Judicial Capture of Political Accountability examines the increasing capture of political accountability mechanisms by courts. It focuses upon developments in judicial review of the Ombudsman process, and shows how these developments are emblematic of wider, troubling trends that are plunging judicial review into a legitimacy crisis.

With help from colleagues in the academy and legal profession, the Judicial Power Project presents a list of 50 “problematic” cases from UK and European courts.

Judging the Public Interest examines the Supreme Court’s quashing of the Attorney General’s decision to block disclosure of the Prince of Wales’ correspondence with ministers. The report argues that, in doing so, the judiciary confused the rule of law with the rule of courts and overstepped its constitutional limits. It recommends that Parliament act swiftly to overturn this wayward judgment, reaffirming the rule of law and Parliamentary authority.

Professors Ekins and Gee argue that the public and politicians should be free to debate the role of the courts in our constitution, welcoming the willingness of some in the political class to restate the limits on judicial power and emphasising the primacy of an elected Parliament as the safeguard against injustice and the disadvantages of remaking the law by judicial process.

Last month Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project hosted a lecture by Professor John Finnis on “Judicial Power: Past, Present and Future”. The Project has invited leading commentators Adrienne Stone, from Australia; Grégoire Webber, from Canada; and Mark Elliott, from the UK, to give their responses to the case made by Professor Finnis.

The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP introduced a lecture on the past, present and future of judicial power by Professor Finnis, one of the foremost legal and political thinkers of our age, for Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project. Lord Justice Elias, himself a former distinguished legal academic, delivered the Vote of Thanks.

The Judicial Power Project aims to understand and correct the undue rise in judicial power by restating, for modern times and in relation to modern problems, the nature and limits of the judicial power within our tradition and the related scope of sound legislative and executive authority