Judges attempted to take over sovereignty belonging to the people

SIR – Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, complained about the judiciary being criticised in the press for ruling that the Government must get Parliament’s permission to invoke Article 50 (Charles Moore, Comment, February 18).

For the first time the judiciary had entered the constitutional sphere and claimed power to instruct the Government and Parliament on what they can and cannot do.

Lord Neuberger declared that the matter was to be judged “according to the law”. He ought to have said, but could not, that it would be judged according to the law of the constitution.

The great conventions that largely form the British constitution, in the words of AV Dicey, “are not laws, but are as important as any laws”. They can be described as time-honoured understandings in the mind of the British people as to how government should be conducted – to which civil law cannot apply.

Three great sovereignties interact: the royal sovereignty, the legal sovereignty of Parliament, and the sovereignty of the people. The last is the greatest, and is the source of the legal sovereignty entrusted to elected parliaments for their term of office. The judiciary’s task is to interpret the laws Parliament enacts in the people’s service.

We are witnessing nothing less than an attempt to make the judiciary a force overriding sovereignty.

Ivor Morris Stowmarket, Suffolk

SIR – A free press is infinitely more important than the delicate sensitivities of Lord Neuberger.

Michael Brotherton Chippenham, Wiltshire

SIR – If the judiciary was “hounded” in the media, consequent upon the decision of the Administrative Court last year, sadly it has to be said that seemingly the judges may only have themselves to blame. That is because the court wrongly entertained the Miller case. It should have refused to hear it as misconceived. The issues were all political, and properly to be determined by Parliament, not the courts. Whether there should be a vote in Parliament on invoking Article 50, or whether the Prime Minister’s use of the royal prerogative should be curtailed, are clearly issues within the competence of Parliament.

The irrelevance of the order made by the court, and the futility of the litigation, were dramatically demonstrated by the massive majority in the Commons authorising the Prime Minister to activate Article 50.

The court was drawn into politically charged litigation, presented as raising important constitutional issues when it did not. That has resulted in the Administrative Court being seen unfairly as supporting the Remainers’ side. There can be no doubt that the court was not so biased; it did its best to come to a just conclusion. Unfortunately, it was unwise.

Stanley Brodie QC Hollybush, Ayrshire