The prime minister wants to strip back the power of the courts if judges set precedents that could damage the legal system in the long term. Ministers are drafting up plans for an annual interpretation bill that would allow MPs to strike out judicial reviews they disagree with.
The bill would reinforce that the UK Parliament is sovereign, according to the government. Critics have been concerned by the planned move, which risks undermining the importance of an independent judiciary. Johnson is still furious that his plans for a divorce were scuppered by the Supreme Court in 2019 and he wants to go ahead with plans to reel in the judiciary. In September 2019 the UK's highest court ruled that it was illegal for the Prime Minister to have recommended to the Queen that Parliament be prorogued for five weeks.
The Commons sitting would be suspended until after Britain left the EU on the date of October 31. Following the court's ruling, MPs returned to the Chamber and passed legislation requiring the UK to ask for another extension to leave the bloc. The Prime Minister argued that the decisions on the Supreme Court and MPs undermined his negotiation strategy with Brussels. Justice Secretary Dominic Raab ordered Justice Secretary Dominic Raab to sabotage judges' powers to rule on the legality of ministerial decisions, according to The Times. Attorney General Suella Braverman spoke about the changes last month when she spoke to the Public Law Project Conference last month, she said: "What we have seen is a huge increase in political litigation - that is to say, attempting to use the court system and judicial review to achieve political ends." She said if we keep asking judges to answer inherently political questions, we are ignoring the single most important decision-maker in our system: the British people. READ MORE: Britons demand Boris to rip up fishing licences after French ultimatum.
He said that he wanted to correct the balance between freedom of speech and privacy, and that court rulings on his matter had been influenced by European ideology. He said that we don't have the privacy protections of the continental style. If we were going to go down that route, it should have been decided by elected politicians. That's a good example of the kind of balance that we can strike with our own approach to this rather than the overreliance on a continental model, which is what the Human Rights Act has left us with. The EU's Brexit attack dog is given Le Boot by French-JONATHAN SAXTY COMMENT Britons furiously turn on Biden over more Brexit meddling REACTION We can give EU a bloody nose with Freeports, according to JAYNE ADYE OPINION It is claimed that Raab's predecessor, Robert Buckland, was sacked from his position in the September Cabinet reshuffle because he would not follow through with Mr Johnson's demands for reform. His dismissal shocked Westminster, with the popular minister seen as a competent member of the Government front bench. It is claimed that Mr Buckland and Mr Johnson have openly clashed on judicial reforms. Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, has been accused of undermining the Ministers' plans to bring legal challenges on several occasions, and said that the Prime Minister was seeking a more compliant judiciary.