RolloTreadway on Nostr: I've never been sure how significant the precedent actually is, because it's inherent ...
I've never been sure how significant the precedent actually is, because it's inherent to Parliamentary supremacy that Parliament can always put itself above the Courts. And the Courts can ultimately only do as Parliament instructs (as we've seen with the Rwanda legislation).
Consequently, whether a similar principle is applied in future must depend on having a Parliamentary majority in favour; that has always been the only protection we ever have against a Government preventing its allies from being sentenced. Or, indeed, preventing its opponents from being acquitted.
All said, we don't have a balance of power between legislative, executive and judiciary. I happen to think that we should, but I don't expect any change in my lifetime.
I also think there are a couple of existing precedents which are tangentially related. The plan to not prosecute JR Campbell in 1924 isn't quite the same, as it hadn't reached court, but is still a case of party political interests overruling the exercise of law (albeit an unsuccessful one, because of the lack of majority in Parliament).
And going much further back, the execution of Strafford in 1641 was possible because he was considered to be generally guilty by a majority in Parliament, even though he wasn't guilty of an actual crime. If that seems too long ago to be relevant, Churchill had a plan to use Bills of Attainder to extrajudicially execute leading Nazis during the war, should they fall into British hands.
Consequently, whether a similar principle is applied in future must depend on having a Parliamentary majority in favour; that has always been the only protection we ever have against a Government preventing its allies from being sentenced. Or, indeed, preventing its opponents from being acquitted.
All said, we don't have a balance of power between legislative, executive and judiciary. I happen to think that we should, but I don't expect any change in my lifetime.
I also think there are a couple of existing precedents which are tangentially related. The plan to not prosecute JR Campbell in 1924 isn't quite the same, as it hadn't reached court, but is still a case of party political interests overruling the exercise of law (albeit an unsuccessful one, because of the lack of majority in Parliament).
And going much further back, the execution of Strafford in 1641 was possible because he was considered to be generally guilty by a majority in Parliament, even though he wasn't guilty of an actual crime. If that seems too long ago to be relevant, Churchill had a plan to use Bills of Attainder to extrajudicially execute leading Nazis during the war, should they fall into British hands.