- 7 months ago
- #sqe
Study Guide covering the key topics in the SRA's specification for FLK English Legal System for the #SQE
Find more of Dr Yannis's videos on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/@iGlinavos
Find more of Dr Yannis's videos on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/@iGlinavos
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:01Did you know it's illegal in England to handle a salmon in suspicious circumstances?
00:06It's in the Salmon Act 1986.
00:08And yet, this bizarre little statute sits in the same legal system that deals with constitutional principles, human rights and judicial review.
00:16Welcome to the English legal system, where the same set of rules that define parliamentary sovereignty also worry about your behaviour around seafood.
00:25This lecture introduces you to the legal system for the FLT of the SQE.
00:30Think of this as a guided walk through the moving parts of law in England and Wales.
00:34By the end, you should be able to navigate the courts, explain why yesterday's paces matter today, read and act with confidence, handle rules of statutory interpretation,
00:44understand how Welsh and Westminster legislation coexist, and place constitutional principles, judicial review and human rights in their proper homes.
00:54We will also set the place of EU law in the UK constitution post-Brexit.
01:00Dr Yanis covers all the knowledge content the SRA determines is expected of a newly qualified solicitor.
01:07The courts, the judiciary, court hierarchy, appeals and rights of audience.
01:12Let's begin with the architecture of the English court system, the framework that keeps justice organised and decisions consistent across the country.
01:21At the foundation of criminal justice are the magistrates courts.
01:24They deal with the smaller, summary offences, things like minor assaults or motoring cases.
01:30And they're also where almost every criminal case begins, no matter how serious it eventually turns out to be.
01:36Some offences, called either way offences, can stay in the magistrates court or move up, depending on how serious the facts are.
01:44The truly serious ones, the indictable only offences, automatically go to the Crown Court, where a judge presides and in most cases a jury delivers the verdict.
01:54The Crown Court doesn't just try major criminal cases, it also handles sentencing and hears appeals from decisions made by magistrates.
02:02In civil justice, the starting point is usually the county court.
02:06That's where most private disputes begin, the sort of cases you might see about contracts, negligence or property.
02:13But the bigger, more complex disputes, the ones needing specialist judges or involving points of law of wider importance, are heard in the High Court.
02:22The High Court has three historic divisions, each with its own character and expertise.
02:27The King's Bench Division hears contractual and tort claims, as well as applications for judicial review, the key mechanism for challenging public decisions.
02:37The Chancery Division looks after equity and trusts, company law and insolvency matters.
02:43The Family Division handles complex family disputes, guardianship and matters of wardship.
02:49Above the High Court sits the Court of Appeal, divided into a Civil and a Criminal Division.
02:55Each deals with appeals from below, the Civil Division reviewing judgements from the High Court and the County Court,
03:01and the Criminal Division hearing appeals from the Crown Court.
03:04Then at the very top of this judicial pyramid stands the Supreme Court, the final Court of Appeal for the United Kingdom in most matters.
03:12Created by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and operating since 2009, it replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords,
03:20separating the highest judicial authority from the legislature to reinforce the independence of the judiciary.
03:28Running in parallel with the courts is the tribunal system, designed to handle specialist areas such as immigration, tax, social security and regulatory disputes.
03:38It has its own structure, with the first-tier tribunal hearing cases initially and the upper tribunal handling appeals.
03:45From the upper tribunal, further appeals can go to the Court of Appeal, but only on points of law.
03:51And for certain rare matters, such as appeals from some Commonwealth countries or ecclesiastical cause,
03:57there's the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a vestige of the legal empire that still plays a role in specific jurisdictions.
04:05Now, who are the people behind this structure? The ones who make the law work day to day? The judiciary.
04:11Judges in England and Wales are appointed on merit through the Judicial Appointments Commission, ensuring independence and fairness in the selection process.
04:19Once appointed, their independence is protected by security of tenure.
04:23They can't simply be dismissed because someone dislikes their decisions.
04:27Removal requires serious misconduct, and even then, the approval of Parliament.
04:32This safeguard means judges can focus on applying the law without political interference.
04:38Modern judges are also expected to reflect the society they serve – impartial, diverse and transparent in their reasoning,
04:46while remaining insulated from external pressures.
04:49Judicial independence is not just an ideal, it's the foundation that maintains popular confidence in justice.
04:56Rights of audience, meaning who can speak in which court, are structured around this system.
05:02Traditionally, barristers appear in the higher courts, presenting arguments before judges and juries,
05:07while solicitors handle client work, preparation and advocacy in the lower courts.
05:13However, the line between them is less rigid today.
05:16Solicitor advocates can gain extended rights of audience,
05:19and chartered legal executives or other authorised professionals may appear where their regulator permits.
05:24Still, the old distinction continues to influence how legal work is divided,
05:29how cases are prepared and the ethical responsibilities that follow.
05:33Finally, let's look at appeals, the safety net of the justice system.
05:37Every case should have a route for correction, but appeals are not there to start everything over again.
05:42They're supervisory, designed to ensure that the law was correctly applied and that the process was fair.
05:47Appeals from the Magistrates' Court can go to the Crown Court for a full rehearing,
05:52or to the High Court by way of case stated, that is, on a legal question.
05:56Appeals from the County Court or the High Court go to the Court of Appeal,
06:00usually on points of law or on mixed questions of fact and law, and only with permission.
06:06From there, cases may reach the Supreme Court, but only where a matter raises an issue of general public importance.
06:15At every stage, permission filters and standards of review act as checks.
06:20They preserve judicial hierarchy and prevent endless re-litigation.
06:25The system's design ensures that justice remains both accessible and final,
06:30offering correction when necessary, but always mindful that the law must move forward, not in circles.
06:37Development of case law and the doctrine of precedent.
06:40Now let's talk about the glue that holds the common law together for precedent.
06:44The English legal system is built on a principle known as stare decisis,
06:47which literally means to stand by things decided.
06:50What this means in practice is that lower courts must follow the legal principles, the ratio descendiendi,
06:55laid down by higher courts when the facts of the case are materially similar.
06:59These are the binding parts of a judgment, the core principles, that must be applied again in future cases.
07:05Other remarks a judge might make, known as obiter dicta, can be persuasive and influential, but they don't have binding force.
07:12At the top of the pyramid, the Supreme Court has the power to depart from its own previous decisions when it is right to do so.
07:17This reflects a careful balance.
07:19The law must remain stable and predictable, but it must not become fossilised.
07:24The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, is generally bound by its own past decisions, that there are narrow exceptions.
07:29It can depart from its own authority to avoid internal contradictions,
07:33or where a higher court, like the Supreme Court, has changed the legal landscape.
07:37The high court binds the lower courts, such as the county courts and magistrates, but not itself.
07:42And specialist tribunals are bound by higher judicial authority within their own jurisdictional area.
07:47Of course, the genius of the common law is that it can evolve while still respecting precedent.
07:52Courts create space to adapt through a process called distinguishing.
07:55This allows a judge to say that an earlier decision doesn't quite fit the case in front of them,
07:59because the facts, the context or the legal framework are different in some meaningful way.
08:03It's a subtle craft, using similarity and difference to keep the law both coherent and responsive.
08:09And when a point of law truly needs to be revisited, the Supreme Court can overrule previous authority altogether.
08:15The real discipline for judges lies in maintaining the balance between respecting settled expectations
08:20and keeping the law in tune with modern statutory frameworks, human rights standards, and the realities of contemporary life.
08:27For practitioners, reading a case means doing several things at once, identifying the ratio, spotting the obiter,
08:33understanding which level of court made the decision, and then asking the crucial question,
08:37can my case be fitted within that line of authority, or can I legitimately distinguish it?
08:43That analytical habit is at the heart of legal reasoning in a common law system.
08:49Primary legislation. The structure of an Act of Parliament and an Act of Syned Qumri.
08:54Now let's turn to the spine of the legal system. Primary legislation.
08:59An Act of Parliament is where law takes its most formal, written form.
09:04Each Act follows a familiar architecture. It opens with a long title, a short title, and an enacting formula that declares Parliament's authority.
09:14Then come the sections which contain the operative rules, and the schedules which expand the detail.
09:21Many Acts include interpretation sections that define key terms,
09:25commencement provisions that tell us when different parts come into force,
09:29and extent clauses that explain where the law applies across the United Kingdom's jurisdictions.
09:35Alongside most Acts, Parliament publishes explanatory notes.
09:39These don't have legal force, they don't change the meaning of the statute,
09:43but they're invaluable guides to the background, context and legislative purpose.
09:48They show what Parliament was trying to achieve.
09:52Now, in Wales, legislation is made by the Senedd Qumri, and its acts, known as Acts of the Senedd,
10:00follow a similar pattern but with a different constitutional foundation.
10:04The Senedd can only legislate within its devolved competence,
10:07that is, on subjects that have been transferred from Westminster under the devolution settlement.
10:13So, while the structure of an Act of the Senate looks familiar,
10:17the scope of its powers is defined by the constitutional framework that underpins devolution.
10:23One special feature of Welsh legislation is that it is bilingual.
10:27Every Act is enacted in both Welsh and English, and both versions are equally authoritative.
10:33That means courts must read both texts together, where any ambiguity arises,
10:38interpreting them in a way that preserves consistency with legislative purpose and constitutional competence.
10:45In practice, this creates a fascinating layer of interpretation.
10:48The law literally speaks two languages, and both must be heard in harmony.
10:54Statutory interpretation, literal golden mischief purposive, presumptions and aids, including Welsh legislation.
11:02And that brings us to one of the most intellectually rich parts of legal practice,
11:06statutory interpretation, the art of making sense of what Parliament actually meant.
11:12When text meets fact, interpretation begins.
11:16The literal rule asks what do the words mean in their ordinary, everyday sense.
11:21Courts start there because Parliament is presumed to say what it means,
11:25but the golden rule allows judges to depart from that plain meaning if, following it, would produce an absurd or inconsistent result,
11:33something Parliament clearly could not have intended.
11:36Then we have the mischief rule, which comes from a famous 16th century case called Hayden's case.
11:42Under this approach, the court looks back to the state of the law before the statute was passed,
11:46and asks what mischief, or problem, was Parliament trying to remedy?
11:51The statute is then read in a way that suppresses that mischief and advances the remedy.
11:56Today, the dominant approach is the purposive approach, which asks what the statute was trying to achieve in its broader context.
12:03This is especially important in public law and human rights cases, where Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts,
12:11so far as possible, to interpret legislation in a way that's compatible with Convention rights.
12:16It's a vivid example of how interpretation and constitutional principle intertwine.
12:23Judges also use presumptions, default rules of interpretation, to guide them.
12:27They presume that Parliament does not intend to interfere with fundamental rights without clear and explicit words.
12:33Penal provisions are not stretched by implication.
12:36There is a presumption against retroactive effect, against ousting the jurisdiction of the courts,
12:42and in favour of compliance with international obligations.
12:46To uncover meaning, courts turn to aids to interpretation.
12:49Internal aids are those found within the statute itself, the long and short titles, section headings, punctuation, and the interpretation section.
12:57External aids are sources outside the statute.
13:01Pre-legislative materials like white papers, law commission reports, and explanatory notes.
13:06And in limited cases, following the rule in Pepper v Heart, judges may refer to statements made by ministers during parliamentary debates,
13:14but only to resolve genuine ambiguities or absurdities.
13:18For Welsh legislation, interpretation follows the Legislation Wales Act 2019, which sets out its own interpretive code.
13:26Because the text is bilingual, courts engage in what's called cross-reading, comparing both language versions to find the most coherent and faithful meaning.
13:35This bilingual dimension makes Welsh law a fascinating case study in how language shapes legal understanding.
13:42The application of legislation made by Senedd, Cymru and Westminster to England and to Wales.
13:48England and Wales operate within a single legal jurisdiction, one system of courts, one body of judges, one set of procedural rules.
13:57Yet devolution means that the substance of the law can now differ on either side of the border.
14:03What this means in practice is that two Acts of Parliament might sit side by side, one from Westminster and another from the Senedd Cymru in Cardiff Bay,
14:13each governing the same broad area but within its own sphere of authority.
14:18Most Acts of Parliament still extend to both England and Wales, but the detail often varies.
14:24Some provisions come into force at different times in Wales or contain specific carve-outs for devolved matters,
14:31areas where legislative power has been transferred to the Senedd.
14:35By contrast, Acts of the Senedd usually apply to Wales alone, though they can sometimes reach across the border where necessary.
14:43If, for instance, a Welsh law affects a cross-border public service – say, health, education or environmental regulation –
14:51it may have limited effect in England, provided that the topic falls within the Senedd's legislative competence.
14:58So, how do you know which law applies?
15:01The practical skill lies in checking the Extent clause of the statute.
15:05That section tells you where, in the UK, the law operates.
15:09Then, you consult the Government of Wales Act 2006, as amended by the Wales Act 2017, which sets out the framework for devolution.
15:18There, you'll find the key division between what's reserved to Westminster, such as foreign affairs, defence or criminal law,
15:27and what's devolved to Wales, including health, education, housing and the environment.
15:33Within those devolved fields, Welsh ministers can make secondary legislation to give detailed effect to Senedd policies –
15:41statutory instruments that implement, adapt and update the law as needed.
15:46This layered structure means that two lawyers – one in Cardiff and one in London – might handle the same legal question under subtly different rules.
15:55For practitioners, the habit of mind is constant vigilance.
16:00Always ask which enactment applies – on what date, in which place, to which person or activity.
16:07These may sound like small details, but in a devolved system they can change the entire outcome of the case.
16:14Parliament, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Core Institutions of the State
16:18Let's now turn to Constitutional Law, the framework that defines how power is made, shared and kept in check within the United Kingdom.
16:26At its heart lies Parliament, the supreme law-making body.
16:30The orthodox doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty tells us that Parliament can make or unmake any law it chooses,
16:35and that no court, government or other institution can override or set aside an act of Parliament.
16:40That's the classic formulation – elegant, absolute and uniquely British.
16:44But in practice, sovereignty today lives in a more complicated world.
16:47It coexists with other powerful constitutional forces – the rule of law, devolution, the Human Rights Act 1998, and, since Brexit, the ongoing status of retained and assimilated EU law.
16:59Sovereignty remains the cornerstone, but it stands within a network of constitutional relationships that constantly shape and restrain how it operates.
17:07When we talk about Parliament, we mean the combined authority of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Monarch.
17:12Together they enact primary legislation, giving effect to the collective will of the State.
17:17In practice, the Government meaning the Prime Minister and Cabinet controls most of the legislative timetable,
17:22introducing the majority of bills and steering them through the process.
17:25But it is Parliament that debates, amends and ultimately grants legitimacy through enactment.
17:31This process of scrutiny is more than formality.
17:34It's the mechanism through which democratic accountability meets the rule of law.
17:39At the centre of the constitutional machine sits central government, accountable in several directions at once.
17:45Ministers are answerable to Parliament through ministerial responsibility.
17:48They must explain and justify their actions to the House and resign when serious errors occur.
17:53Parliamentary questions, select committees and the Public Accounts Committee provide ongoing scrutiny,
17:59while the civil service implements policy on behalf of ministers operating under a duty of impartiality and political neutrality.
18:06Accountability in the UK constitution is twofold.
18:09It is political through Parliament's power to question, censure and ultimately remove a government,
18:14and it is legal through the court's power to ensure that public authorities act within the limits of the law.
18:20This is where judicial review comes in, the mechanism by which judges supervise the exercise of public power.
18:26Judicial review doesn't challenge political decisions on their merits.
18:29It ensures that decisions are made lawfully, rationally and fairly.
18:34It is, in essence, the legal expression of the rule of law itself,
18:37an assurance that no one, not even the state, stands above the law.
18:41The status of the devolved institutions and their relationship with Westminster.
18:46Devolution reshaped the constitutional landscape of the United Kingdom,
18:50transferring both lawmaking and executive powers to the Senate Cymru,
18:54and the Welsh Government within what is known as a reserved powers model.
18:58Under this system, Westminster remains legally sovereign.
19:01It retains the ultimate authority to legislate on any matter.
19:05Yet in practice, sovereignty operates alongside political restraint.
19:09By long-standing constitutional convention,
19:12Westminster does not normally legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the Senate.
19:17That consent is given through what's called a Legislative Consent Motion,
19:21a formal acknowledgement that the devolved legislature agrees to Westminster's intervention.
19:26The dividing line between what is reserved to Westminster and what is devolved to Wales
19:31is set out in the Wales Act 2017.
19:34It is a schedule that functions like a map of constitutional boundaries.
19:38Anything listed there remains under Westminster's control,
19:41and anything not listed falls within the Senate's competence,
19:45subject, of course, to certain constraints.
19:47Devolved powers must be exercised consistently with the European Convention on Human Rights,
19:52and within the framework of the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales.
19:57In practice, the boundary between devolved and reserved powers is not a wall,
20:02but a carefully negotiated frontier.
20:04Policy areas such as transport, agriculture, health and the environment often overlap,
20:09and managing those overlaps requires constant dialogue between governments.
20:14Intergovernmental relations, common frameworks and memoranda of understanding
20:18have developed to coordinate policies, share information and prevent unnecessary conflict.
20:24These mechanisms help preserve the coherence of the United Kingdom,
20:28while still allowing each nation to experiment, adapt and develop its own solutions.
20:33Devolution in that sense is both a test and a testament,
20:36a test of constitutional flexibility,
20:38and a testament to the UK's capacity to accommodate diversity within unity.
20:43The monarch and the crown, constitutional conventions and prerogative powers.
20:47In the modern British constitution, the monarch reigns but does not rule.
20:51The crown remains the legal foundation of government.
20:53It is the enduring legal personality through which executive power is exercised,
20:57but the day-to-day business of governing lies firmly in the hands of ministers
21:00who command the confidence of the House of Commons.
21:03This arrangement depends on a delicate web of constitutional conventions
21:06that keep the machinery of state running smoothly.
21:08The monarch acts on the advice of ministers, never on personal initiative.
21:12The Salisbury Addison Convention restrains the House of Lords
21:15from blocking legislation promised in a government's election manifesto.
21:18The Sewell Convention restrains Westminster from legislating in devolved areas
21:22without the consent at the bevolved legislature.
21:25None of these conventions are legally enforceable.
21:27You cannot go to court to compel obedience, yet they're politically binding,
21:31shaping conduct through shared constitutional expectation rather than legal compulsion.
21:35Then there are the royal prerogative powers, the historic remnants of the monarch's original authority
21:39that still form part of the executive tultit.
21:42These include the making of treaties, the defence of the realm, the grunt of honours
21:45and the conduct of foreign affairs.
21:47Over time, many prerogatives have been limited, transferred or replaced by statute,
21:51but those that survive do so only to the extent that parliament has displaced them.
21:55Today, prerogative powers operate within a framework of accountability and legality.
22:00Ministers exercise them, not the monarch, and must answer to parliament for their decisions.
22:04The courts, meanwhile, play a supervisory role.
22:07They do not question the merits of high policy, but they will ensure that prerogative powers
22:11are used lawfully and for proper purposes.
22:13And when prerogative power collides with statute, the rule is clear. Statute prevails.
22:18What was once the personal power of the crown has evolved into a carefully constrained instrument
22:22of responsible government, controlled by convention, accountable to parliament,
22:26and subject to the rule of law.
22:28Parliamentary privilege.
22:30Parliamentary privilege sits at the heart of the constitutional balance between parliament and the courts.
22:35It exists to protect the independence of the legislature,
22:38to ensure that parliament can carry out its work of debate, scrutiny, and law-making
22:43without interference from outside.
22:45The foundation of this privilege lies in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, 1689,
22:49which famously declares that proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court.
22:56In plain terms, that means what happens inside parliament, the debates, the votes, the speeches,
23:01cannot be challenged or examined by judges.
23:03This safeguard ensures that members can speak freely,
23:06criticise government, and debate controversial matters without fear of being sued or prosecuted for what they say.
23:12It is, in effect, a constitutional guarantee of free speech within the walls of Westminster.
23:17Privilege also covers what's called exclusive cognizance,
23:20Parliament's right to manage its own internal affairs without external interference.
23:25This includes the conduct of its members, the work of its select committees,
23:29and the rules to winning its proceedings.
23:31Yet this autonomy is not unlimited.
23:34The modern understanding of privilege recognises that it extends only as far as is necessary
23:39to protect the core functions of parliament, the freedom to legislate and to hold government to account.
23:44Where matters fall outside that core, the rule of law remains paramount.
23:49For practitioners, the message is clear.
23:51You cannot rely on statements made in parliament to support a defamatory claim,
23:56nor can you bring litigation that seeks to challenge how a select committee conducted its business
24:00except in the most exceptional and narrowly defined circumstances.
24:04The celebrated case of Pepper v Hart does not undermine this principle.
24:09It simply allows courts in limited situations to refer to ministerial statements in parliament
24:14to clarify ambiguous statutory wording.
24:17This does not mean questioning or criticising what was said.
24:20Rather, it treats those statements as interpretive aids,
24:23helping judges understand parliament's intention without trespassing on its privilege.
24:28In short, parliamentary privilege protects the freedom of the legislature to speak, debate and decide,
24:34a living reminder that in the British constitution,
24:37the independence of parliament and the rule of law stand side by side,
24:41each reinforcing the other.
24:43Legitimacy, separation of powers and the rule of law.
24:47The UK constitution rests on three great pillars,
24:50democratic legitimacy, the separation of powers and the rule of law.
24:54Together, they give authority to government and protection to the governed.
24:59Unlike a presidential constitution,
25:01the British model does not draw rigid boundaries between its branches of power.
25:05The legislator makes the law, the executive carries it into effect,
25:10and the judiciary interprets and applies it.
25:12Yet in practice, these functions often overlap.
25:15The executive proposes most bills that become acts of parliament.
25:19The Lord Chancellor still occupies a post that bridges politics and the judiciary.
25:24And judges, through the development of the common law,
25:27continue to shape legal principles that fill the gaps left by statute.
25:32But through all this interaction, one thing must remain constant.
25:36Independence.
25:37Each branch must be free from improper influence by the others,
25:40particularly the judiciary whose authority depends entirely on public confidence in its impartiality.
25:47Independence is the constitutional anchor that prevents power from drifting into abuse.
25:54At the core of this arrangement lies the rule of law,
25:57the idea that no power is absolute
26:00and that every exercise of authority must have a legal foundation.
26:04Public power must be used only for legitimate purposes,
26:07through fair procedures and under the scrutiny of an effective review system.
26:12The rule of law also demands that the laws themselves meet certain standards.
26:17They must be general, clear, prospective and publicly accessible.
26:21Only when citizens can know and understand the law can they be expected to obey it.
26:26And perhaps the most fundamental element of all,
26:30in the United Kingdom no one is above the law.
26:33Not ministers, not parliament, not even the Crown.
26:36It is this shared submission to legality that gives the British Constitution both its authority and its moral strength.
26:44Making, implementing and repealing primary and secondary legislation at Westminster and in Wales.
26:51So how does a bill become an act?
26:54The journey from proposal to law is both procedural and political.
26:59A careful dance between scrutiny, debate and consent.
27:04A government bill usually begins in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords.
27:09Its first reading is a formality.
27:11The bill is introduced and ordered to be printed, but no debate takes place.
27:15The real work begins at the second reading,
27:18where the House debates the general principles and purpose of the bill.
27:22If it survives that stage, it moves to committee,
27:25where members go through the text line by line, proposing amendments and testing its detail.
27:32After the committee's work, the bill returns to the floor for the report stage,
27:36where further changes can be made, followed by the third reading,
27:39a final review before it leaves that House.
27:42The process is then repeated in the other House, which can amend the bill in term.
27:47When the two houses disagree, the text is sent back and forth,
27:50a process often called ping-pong until both agree on identical wording.
27:55Once the final version is settled, the bill receives royal assent,
27:59transforming it into an act of parliament.
28:01Even then, the law may not come into force immediately.
28:05Commencement can take effect straight away, on a specified date,
28:09or later by ministerial order, allowing flexibility in timing and implementation.
28:15Alongside acts sits a vast body of secondary legislation,
28:19also known as delegated legislation or statutory instruments.
28:23These are laws made by ministers or other authorities under powers granted by parliament.
28:28Some statutory instruments require explicit parliamentary approval
28:32under the affirmative resolution procedure.
28:34Others take effect automatically unless annulled under the negative resolution procedure.
28:40This system allows parliament to delegate technical detail to the executive,
28:45while retaining ultimate control.
28:47In Wales, the process is much the same, but it takes place within the devolved framework.
28:53Senate bills pass through similar stages of scrutiny, debate and amendment,
28:58and once enacted, become acts of the Senate.
29:01Welsh ministers then make statutory instruments within devolved areas,
29:05such as health, education and the environment,
29:07following procedures set by the Senate's standing orders and the governing legislation.
29:12Over time, laws evolve.
29:14They can be repealed or amended, either expressly, where a parliament says so directly,
29:19or by implication, where a new law conflicts with an old one.
29:23Periodically, the statute book is tidied up through consolidation,
29:27gathering scattered provisions into a single coherent act.
29:31Full codification, bringing an entire area of law into one self-contained code,
29:37is rare in the common law tradition, but not impossible.
29:41It remains a kind of legislative ideal,
29:44order carved out of centuries of accreted complexity.
29:49Public order law sits at one of the most delicate intersections in the legal system,
29:53the meeting point between individual freedom and collective safety.
29:57It seeks to protect the right to protest, to assemble and to speak out,
30:02while also safeguarding the public from serious disorder, intimidation or disruption.
30:07The law's constant task is to balance liberty with order.
30:11When a public procession is planned, a march, rally or demonstration,
30:15organisers must give prior notice to the police.
30:18This isn't designed to discourage protest,
30:21but to allow for policing arrangements that keep everyone safe.
30:24Once notified, the police have the power to impose conditions on a procession
30:28where it's necessary to prevent serious disorder, serious disruption or intimidation.
30:33The same principle applies to static assemblies, gatherings in one place,
30:37where conditions may be imposed if the legal thresholds are met.
30:41In recent years, Parliament has refined and expanded these powers,
30:44responding to changing forms of protest.
30:47The law now defines serious disruption with greater precision
30:51and grants police new tools to manage tactics like locking on,
30:54gluing on or tunnelling to block roads, transport networks or critical infrastructure.
30:59Alongside these, civil orders, such as serious disruption prevention orders,
31:04target individuals with a history of causing repeated large-scale disruption.
31:08Yet, through all these developments, one principle remains constant – proportionality.
31:14Any restriction on protest must go no further than is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim,
31:19whether that's public safety, the prevention of disorder or the protection of the rights of others.
31:24Police decisions must be justified, recorded and open to review.
31:28At common law, the concept of breach of the peace still survives.
31:32It allows preventative action, even without statutory authority,
31:35where violence is actually occurring or is imminent.
31:38But modern policing and public order management rely increasingly on statute,
31:43with clearer powers, defined thresholds and written reasons for action.
31:47For practitioners, the instinct should always be the same.
31:50Test every restriction against the twin standards of necessity and proportionality,
31:55and look for clear statutory authority.
31:58The rule of law demands no less.
32:00Protest is a right, but a right exercised within the limits of lawful order.
32:05Judicial Review – Nature, Process, Limits and Remedies
32:10Judicial review is the constitutional mechanism through which the High Court supervises the exercise of public power.
32:16It is not about whether a decision was wise or fair in the everyday sense,
32:20but whether it was lawful, whether the decision-maker had the power to act,
32:24stayed within that power, followed fair procedures and reached a decision that was rational on the evidence before them.
32:30Judicial Review ensures that government acts according to law, not whim.
32:35At its core, the Court asks a series of disciplined questions.
32:39Did the authority have the legal power to act?
32:41Was that power used for its proper purpose?
32:43Were relevant factors considered and irrelevant ones ignored?
32:46Was the process procedurally fair?
32:48Was the decision one that a reasonable decision-maker could have reached?
32:51Not necessarily the best decision, but one within the lawful bounds of reason.
32:55Judicial Review is not an appeal on the merits.
32:58The Court does not substitute its own judgement for that of the public authority.
33:02Its task is to police legality, not policy.
33:05A claim for judicial review must be brought promptly, and in any event within three months of the decision under challenge.
33:12Certain areas, such as planning or public procurement, have even shorter time limits.
33:16The requirement of standing, or locus standi, means the claimant must have a sufficient interest in the matter.
33:22This is interpreted generously where issues of public importance arise.
33:25Community groups, campaigners and NGOs can have standing if the rule of law itself is at stake.
33:31What matters is not the label attached to the body being challenged, but the nature of the function it performs.
33:36Public law obligations follow the function, not the form.
33:39So a private company carrying out public functions, for instance managing prisons, housing or health services under contract,
33:45may still be amenable to judicial review.
33:47The remedies available are deliberately flexible, allowing the Court to tailor its response to the circumstances.
33:53The Court may issue a quashing order, setting aside the unlawful decision, a prohibiting order, preventing future unlawful action,
34:00or a mandatory order, compelling the performance of a public duty.
34:03It can make a declaration, to clarify the law and guide future conduct, or an injunction to restrain continuing illegality.
34:10Damages are exceptional in judicial review.
34:13They are awarded only if another cause of action, such as a breach of statutory duty or a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998,
34:19provides a route to compensation.
34:21Recent reforms have introduced suspended and prospectively only quashing orders,
34:25giving courts discretion to delay or limit the effect of nullifying an unlawful act,
34:30where immediate cancellation would cause disproportionate disruption.
34:33But the default principle remains the same.
34:35An unlawful act is voidable, and unless there is good reason not to, it will be set aside.
34:40Judicial review, then, is not a weapon of politics, but a safeguard of principle, rule of law in action,
34:47ensuring that those who wield public power do so within the limits that law, reason and fairness demand.
34:53Grounds of review, illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and legitimate expectation.
35:01The grounds of judicial review define the limits of lawful public decision making.
35:06They are not rigid categories, but flexible principles that guide how courts assess where the power has been exercised properly.
35:13Four of the most significant are illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety, and legitimate expectation.
35:20Illegality occurs when a public authority steps outside the powers that Parliament intended it to have.
35:26A decision-maker acts unlawfully if they use a power for a purpose other than that for which it was conferred,
35:32if they misdirect themselves in law, or if they fetter their discretion by adopting an inflexible policy that refuses to consider exceptions.
35:39Public bodies must always be open to the particular facts of each case.
35:44Delegated powers are not personal gifts.
35:47They are held in trust for the public, to be exercised only within the boundaries set by statute and principle.
35:53Irrationality, sometimes called Wendsbury on reasonableness, captures decisions so unreasonable
35:59that no reasonable authority, properly directing itself, could ever have made them.
36:04This is an exacting standard, not a licence for courts to second-guess administrative choices.
36:10However, the intensity of review varies with context.
36:13Decisions affecting fundamental rights, or vital interests, attract closer scrutiny,
36:18while those involving complex policy, national security, or economic judgement are reviewed with restraint.
36:24The guiding idea is proportionality between the importance of the issue and the depth of judicial intervention.
36:30Procedural impropriety focuses on fairness in the process rather than the outcome.
36:35It includes failures to follow mandatory statutory procedures, breaches of natural justice such as bias,
36:41or the appearance of bias, and the denial of a fair hearing where fairness requires one.
36:46The hallmark of good administration is not just that decisions are lawful,
36:49but that they are made transparently, impartially, and with an open mind.
36:54Finally, legitimate expectation bridges procedure and substance.
36:58It arises when a public authority through an express promise, a consistent past practice, or a published policy
37:05creates a reasonable expectation that it will act in a particular way,
37:09perhaps by consulting before changing policy, giving reasons before taking action,
37:14or even delivering a specific benefit or outcome.
37:17Where such an expectation exists, fairness may require the authority to honour it,
37:22unless an overriding public interest justifies a change of course.
37:26The doctrine protects trust between citizen and state.
37:29Government may change its mind, but it must do so fairly, with candour and justification.
37:34Together these grounds form a singly principle in action that public power is never absolute.
37:40It must be exercised for lawful purposes, in a rational way, through fair procedures,
37:44and in good faith towards those it affects.
37:48Decisions that may be challenged, and the scope of the supervisory jurisdiction.
37:53Judicial review reaches across the full landscape of public administration.
37:57Anybody exercising public power, whether central or local, statutory or delegated,
38:03may find its decisions tested against the standards of legality, rationality and fairness.
38:09The range is broad.
38:11Decisions by central government departments, local authorities, regulators, police forces,
38:16NHS trusts, school governors, prison authorities and a host of other public bodies
38:21are all amenable to judicial review.
38:24What matters is not the label attached to the body, but the nature of the function it performs.
38:29If a private organisation is carrying out a task that is essentially public,
38:33for example managing detention centres, running social housing,
38:37or delivering healthcare under government contract, its decisions may equally be subject to the
38:42court's supervisory jurisdiction.
38:44Public law follows function, not form.
38:47Even so, courts exercise restraint.
38:50They recognise that some areas, high policy, foreign affairs and national security for instance,
38:55like close to the heart of the political process,
38:57where ministers must answer primarily to parliament, not the judiciary.
39:01Yet even there the rule of law has reach.
39:04Judges will still ensure that decisions are lawful, rational and procedurally fair,
39:08even if they avoid pronouncing on the wisdom or expediency of policy itself.
39:13When governments seek to insulate decisions from review through ouster clauses,
39:17statutory provisions that attempt to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts,
39:21the judiciary reads them with great care.
39:24Only the clearest words can exclude judicial supervision, and even then only within constitutional limits.
39:30The courts have made plain that total exclusion of judicial review would undermine the very rule of law
39:36on which parliament's authority itself depends.
39:39There are times, however, when parliament deliberately creates a specialist appellate route within a statutory scheme,
39:45for instance to challenge planning, immigration or regulatory decisions.
39:49Where such an alternative mechanism exists, claimants will usually be expected to use it rather than resort to judicial review.
39:57The High Court will step in only where the issue is of jurisdiction, meaning that the decision-maker acted wholly outside its powers,
40:04or where the statutory process cannot cure a fundamental unfairness.
40:08In short, judicial review is both wide and disciplined.
40:12It reaches wherever public power is exercised, but it does so with respect for constitutional boundaries,
40:18ensuring that the courts remain guardians of legality without straying into the territory of governance itself.
40:25Standing and Time Limits
40:27To bring a claim for judicial review, a claimant must cross two key thresholds – standing and timing.
40:33These are not mere procedural details.
40:35They reflect the balance between access to justice and the need for certainty in public administration.
40:40The requirement of standing means that the claimant must have a sufficient interest in the matter.
40:45Judicial review is not confined to those with a personal injury or private grievance.
40:50It is about the lawfulness of public action, not the vindication of private rights.
40:55This means that public law charities, campaign groups and NGOs can have standing,
41:00where their focus is on ensuring that government acts within the law.
41:03The courts have recognised that the rule of law sometimes needs guardians beyond those directly affected.
41:08That said, standing is not unlimited.
41:11Judicial review is not a stage for purely academic challenges or abstract disputes.
41:15The court will ask whether there is a real practical stake in the outcome,
41:19and whether the issue is justiciable – that is, suitable for resolution by legal principles rather than political debate.
41:26The claimant must show that the question raised is both concrete and properly within the court's remit.
41:31Timing is equally strict. Claims must be brought promptly, and in any event within three months of the decision being challenged.
41:38This reflects the need for good administration and certainty.
41:41Public authorities and third parties must be able to rely on decisions once made.
41:46Courts will grant extensions of time only sparingly, and they weigh any prejudice to good administration very heavily.
41:52The longer a claimant delays, the harder it becomes to justify intervention.
41:57Certain areas have even tighter rules.
41:59Planning decisions and public procurement challenges have their own bespoke shorter deadlines,
42:04often measured in weeks rather than months.
42:06And where Parliament has created a statutory appeal process for a particular kind of decision,
42:11that route will usually take precedence, leaving judicial review as a remedy of last resort.
42:15Standing and timing, then, are the gatekeepers of judicial review, ensuring that challenges are brought by those with a genuine interest at the right time and in the right way,
42:25so that the courts can protect legality without paralysing the machinery of government.
42:30The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights
42:34The Human Rights Act 1998 transformed the landscape of public law by weaving the rights of the European Convention on Human Rights directly into the fabric of UK law.
42:44Before the Act, those alleging a breach of their Convention rights had to take their case to Strasbourg.
42:49Now, the same rights can be argued and enforced before domestic courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland,
42:56a profound constitutional shift that made human rights an everyday part of British legal reasoning.
43:02When a court is asked to decide a question involving a Convention right,
43:06it must take into account the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.
43:10This does not mean blind obedience.
43:12UK courts treat Strasbourg decisions with respect, not reverence.
43:16They aim to follow the general principles laid down by the European Court,
43:20while retaining the autonomy to apply them within the distinctive framework of domestic law and the constitutional traditions of the United Kingdom.
43:28Section 3 of the Act gives judges a powerful interpretative tool.
43:33Legislation must, so far as possible, be read and given effect in a way compatible with Convention rights.
43:39This duty applies to all courts and tribunals and extends across all primary and secondary legislation.
43:45Where such a reading simply cannot be achieved, where words cannot be bent without breaking the meaning of the statute,
43:51the higher courts may issue a declaration of incompatibility.
43:54A declaration does not strike down the statutes.
43:57The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty remains intact.
44:00Instead, the declaration signals to Parliament that the law as enacted sits uneasily with the UK's human rights obligations and invites legislative correction.
44:10This careful balance between judicial scrutiny and parliamentary supremacy reflects the Act's constitutional subtlety.
44:17The courts illuminate, but Parliament decides.
44:21Public authorities, for their part, are under a positive duty to act compatibly with Convention rights,
44:26unless compelled otherwise by primary legislation that leaves no room for compliance.
44:31This duty extends beyond central government and local councils,
44:34to include the police, NHS bodies, schools, prisons and even private organisations performing public functions.
44:42An individual who claims to be a victim of an unlawful act by a public authority
44:46can bring proceedings under the Act or rely on their Convention rights in any other legal proceedings.
44:51The courts may grant whatever remedy is just and appropriate,
44:54including damages, where necessary, to afford just satisfaction,
44:57though damages remain the exception rather than the rule.
45:00Where incompatibility is formally declared,
45:03remedial orders provide a streamlined way for Parliament to amend the offending legislation.
45:08Schedule I to the Act sets out the rights themselves.
45:11The right to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment,
45:15the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial,
45:18respect for private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
45:23freedom of expression, assembly and association,
45:25protection of property and the right to education, among others.
45:29These rights, once distant and international, now speak directly within domestic law.
45:34For the practitioner, the habit must be to think Human Rights Act early.
45:39Ask, is there a public authority involved?
45:41Which right is engaged?
45:42Has there been an interference?
45:43And if so, is it prescribed by law, pursuing a legitimate aim,
45:47and necessary in a democratic society?
45:50And finally, what remedy is realistically available and proportionate?
45:54The Human Rights Act does not replace the common law or the constitution.
45:57It enriches both, infusing legal reasoning with principles of dignity, fairness and proportionality.
46:03It ensures that government, however powerful,
46:06remains answerable to the individual whose rights it affects.
46:09The place of EU law in the UK constitution after Brexit
46:15Although the United Kingdom has left the European Union,
46:18the influence of EU law continues to ripple through almost every area of legal practice.
46:24Brexit did not wipe the slate clean, it froze and reshaped it.
46:29Through the European Union Withdrawal Acts 2018,
46:33Parliament ensured that, at the end of the transition period,
46:36a vast body of law known as retained EU law was carried forward into domestic law.
46:42This body preserved the effect of EU regulations,
46:46directives implemented through UK legislation,
46:49and related case law as they stood on exit day,
46:53so that legal continuity would not collapse overnight.
46:57This retained law was not static.
46:59Subsequent reforms have refined and rebranded it,
47:03giving rise to the term assimilated law,
47:06a category that reflects both continuity and adaptation.
47:10The aim was to domesticate what had been EU law,
47:14removing its supranational character
47:16and reasserting the authority of UK institutions
47:20to amend, interpret and develop it going forward.
47:23Assimilated law remains rooted in its EU origins,
47:27but its constitutional footing has shifted.
47:31It is now UK law,
47:33subject to UK principles of interpretation and modification.
47:38Before Brexit, the supremacy of EU law meant that,
47:41in case of conflict,
47:43directly effective EU provisions took precedence
47:46over inconsistent domestic statutes.
47:48That principle no longer applies to new legislation
47:51made after the UK's departure.
47:54While supremacy still governs the interpretation
47:57of pre-exit conflicts to preserve legal certainty,
48:00it no longer operates prospectively.
48:03From 2021 onwards,
48:04Parliament's sovereignty is restored in full,
48:07and new Acts of Parliament take unquestioned precedence
48:11within the domestic hierarchy.
48:13Equally, UK courts no longer make references
48:16to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
48:19Questions of EU law interpretation
48:21now rest entirely with the domestic judiciary.
48:24However, the Withdrawal Act preserved the body
48:27of pre-Brexit CJEU case law,
48:30making it binding on most courts
48:32unless and until departed from by higher authority.
48:36The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal
48:38now have express power to depart from
48:41retained EU case law,
48:43where they consider it right to do so,
48:46balancing the need for legal stability
48:48with the freedom to evolve beyond the EU framework.
48:53Central Government Accountability, Ministerial Powers
48:56and Prerogative in Practice
48:58Accountability in the British Constitution
49:00works like a series of concentric circles,
49:02each one enclosing the next.
49:04At the centre stand the Ministers of the Crown,
49:06accountable in three distinct ways.
49:08They are politically accountable to Parliament,
49:11legally accountable to the courts,
49:13and ethically accountable to established codes of conduct.
49:16These overlapping forms of scrutiny ensure that power,
49:18though centralised, is never absolute.
49:21In the political sphere, Ministers must answer to Parliament
49:24through questions, debates, select committee inquiries,
49:27and ultimately the confidence of the House of Commons.
49:29Political accountability does not depend on legal wrongdoing.
49:32It is about transparency, responsibility,
49:35and the maintenance of trust in democratic government.
49:38Legal accountability operates through judicial oversight
49:41that courts can examine whether Ministers and public bodies
49:44have acted within the powers conferred by law,
49:47the principle of ultra vires, or acting beyond legal authority.
49:51This extends to secondary legislation,
49:54which may be challenged for exceeding the scope of the Parent Act,
49:57for procedural defects in his making,
49:59or for unreasonableness in substance.
50:01The same principles apply to prerogative powers,
50:04such as those concerning foreign affairs,
50:06passports, or national security.
50:08Where such powers are justiciable,
50:10courts can review them on familiar public law grounds,
50:13legality, rationality, procedural propriety,
50:17and respectful legitimate expectation.
50:20Parliament may also choose to curtail or replace prerogative powers
50:23by statute, reinforcing the supremacy of law over executive discretion.
50:28Beneath a ministerial level,
50:30the civil service operates under its own code,
50:32requiring impartiality, integrity, objectivity, and honesty.
50:36Every public body, from regulators to local councils,
50:39to schools, prisons, and NHS trusts,
50:41must act within the limits of his founding statute,
50:44guided by the overarching principles of public law.
50:48For practitioners advising public authorities,
50:50the golden rule is prevention before litigation.
50:53That means ensuring fair consultation where fairness demands it,
50:57publishing clear and consistent policies,
51:00taking relevant matters into account,
51:02avoiding irrelevant ones,
51:03giving intelligible reasons for decisions,
51:05and keeping a defensible record of the decision-making process.
51:09A well-documented and proportionate approach
51:12is the best protection against successful challenge.
51:15For those advising claimants,
51:17accountability has its own tactical logic.
51:19The key is to choose wisely the right defendant,
51:22the right round of challenge,
51:24and the right remedy,
51:25and to act quickly within the time limits
51:28that judicial review imposes.
51:29In both public administration and litigation,
51:32accountability is not merely a control mechanism,
51:35but a discipline,
51:36one that builds lawful, transparent, and reasoned governance,
51:39and reinforces public confidence
51:42that those who wield power remain answerable to the law.
51:46Parliamentary procedure delegated powers and scrutiny
51:49in Westminster and the Senate.
51:51The quality of legislation depends less on the words on the page
51:54than on the process that produces them.
51:56Sound legislative process is the foundation of legal certainty
52:00and public confidence.
52:01When Parliament delegates law-making powers to ministers,
52:04those powers must be specific, proportionate,
52:07and subject to proper scrutiny.
52:09Broad skeleton clauses,
52:11which leave the substance of regulation to be filled in later,
52:14risk undermining accountability.
52:16They invite both political criticism and legal challenge
52:19on grounds of vagueness or excessive delegation.
52:22Different forms of parliamentary procedure
52:24reflect different levels of scrutiny.
52:26Under the affirmative procedure,
52:28an instrument must be expressly approved by Parliament
52:30before it can take effect,
52:32ensuring debate and visibility.
52:34The negative procedure, by contrast,
52:36allows an instrument to become law automatically
52:39unless Parliament actively prays to annul it
52:41within a defined period,
52:42so its effectiveness depends on vigilance
52:44from backbenchers and committees.
52:47The super-affirmative procedure,
52:49used rarely for matters of high significance,
52:51goes further by requiring draft consultation
52:53and pre-enactment scrutiny
52:55before the regulation is made.
52:57In Wales, the Senate follows similar scrutiny routes,
53:00adapted to its devolved context.
53:02Because Welsh legislation governs key aspects of daily life,
53:05education, health, housing, the environment,
53:08the clarity of explanatory material
53:10and the precision of bilingual drafting
53:12are of exceptional importance.
53:13Lawyers must treat the English and Welsh texts
53:16as equally authoritative,
53:17reading both where meaning diverges
53:19and aligning interpretation with legislative purpose.
53:22For the practitioner,
53:24the discipline is always to read in layers.
53:26First, the empowering act,
53:28then the procedure used to make the delegated legislation,
53:31and finally the instrument itself,
53:33paying close attention to commencement dates,
53:35territorial extent,
53:36and any transitional arrangements
53:38that determine how and when the rules bite.
53:41Judicial review sits alongside this structure
53:43as the system's supervisory safeguard,
53:45not an appeal on the merits.
53:47Courts do not substitute their own policy preferences
53:50for those of elected or expert decision makers,
53:53particularly where statutes entrust matters of technical complexity
53:56or resource allocation to specialised bodies.
53:59Yet the courts ensure that all decision makers
54:02remain within the legal boundaries of their powers,
54:04act fairly and rationally,
54:06and respect fundamental rights.
54:08The intensity of review varies with a subject matter.
54:11Where human rights or liberty are engaged,
54:13proportionality demands closer scrutiny.
54:16Where Parliament has allocated scarce resources,
54:18rationality review is more restrained.
54:21Remedies in judicial review remain discretionary
54:24and attuned to good administration.
54:26Increasingly, courts make use of suspended
54:29or prospective-only quashing orders,
54:31allowing public bodies to correct legal defects
54:34without destabilising complex regulatory schemes
54:37or invalidating decisions retroactively.
54:39This reflects a modern, pragmatic balance
54:42between legality and continuity.
54:44Beyond formal law, constitutional conventions
54:47provide the soft tissue around the constitutional skeleton.
54:50They describe how public actors behave
54:53when the black-letter law is silent or too blunt.
54:56Conventions operate on trust and shared understanding.
55:00The monarch acts on ministerial advice,
55:02ministers resign for departmental failures,
55:05and Westminster seeks devolved consent
55:07before legislating on devolved matters.
55:10Breaching a convention carries no legal penalty,
55:13but the political cost can be immense,
55:15and persistent breach corrodes the working constitution itself.
55:19For lawyers, conventions matter
55:21because they shape both the ethics of governance
55:23and the expectations of stability
55:25on which markets, institutions, and communities depend.
55:28When advising government,
55:30one must ask not only can we do it,
55:32but also should we do it
55:34and what will happen if we do.
55:36When advising clients affected by regulation,
55:38an awareness of convention underpins confidence
55:41in the predictability of public action.
55:44These principles converge vividly in modern protest law,
55:47where questions of human rights,
55:49public order, and administrative discretion collide.
55:52Imagine a protest group planning a disruptive march.
55:55The police, invoking their statutory powers,
55:58impose conditions to prevent serious disruption.
56:01The organizers claim a breach of their freedoms of expression
56:04and assembly under the Human Rights Act.
56:06The court's task is to apply the familiar proportionality test.
56:10Is the restriction prescribed by law?
56:12Does it pursue legitimate aims such as public safety
56:15or the protection of others' rights?
56:17And is it necessary and proportionate in the circumstances?
56:21That analysis filled naturally into the public law framework.
56:24Did the police consider all relevant factors,
56:27apply the statutory tests correctly,
56:29act within their powers,
56:31and provide reasons capable of withstanding scrutiny?
56:34The remedy might be a declaration,
56:36the quashing of particular conditions,
56:38or an urgent interim order to pause enforcement
56:41until the lawfulness of the restriction can be determined.
56:44Here, the abstractions of the constitutional theory
56:47meet the immediacy of real life,
56:49where protest, power, and principle collide in the streets,
56:52and the courts mediate between liberty and order
56:55in the language of legality and reason.
56:58Conclusion
57:00The legal system of England and Wales is at once continuous and dynamic.
57:05It honours precedent but adapts by distinguishing
57:09and by overruling when necessary.
57:11It respects parliamentary sovereignty,
57:14but commits to the rule of law and human rights.
57:17It speaks with a single jurisdictional voice,
57:20even as it allows Wales to legislate distinctly within devolved competence.
57:25It has stepped out of the EU while carrying forward
57:29a large body of EU-derived rules as domestic law.
57:34It empowers protest while protecting order.
57:37It keeps public authorities within the law
57:40without substituting judicial preferences for democratic choices.
57:45For SQE practice, your craft is to move easily among these layers.
57:51Read acts fluently, interpret purposefully,
57:55argue precedent honestly,
57:57and deploy judicial review with precision and restraint.
58:01Do that and you will be the kind of newly qualified solicitor this system expects.
58:07Practical, principled, and effective.
58:11I hope you don't smell a fish after an hour of watching Fishmongers.
58:15Thank you for watching, and have a look around Dr. Yance's channel for more.
Comments