Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
Find up-to-date guidance on points of law and then easily pull up sources to support your advice with Lexis PSL
Check out our straightforward definitions of common legal terms.
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Access our unrivalled global news content, business information and analytics solutions
Insurance, risk and compliance intelligence using big data, proprietary linking and advanced analytics.
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Published last month in The Spectator by James Harper, Executive Sponsor, Rule of Law and CSR, LexisNexis UK
In an article published on 10 September (‘No, Boris isn’t breaching the Rule of Law. Here’s why’), David Wolfson QC argued that the government’s actions around the Internal Markets Bill do not breach the Rule of Law.
Sadly, while I wish this were true, I do not concur. From the moment Brandon Lewis stood in Parliament and openly admitted the government’s plans breached international law, albeit in a “limited and specific” manner (and there can be no question that this was in error), the government has been acting in a way which does not accord with the philosophy embodied by the expression “Rule of Law”.
At its heart, the Rule of Law is the concept that all are equal under the law – in other words, the law applies to everyone in the same way no matter who you are. The origins of this principle date back far into history – around 1760BC to be specific and the Code of Hammurabi, one of the first examples of the codification of law, applying to the acts of the ruler as well as the people.
There are other elements to the Rule of Law (and you can read our definition here) but, for these purposes, the key point is that the government cannot place itself above the law that applies to everyone else. To be fair, Mr Wolfson and I seem to be ad idem on this, and on the point “upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle of sound government”.
But here is where our opinions diverge.
It is vitally important to distinguish between the Rule of Law and rule by law. The latter describes a situation where you have laws and those laws are intended to govern. It is entirely possible to have a system where you are ruled by laws, but where the Rule of Law is absent.
Nazi Germany serves as a good example from history (as ever). Many laws were made, promulgated, and then administered by a judiciary. There is no doubt that the law existed and that it governed. However, no one could dispute that there was a clear absence of the Rule of Law.
China provides another example. Laws are ‘administered’ (i.e. interpreted) by the government minister who issues them. That minister decides whether the law has been complied with in a given situation, subject to no authority other than their own decision. Again, the law exists and governs – rule by law – but there is no equality of law and, therefore, no Rule of Law.
Mr Wolfson’s article is correct to an extent: the government has not breached any specific law so far – as he says, the mere act of laying a bill before parliament cannot be a breach.
However, adherence to the Rule of Law as a concept requires certain behaviours that cannot be avoided by simply pointing to the absence of broken law. One must act in line with its spirit. To borrow from criminal law, the test is less about the actus reus – the guilty act – as more about the mens rea – the guilty mind.
The point at which you set out on a course of action placing you above the law, or advocate a belief that it is acceptable to break the law (something no citizen can unilaterally do and hope to escape punishment), is the point at which you have abandoned the Rule of Law as a guiding principle.
There are some who do not believe the Internal Markets Bill breaks the law. There are others who say that, while it does, the law will only be broken when the powers are exercised (a “last resort”), and that this would be the EU’s fault anyway. Others still believe this is all just posturing: taking a position so extreme that it will shock the EU into altering its negotiating stance on Brexit arrangements.
Those points may well be valid, but each is utterly irrelevant. They show the same misunderstanding between the concepts of rule by law and the Rule of Law. The commission of the act is a sideshow – the stated intention to do so, and belief that it is acceptable, is the crux.
In ‘Laws’, Plato stated: “Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise.”
While I do not believe that the collapse of the state is imminent, I would submit that we are even further from a situation which might be described as “full of promise”. To see the Rule of Law treated with such cavalier abandon in the ‘mother of all Parliaments’ is a nadir to which I never thought we would sink.
Be in no doubt: whether the law itself has been breached or not, the Rule of Law clearly has.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
Legal Director and
Exec Sponsor, Rule of
Law and CSR
James works for LexisNexis, based in their London office, as Legal Director
and Senior Counsel. In line with a personal passion for access to
justice, James leads LexisNexis’s work in the UK on advancing the Rule of Law,
with a focus on supporting digitisation in the free legal advice community.
He also heads up the UK CSR programme, encouraging employee volunteering and
giving, making a positive impact on society and the communities around us.
A lawyer with experience both in private practice and in-house, James joined
LN in 2012 as its UK General Counsel and was promoted to its board 2 years
later. He also led the legal function for LexisNexis South Africa and for
regulatory media organisation MLex after its acquisition in 2015
In 2017, he moved into a mainstream business role to gain non-legal
experience, and worked as the Director of Customer Success and
Engagement. Leading a group of c.40 people at the front-line of the
business, his team ensured that existing customers get the most value from our
products and future customers can make informed and objective decisions when
moving to services and tools within our product portfolio.
James returned to his current legal role at the start of 2021.Away from the office, James is a Trustee for the London Legal Support Trust, an
Officer of the International Bar Association, and an FA Level 1 Football Coach.
0330 161 1234