Hart Publishing has published “The UK Constitution after Miller: Brexit and beyond”, edited by Jack Williams and Professors Mark Elliott and Alison Young.

The judgment of the UK Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is of fundamental legal, constitutional and political significance. The Supreme Court’s judgment discussed the relative powers of Parliament and the Government, the relationship between Westminster and the devolved legislatures, and the extent to which the UK’s membership of the EU had changed the UK constitution, both prior to and even after departure. It also provided further evidence of the emerging role of the UK’s Supreme Court as a

constitutional court, despite the lack of a codified constitution in the UK.

This edited collection critically evaluates the decision in Miller, providing a detailed analysis of the reasoning in the judgment and its longer-term consequences for

the UK constitution through the period of Brexit and beyond. The case is used as a lens through which to evaluate the modern UK constitution and its potential future evolution. Whatever form Brexit may eventually take, the impact that EU membership and the triggering of Brexit has (already) had on the UK’s constitutional settlement is profound. The book will be of great value to anyone interested in the effect of the Miller case and Brexit on the UK’s constitution.

To order (with a 30% discount until 29 July 2018), see here. (After the 29 July 2018, use discount code CV7.)

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS

Foreword by Sir Stephen Sedley

1. The Miller Tale: An Introduction
   Mark Elliott, Jack Williams and Alison L Young
2. Prerogative Powers After Miller: An Analysis in Four E’s
   Jack Williams
3. Miller and the Prerogative
   Anne Twomey
4. Miller, Treaty Making and the Rights of Subjects
   Eirik Bjorge
5. Miller, EU Law and the UK
   Paul Craig
6. Of Power Cables and Bridges: Individual Rights and Retrospectivity in Miller and Beyond
   David Howarth
7. Constitutional Change and Territorial Consent: The Miller Case and the Sewel Convention
   Aileen McHarg
8. Sovereignty, Consent and Constitutions: The Northern Ireland References
   Gordon Anthony
9. The Miller Case and Constitutional Statutes
   Sir John Laws
10. Sovereignty, Primacy and the Common Law Constitution: What has EU Membership Taught Us?
    Mark Elliott
11. Miller, Constitutional Realism and the Politics of Brexit
    Richard Ekins and Graham Gee
12. Miller and the Future of Constitutional Adjudication
    Alison L Young

To order (with a 30% discount until 29 July 2018), see here. (After the 29 July 2018, use discount code CV7.)

The second edition of Jeremy McBride’s “Human rights and criminal procedure – The case law of the European Court of Human Rights” was published by the Council of Europe in June in English, with a Russian translation being also published by Development of Legal Systems in Moscow.

The book is intended to assist judges, lawyers and prosecutors to take account of the many requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights – both explicit and implicit – for the criminal process when interpreting and applying Codes of Criminal Procedure and comparable or related legislation. It does so through extracts from key rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the former European Commission of Human Rights dealing with complaints about violations of Convention rights and freedoms in the course of the investigation, prosecution and trial of alleged offences, as well as in the course of appellate and various other proceedings linked to the criminal process. The extracts are significant not only because the mere text of the Convention is insufficient to indicate the scope of what is entailed by it but also because the circumstances of the cases selected give a sense of how to apply the requirements in concrete situations.

For more information, and to purchase a copy of the book, please click here.

This article was first published on Lexis®PSL Tax on 20 April 2018.

“TMT analysis: As a continuation of its review of the general conditions of entitlement (GCs), Ofcom has now issued a new statement on emergency planning direction, number withdrawal and guidance on contract termination. Philip Woolfe of Monckton Chambers analyses the changes.

This statement follows on from Ofcom’s statement and consultation of September 2017, which revoked and replaced the previous version of the GCs with effect from 1 October 2018.

Original news

Ofcom publishes statement on emergency planning direction, number withdrawal and guidance on contract termination LNB News 26/03/2018 85.

As part of the review and update of its General Conditions (GCs), Ofcom has published a statement which sets out its conclusions on a number of proposals which it consulted upon at the same time as it published the new GCs. The statement updates a direction which specifies which public bodies may request industry to make arrangements for the restoration of communications services in the event of disasters; sets out new rules for a further extension of Ofcom’s power to withdraw telephone numbers where they are used inconsistently with the national telephone numbering plan or otherwise misused; and provides guidance about procedures for terminating contracts.”

To read full article please click here.

Trade remedies are very much in the news. George Peretz QC (Monckton Chambers) assesses the government’s plans for a post-Brexit regime.

To read full article please click here.

The House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee has produced a report on UK progress on reducing Fluorinated gas (F-gas) emissions.

Professor Panos Koutrakos gave oral evidence which has been used in the report, available here.

 

Alison Berridge and Imogen Proud highlight the points of interest from decisions of the tribunals and Information Commissioner from the end of January 2018 to March 2018.

Please click here to read the article published in the Freedom of Information Journal.

Abstract

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times — a year marked by genuine progress in public procurement law in some nations, and partial paralysis in others. This article presents the experience of Sweden (as part of the European Union), the United Kingdom (which is slated soon to depart from the EU, via “Brexit”), and the United States (in the first year of the Trump administration). While Sweden and other members of the European Union continue to develop a vital and evolving body of public procurement law, the United Kingdom has been distracted by Brexit, and the United States made, in 2017, almost no regulatory progress at all — though stasis itself yielded some interesting insights. This piece proceeds in three parts, prepared primarily by Andrea Sundstrand (Part II, on Sweden and the European Union), Michael Bowsher (Part III, on the United Kingdom) and Christopher Yukins (Introduction, Part IV on the United States, and Conclusion).

Authors: Michael Bowsher QC, King’s College London, Andrea Sundstrand, Stockholm University and Christopher R. Yukins, George Washington University – Law School

To read the paper, please click here.