The Sovereignty of Law: Freedom, Constitution and Common Law

370 Pages·2013·1.64 MB·English

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF LAW
Freedom, Constitution, and Common Law
This page intentionally left blank
Th e Sovereignty
of Law
Freedom, Constitution, and
Common Law
T. R. S. ALLAN
1
3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© T Allan 2013
Th e moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2013
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence
Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI
and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013937735
ISBN 978–0–19–968506–6
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Preface
Th is book has been written during my tenure of a Leverhulme Major Research
Fellowship, 2010–2012, and I am very grateful for the opportunity for uninterrupted
research and refl ection that the Fellowship provided. I am indebted to many friends
and colleagues for their help and advice during this period, but most especially to
John Allison, Peter Cane, David Dyzenhaus, David Feldman, Andrew Hillam,
Jeff King, Stuart Lakin, Nick McBride, Alistair Mills, Nigel Simmonds, and Mark
Walters for kindly reading and commenting on particular chapters. Andrew Hillam
has generously read many chapters and given me invaluable advice on making my
text more readily accessible to undergraduates as well as more experienced scholars.
I am also grateful to Alex Flach and Natasha Flemming at Oxford University Press
for their effi cient and friendly assistance.
I have learnt much from the critical literature provoked by my previous writings
on constitutional theory and public law. My critics have prompted me to think
harder about my own conception of common law constitutionalism (as it is usually
called); and I have taken the present opportunity to respond to their objections
when it has seemed helpful to do so in order to advance or clarify my argument.
My principal aim has been to explore some basic questions of method in the analysis
of public law, attempting to lay bare the theoretical grounds of some of the major
debates and controversies within the subject. I hope at least to clarify the jurispru-
dential roots of my own position, in respect of many of these controversies, even if
I fail to bring all readers round to my own conclusions.
I have been very fortunate to enjoy the discussion of legal and constitutional
theory with my friends John Allison, David Dyzenhaus, and Nigel Simmonds over
many years; I have benefi ted greatly (if not greatly enough) from their scholarly
wisdom. A great sadness during the writing of this book, however, has been the
loss of my friend Amanda Perreau-Saussine de Ezcurra, after serious illness. A very
fi ne common lawyer and legal theorist, Amanda was always both a generously
appreciative reader and my most perceptive critic. Th e book would no doubt have
been much improved if she had been able to scrutinize my draft chapters; I can
only hope she would not have been too disappointed by the fi nal text. I dedicate
the book to her memory.
T. R. S. A.
Cambridge
January 2013
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Introduction 1
1. Constitution and Constitutionalism 17
2. Constitutional Convention: Practice and Principle 55
3. Th e Rule of Law: Freedom, Law, and Justice 88
4. Parliamentary Sovereignty: Authority and Autonomy 133
5. Legislative Supremacy and the Rule of Law 168
6. Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review 208
7. Judicial Review and Judicial Restraint 241
8. Democracy, Fundamental Rights, and Common Law 286
Appendix: Public Law and Political Th eory 333
Index 351
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction
I
A student of British constitutional law is confronted by an intimidating series of
antinomies; and it is quickly apparent that there is great scope for argument about
fundamental ideas and doctrines. A doctrine of absolute ‘parliamentary sovereignty’
appears to make the principle of the ‘rule of law’ subservient to a fl uctuating legisla-
tive majority. Yet the rule of law is normally understood by its defenders to provide
the foundations for government according to law—the bedrock of liberal democratic
constitutionalism. Th e paradox is deepened by what is sometimes presented as
an opposition between the rule of law and democracy. If the former is broadly
represented, in practice, by judicial enforcement of established legal principle, the
latter consists (on that view) in the right of the people’s representatives to override
such principles in the larger public interest. For example, basic rights of fair trial
for certain types of criminal defendant—perhaps suspected rapists or terrorists—
might have to give way to considerations of public safety, as determined by elected
members of Government or Parliament.1
Th e sense of paradox or contradiction is further deepened by an overarching
confl ict between so-called legal constitutionalism and its political counterpart.
Whereas the former emphasizes the role of the judiciary in defending basic liberties,
the latter gives pride of place to the ordinary political process, giving maximum
weight to the popular voice on any issue, as refl ected by opinions expressed and
votes cast. A legal constitutionalist typically concentrates on the legal framework
of the constitution, treating the judiciary as the ultimate guardians of a system
of law designed to regulate the exercise of power and protect individual liberty.
Th e political constitutionalist usually treats the legal framework as a transient and
temporary arrangement of rights, duties, and powers, vulnerable to change at the
will of a current political majority acting in the name of the people at large. If the
content of fundamental rights is sometimes controversial, making it hard to dis-
entangle lawyerly disagreement from political dispute, it is not clear (on that view)
why judges should be entrusted with resolving the controversy rather than elected
politicians. 2
1 Th e capital G of ‘Government’ indicates the executive (ministers and civil servants) by contrast
with ‘government’, which I use as to encompass all main branches of the state (including Parliament,
Government, and the judiciary).
2 For a particularly robust defence of political constitutionalism and critique of its legal coun-
terpart, see Adam Tomkins, Our Republican Constitution ( Oxford : Hart Publishing , 2005). See also
Richard Bellamy, Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy
( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2007).