Ministers are responsible? /5
October 15, 2025 at 9:26 PM
If so, was the decision not to do so taken without reference to the NSA or Ministers? If so, why, given the Deputy NSA’s witness statements are in part reflecting the current government’s policy that he cannot unilaterally formulate and for which Ministers are responsible? /5
When the CPS decided the three witness statements combined were insufficient, was the Deputy NSA told what the perceived gaps were so that he could decide whether to strengthen the language? /4
October 15, 2025 at 9:26 PM
When the CPS decided the three witness statements combined were insufficient, was the Deputy NSA told what the perceived gaps were so that he could decide whether to strengthen the language? /4
While the Deputy NSA does not in terms describe China as a threat to national security, the language is strong in places: harm to security of UK; threat to economy, resilience and democratic integrity of UK. Why did the CPS think this insufficient? /3
October 15, 2025 at 9:26 PM
While the Deputy NSA does not in terms describe China as a threat to national security, the language is strong in places: harm to security of UK; threat to economy, resilience and democratic integrity of UK. Why did the CPS think this insufficient? /3
In the third statement, issued under the current government, the Deputy NSA describes this government’s China policy (co-operate, compete, challenge). How does that relate to PM’s insistence that only the previous government’s policy is relevant? /2
October 15, 2025 at 9:26 PM
In the third statement, issued under the current government, the Deputy NSA describes this government’s China policy (co-operate, compete, challenge). How does that relate to PM’s insistence that only the previous government’s policy is relevant? /2
Sorry to hear that!
October 15, 2025 at 1:58 PM
Sorry to hear that!