‘Judges sometimes distort the law’ – Michael Howard
TORY former leader Michael Howard has claimed judges sometimes “distort” the law they are interpreting to “reach they result they want to achieve”.
Swansea-born Lord Howard of Lympne, a former barrister, criticised the Supreme Court for ruling that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament in September was “unlawful”.
He claimed that judges have
“increasingly substituted their own view of what is right for the view of Parliament and of ministers”.
In an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he questioned whether it should be elected politicians or unelected judges who make the law.
He said: “What we’ve seen in recent years is a very considerable increase in the power of the judiciary, partly as a result of the expansion of judicial review, partly because they were invited by Parliament under the Human Rights Act to enter the political arena by considering, for example, whether the measures that Parliament had taken to deal with a particular problem were proportionate to the objectives they wanted to achieve”
He added: “Sometimes in order to reach the result they want to achieve, they ... distort the meaning of the Act of Parliament of which they are interpreting.”
Lord Howard said the law states that proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached in any court – but that outgoing Supreme Court president Baroness Hale said prorogation did not amount to a proceeding because it was not a decision of Parliament.
“Prorogation was clearly, of any ordinary view of the language, a proceeding in Parliament,” he said.
Asked if the Supreme Court’s ruling was a political act, he said: “I think that judges have increasingly substituted their own view of what is right for the view of Parliament and of ministers.”