Neuberger claims politicians ‘undermined rule of law’ over Brexit court case

Lord Neuberger, supreme court president. Unjustified attacks on the judiciary risks undermining our society, he says [Image: David Levene for the Guardian].

Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger is of course referring to ‘Lukewarm’ Liz Truss, the Justice Secretary who delayed fulfilling her constitutional duty to rebuke the press after headlines claimed judges were ‘enemies of the people’.

‘Lukewarm’ Liz, as part of her job, must uphold the independence of the judiciary, must defend that independence, must not seek to influence judicial decisions, must provide support to allow the judiciary to exercise their functions, and must give the public interest proper regard in matters relating to the administration of justice.

In short, when the newspapers scream that judges are “enemies of the people” for upholding the law of the United Kingdom, Liz Truss must – as Justice Secretary – publicly rebuke them.

Former Lord Chief Justice Lord Igor Judge has already claimed that Ms Truss broke the law by failing to speak up for 48 hours after the Daily Mail made its outrageous claim.

Now, it seems Lord Neuberger is agreeing.

His words are a huge vote of ‘no confidence’ in the cheese-sucking Truss, who has no legal experience and came to Parliament after being a member of the think tank Reform.

But who do you think the Daily Heil will support?

Britain’s top judge has spoken out about media attacks on the judiciary and the failure of politicians to stand up for judges after the Brexit court challenge.

Lord Neuberger, the president of the supreme court, said some of the vitriol directed at the high court judges after they ruled against the government in November was “undermining the rule of law”.

Politicians “could have been quicker and clearer” in their defence of the judiciary, he added in an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday.

When three high court judges ruled that parliament should have a say in triggering article 50 to leave the EU, they faced intense criticism from some sections of the media, including a Daily Mail front page describing them as “enemies of the people”.

The justice secretary, Liz Truss, faced fierce criticism for being slow in defending the judges against the media attacks.

Source: Supreme court president: politicians too slow to defend judges after Brexit case | Law | The Guardian

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


5 thoughts on “Neuberger claims politicians ‘undermined rule of law’ over Brexit court case

  1. Barry Davies

    Why should anyone be considered as breaking the law for not standing up to a bunch of legal professionals, it’s not as if they get everything right, they are far from perfect on a subject matter they profess to be experts in. The Judges all had a vote on the referendum the same as everyone else, as did the politicians, in the rule of law there is one man one vote not some people having the right to overule the majority.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Ms Truss’s duty was not to stand up TO these judges; her job was to stand up FOR them.
      Their job, by the way, is to uphold the law impartially. Your comments on their personal views are therefore immaterial.
      And the rule of law is not subject to a vote; you can’t choose to disobey a law if you don’t like it.

    1. Roy Beiley

      Depends who appoints new judges. Neuberger is in my view apolitical. He sees the Judicial’s role as keeping a check on the Administration of the day ( The Executive) to ensure their actions, or intended actions, are lawful and if not to say so. One of the outcomes of Brexit has been to promote the fallacy that the will of the people can not be derailed even it is unlawful. Slippery slope stuff.

Comments are closed.