Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomatocracy | Hacker News Reader

This has led to ever more elaborate ouster clauses eg amending the wording to something like "determination or purported determination". It's been an ongoing game of legal sophistry. It's quite amusing really.

This is a recent attempt (subsequently dropped I think as the politics moved on): https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/10/15/the-uk-internal-mar...

View on HN

Even broader is the one in the drafted repeal of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, the scope of (b) being particularly worrying - what exactly counts a related purported decision? 'A court of law may not question— (a) the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in section 2,(b) any decision or purported decision relating to those powers, or (c) the limits or extent of those powers.'

My take is that this means the courts may not question any legal exercise of those powers sure, but if the exercise of the powers is found to be contrary to law then it is void and subject to judicial review. And that’s fine, there shouldn’t be any way to bypass judicial review.

Perhaps but the mother of all ouster clauses still survives and is likely to be effective (and should be, in my view): the section of the 1689 Bill of Rights which reads "That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com