‘The Court of Appeal … Appears to Have Overlooked the Limitations to its Competence, Both Institutional and Constitutional, to Decide Questions of National Security’: Shamima Begum, the Supreme Court and the Relationship Between the Judiciary and the Executive

2. Judicial decisions are prone to being controversial. Sometimes the most ground-breaking decisions attract vocal criticism from either the left, or right, of the political and social spectrum. On matters of constitutional importance, the Supreme Court has certainly been proactive in its reinforcement of existing legal constitutional principles in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Miller No 1) and in giving legal protection to a principle of the political constitution in R (Miller) v Prime Minister (Miller No 2). Needless to say, both decisions were condemned or severely criticised by some sections of the press, political establishment and the academy. When a decision concerns political subjects as divisive as Brexit it is not unsurprising that the courts and individual members of the judiciary risk becoming the target for criticism. The late Professor JAG Griffith warned of the dangers of the judiciary; this mantel has been picked up by Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project, which unsurprisingly warns against the dangers of judicial power.