Re: Seriously?
Lord Carnwath also said, obiter*, that he doesn't think that the rule of law makes such that no ouster clause would never be allowed to stand if it purported to exclude review on the grounds of error of law, no matter how well-crafted the section in the Act, regardless of the supposed supremacy of Parliament. This accords with what my public law lecturers taught me back in the day, and it seems incontrovertible to me. The courts do stand against abuse of Parliamentary power, and for the rule of law.
* "obiter dicta" is the name for things the judge says that are not part of the actual logic of the decision ("ratio decidendi"). Comments made obiter can be very powerful in the future, so Lord Carnwath was drawing a line in the sand with regard to future cases of this type.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
