Mark Elliott

The UK Supreme Court Welcome to SCOUTSblog’s newest recurring series, in which we interview experts on different supreme courts around the world and how they compare to our own. For our debut column, we […]

In this interview with the SCOTUS Blog, which launches its series on global apex courts, I reflect on the role of the UK Supreme Court and consider whether adjudication at this level in the UK is really as apolitical as we often assume it to be. www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/the-...

The Divisional Court has now issued but immediately suspended a quashing order regarding the proscription of Palestine Action. This results in precisely the situation anticipated by my post below: a proscription order that is unlawful according to the High Court but unquashed for the time being.

📢Registrations are open for our Open Day on 20 March.

Come and learn about the course and admissions process, experience sample lectures and get a chance to chat with staff, students and alumni to see if it feels right for you!

The event is free to attend: 🔗https://bit.ly/3Ojqsqk

Thank you! There are (I think!) good answers to your concerns about non-statutory powers/common law. More generally, it seems to me a strength of the UV/voidness ab initio framework is that it provides a bulwark against authoritarian consequences such as criminalisation via unlawful executive action

Fantastic post by @profmarkelliott.bsky.social illustrating why the High Court's decision not to quash the unlawful (at least for now) proscription order of PA is conceptually, and arguably pragmatically, problematic. This case also shows why legal theory, and conceptual clarity especially, matter

Thank you, Paolo.

If proscribing Palestine Action was unlawful, how can it still be a proscribed organisation? In the Ammori case, the High Court held that the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful. But a quashing order has not been issued and the …

In a new post on the Palestine Action case, I ask whether, given the High Court's conclusion that proscription was unlawful, the Metropolitan Police is right to say that the organisation remains a proscribed one.

publiclawforeveryone.com/2026/02/17/i...

The High Court’s judgment in the Palestine Action case The High Court has ruled that the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful, holding that the decision contravenes the government’s own policy on…

The High Court has held that the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 was unlawful. This post explains the court's reasoning and discusses some potential weaknesses in it (bearing in mind the government has said it will appeal).
publiclawforeveryone.com/2026/02/13/t...

Thank you, George.

"In Defence of Classical Administrative Law", by @philipmurraylaw and me, has now been published in the Cambridge Law Journal on FirstView. It is available via the following link (open access): doi.org/10.1017/S000...

Jimmy Lai: conviction of Hong Kong pro-democracy figure decried as attack on press freedom Rights groups dismiss ‘sham conviction’ of media tycoon on national security offences in city’s most closely watched rulings in decades

A reminder, following the conviction of Jimmy Lai, that two senior British lawyers—a former Law Lord and a former Supreme Court President—continue to lend respectability to the Hong Kong legal system by sitting as non-permanent judges on its highest court.
www.theguardian.com/world/2025/d...

Correcting the record on the ‘primacy’ of the House of Commons In an open letter written in the context of the passage of the Terminally Ill Adults Bill through Parliament, three former Cabinet Secretaries assert that respect for the ‘primacy’ of t…

New post: Correcting the record on the ‘primacy’ of the House of Commons publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/12/15/c...

I'm grateful to the Sunday Times for publishing my letter on the constitutional role of the House of Lords, correcting the misleading impression created by an open letter signed by several former Cabinet Secretaries. www.thetimes.com/comment/lett...

My speech of today to NIHRC now published in full by Joshua Rozenberg: “The ECHR - the view from London and Strasbourg”

Many thanks for reading, Anurag.

The dialogue between Mark Elliott and Lord Sales here is fascinating. Ironically enough, in my thesis I conclude that parliamentary intent - at least as judicially conceptualised - rarely if ever makes it into drafting considerations. A point which courts perhaps need to consider.

Taking the constitution seriously: A response to Lord Sales The incoming Deputy President of the Supreme Court devoted a recent lecture to a critique of my commentary on his judgment in the Spitalfields case, highlighting differences between us concerning t…

Lord Sales devoted a recent lecture on the principle of legality to responding to my critique of one of his judgments. Here, I argue that our disagreement ultimately turns on sharply contrasting, and increasingly consequential, visions of the constitution
publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/12/07/t...

Taking the constitution seriously: A response to Lord Sales The incoming Deputy President of the Supreme Court devoted a recent lecture to a critique of my commentary on his judgment in the Spitalfields case, highlighting differences between us concerning t…

Lord Sales devoted a recent lecture on the principle of legality to responding to my critique of one of his judgments. Here, I argue that our disagreement ultimately turns on sharply contrasting, and increasingly consequential, visions of the constitution
publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/12/07/t...

* Post 4 should say the existence of those *limits* (on the Lords' powers) proves the incorrectness of the claim in the letter.

Would it be constitutionally improper for the House of Lords to block the Assisted Dying Bill? The Assisted Dying Bill has been approved by the House of Commons. But unless the Parliament Act is invokved, it also needs the approval of the House of Lords if it is to become law. What constitut…

The correct legal and constitutional position is set out here:
publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/06/20/w...

But there is no general principle that the Lords must always give way to the Commons. If there was, the more modest legal and conventional limits on the Lords' powers would be redundant. The existence of those powers proves the incorrectness of the claim in the letter. /4

The primacy of the Commons is constitutionally acknowledged in certain limited ways, including via the Salisbury convention (Lords should not block manifesto bills) and law (Parliament Acts enable Commons to legislate unilaterally subject to Lords' one-year delaying power). /3

The letter asserts that: 'Respect for the primacy of the Commons is not optional; it is the foundation of our parliamentary legitimacy.' However, this statement is so partial as to be misleading and incorrect. /2

This letter from former Cabinet Secretaries and others is straightforwardly wrong regarding the constitutional role of the House of Lords relative to the role of the Commons. /1

Unelected Lords are blocking assisted dying – this is a democratic outrage | Simon Jenkins Second chambers are a good idea, but they should not be able to overturn clear decisions reached by an elected body, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

Simon Jenkins claims in the Guardian that it would be a 'democratic outrage' if the House of Lords were to block the Terminally Ill Adults Bill: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

That claim is constitutional nonsense, for the reasons I explain here: publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/06/20/w...

Tyranny, anarchy and the rule of law: Reflections on a major report by the Constitution Committee The House of Lords Constitution Committee’s new report on the rule of law provides an excellent overview of the concept and of the many challenges it finds itself under in the UK today. But the rep…

New post: Tyranny, anarchy and the rule of law: Reflections on a major report by the Constitution Committee

publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/11/20/t...

Now published in the Cambridge Law Journal (open access):

'Administrative Law Doctrine and Constitutional Principle in the Supreme Court'

My case note on the judgment in R (Spitalfields) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2025] UKSC 11

doi.org/10.1017/S000...

Thank you, Conor. That's very kind.

Indeed. There are plenty of other questions, too, that are unanswered by a white paper that, given how long it has been in the making, is surprisingly light on detail. I flag some of the key legal and constitutional questions that need to be answered here: publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/11/17/t...

I agree, Jess.