1.
Webley L, Samuels H. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Fifth edition. Oxford University Press; 2021.
2.
Webley L, Samuels H. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 5th Edition. Oxford University Press; 2021. https://doi-org.ezproxy01.rhul.ac.uk/10.1093/he/9780198853183.001.0001
3.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018.
4.
Stanton J, Prescott C, Mead D. Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198722939.001.0001
5.
Loveland I. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. 9th Edition. Oxford University Press; 2021.
6.
Loveland I. Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. 9th Edition. Oxford University Press; 2021.
7.
Alder J, Syrett K. Constitutional and Administrative Law. Vol Palgrave Law Masters. 11th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan; 2017.
8.
Elliott M, Thomas R. Public Law. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2017.
9.
Elliott M, Thomas R. Public Law. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press; 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198765899.001.0001
10.
Le Sueur AP, Sunkin M, Murkens JE. Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2016.
11.
Le Sueur AP, Sunkin M, Murkens JE. Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2019. http://doi.org.ezproxy01.rhul.ac.uk/10.1093/he/9780198820284.001.0001
12.
Public Law. https://uk.westlaw.com/WestlawUk/Journals/Publications/Public-Law
13.
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. https://librarysearch.royalholloway.ac.uk/permalink/44ROY_INST/70508m/alma997001809702671
14.
The Modern Law Review. https://librarysearch.royalholloway.ac.uk/permalink/44ROY_INST/16u3s8/alma997003019902671
15.
International Journal of Constitutional Law. https://librarysearch.royalholloway.ac.uk/permalink/44ROY_INST/16u3s8/alma997000681902671
16.
Legal Studies: The Journal of the Society of Legal Scholars. https://librarysearch.royalholloway.ac.uk/permalink/44ROY_INST/16u3s8/alma997017693302671
17.
The Law Quarterly Review.
18.
The Cambridge Law Journal. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-law-journal
19.
Constitution Committee | UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/constitution-committee/
20.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee | UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/
21.
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee | UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/
22.
UK Constitutional Law Association Blog | International Association of Constitutional Law. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog/
23.
Blog | UK Constitutional Law Association | affiliated to the International Association of Constitutional Law. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/blog/
24.
UK Parliament. http://www.parliament.uk/
25.
British and Irish Legal Information Institute. http://www.bailii.org/
26.
European Court of Human Rights. http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
27.
UK Human Rights Blog. https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/
28.
The Constitution Unit Blog. https://constitution-unit.com/
29.
Webley L, Samuels H. ‘What is Public Law’ and ‘Constitutional Organisations, Institutions, and Roles’, and ‘The Nature of the British Constitution’. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Vol Complete. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2018:3-76.
30.
Webley L, Samuels H. What is Public Law’ and ‘Constitutional Organisations, Institutions, and Roles’, and ‘The Nature of the British Constitution’. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
31.
Feldman D. None, One or Several? Perspectives on the UK’s Constitution(s). The Cambridge Law Journal. 2005;64(2):329-351. doi:10.1017/S0008197305006884
32.
Alder J, Syrett K. Underlying Politcal Traditions. In: Constitutional and Administrative Law. Vol Palgrave Law Masters. 11th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan; 2017:26-54.
33.
Elliott M, Thomas R. Themes, Sources, and Principles. In: Public Law. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2017:36-86.
34.
Elliot M, Thomas R. Themes, Sources, and Principles. In: Public Law. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press; 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198765899.001.0001
35.
Webley L, Samuels H. ‘Constitutional Organisations, Institutions and Roles’ and ‘The Nature of the British Constitution’. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Vol Complete. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2018:13-15.
36.
Webley L, Samuels H. ‘Constitutional Organisations, Institutions and Roles’ and ‘The Nature of the British Constitution’. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
37.
Liversidge v Anderson [1941] UKHL 1. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1941/1.html
38.
Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/56.html
39.
Miller & Anor, R (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Rev 3) [2017] UKSC 5. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/5.html
40.
R (on the Application of Nicklinson and Another) (Appellants) v Ministry of Justice (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 38. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0235.html
41.
Ahmed F, Perry A. Constitutional Statutes. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Published online 2016. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqw030
42.
Barber NW. Prelude to the Separation of Powers. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2001;60(1):59-88. doi:10.1017/S0008197301000629
43.
Jones BC. Preliminary Warnings on ‘Constitutional’ Idolatry. Public Law. Published online 2016:74-92. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IE932C1D09A7F11E5ACC99E2443923C19/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
44.
Murkens JEK. Democracy as the Legitimating Condition in the UK Constitution. Legal Studies. 2018;38(01):42-58. doi:10.1017/lst.2017.10
45.
Hale, Lady. ‘The UK Supreme Court in the UK Constitution’ (Inaugural Lecture at the Institute for Legal and Constitutional Research, University of St Andrews, 8th of October 2015.; 2015:1-17. https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-151008.pdf
46.
Gee G, Webber GCN. What Is a Political Constitution? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2010;30(2):273-299. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqq013
47.
Gordon M. Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK Constitution: Process, Politics and Democracy. Vol v. 4. Hart Publishing; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781474201667
48.
Webley L, Samuels H. Parliamentary Supremacy: The Theory. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Vol Complete. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2015:185-226.
49.
Webley L, Samuels H. Parliamentary Supremacy: The Theory. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
50.
British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1974/1.html
51.
Elliott M. The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty in Legal, Constitutional, and Political Perspective. In: Jowell JL, Oliver D, O’Cinneide C, eds. The Changing Constitution. 8th Edition. Oxford University Press; 2015:38-66.
52.
Mark Elliot: Reflections on the HS2 Case: A Hierarchy of Domestic Constitutional Norms and the Qualified Primacy of EU Law | UK Constitutional Law Association. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2014/01/23/mark-elliot-reflections-on-the-hs2-case-a-hierarchy-of-domestic-constitutional-norms-and-the-qualified-primacy-of-eu-law/
53.
Allan TRS. Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law. Oxford University Press; 2005.
54.
Allan TRS. Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law. Oxford University Press; 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199267880.001.0001
55.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Crown Royal Perogative. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Vol Complete. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2015:145-182.
56.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Crown Royal Perogative. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
57.
Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1984/9.html
58.
R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, [40]-[49]. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196.html
59.
Daly P. Justiciability and the ‘Political Question’ Doctrine. Public Law. Published online 2010:160-178. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI14A4A19044F511E88D34E20E69C76312%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
60.
Taming the Prerogative: Strengthening Ministerial Accountability to Parliament. Published 2003. https://parlipapers.proquest.com/parlipapers/result/pqpdocumentview?accountid=11455&groupid=103502&pgId=c5aea05f-b8ed-42b0-b2e6-8c68938d85ec
61.
Craig R. A Simple Application of the Frustration Principle: Prerogative, Statute and Miller. Public Law. Published online 2017. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI8106D680C87411E79CFEFF663275FD29%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
62.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Role of Constitutional Conventions. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Vol Complete. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2015:365-393.
63.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Role of Constitutional Conventions. Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Published online 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
64.
Taylor RB. Foundational and Regulatory Conventions: Exploring the Constitutional Significance of Britain’s Dependency Upon Conventions. Public Law. Published online 2015:614-632. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI3A36A2305C5611E58916B963212E7CCD%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
65.
Attorney General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] QB 752. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI694B9730E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
66.
Gavin Phillipson: Historic Commons Syria Vote: The Constitutional Significance (Part I) | UK Constitutional Law Association. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/09/19/gavin-phillipson-historic-commons-syria-vote-the-constitutional-significance-part-i/
67.
Gavin Phillipson: Historic Commons Syria Vote: The Constitutional Significance. Part II the Way Forward | UK Constitutional Law Association. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/11/29/gavin-phillipson-historic-commons-syria-vote-the-constitutional-significance-part-ii-the-way-forward/
68.
Jaconelli J. Do Constitutional Conventions Bind? The Cambridge Law Journal. 2005;64(1):149-176. doi:10.1017/S0008197305006823
69.
Barber NW. Laws and Constitutional Conventions. Law Quarterly Review. 2009;125:294-309. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI69EDD0210ACD11DE953BC0C525628E94%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
70.
Webley L, Samuels H. Human Rights. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Vol Complete. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2015:255-290.
71.
Webley L, Samuels H. Human Rights. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
72.
Hale B. Argentoratum Locutum: Is Strasbourg or the Supreme Court Supreme? Human Rights Law Review. 2012;12(1):65-78. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngs001
73.
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] UKSC 63. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/63.html
74.
Loveland I. Human Rights II: Emergent Principles. In: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. 7th Edition. Oxford University Press; 2015:588-615.
75.
Loveland I. Human Rights II: Emergent Principles. In: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights: A Critical Introduction. 8th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198804680.001.0001
76.
Rainey B, Wicks E, Ovey C. Context, Background, and Institutions. In: Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights. 6th Edition. Oxford University Press; 2014:3-20.
77.
Ferreira N. The Supreme Court in a Final Push to Go Beyond Strasbourg. Public Law. Published online 2015. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI5409B340105311E5995D9B4942D36284%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
78.
Webley L, Samuels H. Human Rights. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Vol Complete. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2015:255-290.
79.
Webley L, Samuels H. Human Rights. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
80.
Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/30.html
81.
Human Rights Act 1998. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI5FB840F0E42311DAA7CF8F68F6EE57AB%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
82.
Stark SW. Facing Facts: Judicial Approaches to Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Law Quarterly Review. Published online 2017. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI553CB880985E11E7BEB8FD7157D7F73E%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
83.
Nicol D. Law and Politics After the Human Rights Act. Public Law. Published online 2006:722-751. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI13579C41540511DB85F29853495F842F%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
84.
Young AL. Is Dialogue Working Under the Human Rights Act 1998? Public Law. Published online 2011:773-800. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FID7EAF690E23C11E080A9C399189E1576%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
85.
Clayton R. The Empire Strikes Back: Common Law Rights and the Human Rights Act. Public Law. Published online 2015:3-12. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FIAD111C107B4F11E499B9D6E1F6E110C8%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
86.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Rule of Law. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Vol Complete. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press; 2015:77-113.
87.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Rule of Law. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
88.
Craig P. Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework. Public Law. Published online 1997:467-487.
89.
Jowell J. Parliamentary Sovereignty Under the New Constitutional Hypothesis. Public Law. Published online 2006:562-579.
90.
Jackson & Ors v. Her Majesty’s Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/56.html
91.
R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/21.html
92.
Bingham TH. The Rule of Law. Penguin; 2011.
93.
Alder J, Syrett K. The Rule of Law. In: Constitutional and Administrative Law. Vol Palgrave Law Masters. 11th Edition. Palgrave Macmillan; 2017:121-137.
94.
Goldsworthy J. Homogenizing Constitutions. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2003;23(3):483-505. doi:10.1093/ojls/23.3.483
95.
Masterman R, Murray C. Law, Politics, and the United Kingdom Constitution. In: Exploring Constitutional and Administrative Law. Pearson; 2013:88-108.
96.
Masterman R, Murray C. Law, Politics, and the United Kingdom Constitution. In: Exploring Constitutional and Administrative Law. ; 2003:88-108. http://eu.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/action/uresolver.do?operation=resolveService&package_service_id=13409289760002671&institutionId=2671&customerId=2670
97.
Elliott M. A Tangled Constitutional Web: The Black-Spider Memos and the British Constitution’s Relational Architecture. Public Law. Published online 2015:539-550. http://signon.thomsonreuters.com/federation/UKF?entityID=http%3A%2F%2Fidp.rhul.ac.uk%2Foala&returnto=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com%2FDocument%2FI3A34F4805C5611E58916B963212E7CCD%2FView%2FFullText.html%3FskipAnonymous%3Dtrue
98.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Role of Constitutional Conventions. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Fourth edition. Oxford University Press; 2018.
99.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Role of Constitutional Conventions. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
100.
Stanton J, Prescott C. The Royal Prerogative and Constitutional Conventions. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018.
101.
Stanton J, Prescott C. The Royal Prerogative and Constitutional Conventions. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198722939.001.0001
102.
Taylor RB. Foundational and Regulatory Conventions: Exploring the Constitutional Significance of Britain’s Dependency Upon Conventions. Public Law. Published online 2015:614-632. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I3A36A2305C5611E58916B963212E7CCD/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
103.
Phillipson G. ‘Historic’ Commons’ Syria Vote: The Constitutional Significance. Part I | UK Constitutional Law Association. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/09/19/gavin-phillipson-historic-commons-syria-vote-the-constitutional-significance-part-i/
104.
Phillipson G. "Historic” Commons’ Syria Vote: The Constitutional Significance. Part II | the Way Forward – UK Constitutional Law Association. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/11/29/gavin-phillipson-historic-commons-syria-vote-the-constitutional-significance-part-ii-the-way-forward/
105.
Jaconelli J. Do Constitutional Conventions Bind? The Cambridge Law Journal. 2005;64(1):149-176. doi:10.1017/S0008197305006823
106.
Barber NW. Laws and Constitutional Conventions. Law Quarterly Review. Published online 2009:294-309. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I69EDD0210ACD11DE953BC0C525628E94/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
107.
Perry A, Tucker A. Top-Down Constitutional Conventions. The Modern Law Review. 2018;81(5):765-789. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12364
108.
Principles of Good Administration | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/our-principles/principles-good-administration
109.
Tomkins A. In Defence of the Political Constitution. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2002;22(1):157-175. doi:10.1093/ojls/22.1.157
110.
Delegated Legislation | UK Parliament. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/delegated/
111.
Exercise of Discretion in Administrative Decision-Making. http://www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au/Publications/Documents/guidelines/Exercise-of-discretion-in-admin-decision-making.pdf
112.
Craig P. Competing Models of Judicial Review. Public Law. Published online 1999:428-447. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID132DF00E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
113.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Role of the Courts, Judicial Review, and Human Rights. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Fourth edition. Oxford University Press; 2018.
114.
Webley L, Samuels H. The Role of the Courts, Judicial Review, and Human Rights. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
115.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Access to Review and Remedies. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018.
116.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Access to Review and Remedies. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198722939.001.0001
117.
Lever A. Is Judicial Review Undemocratic? Public Law. Published online 2007:280-298. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I25BAEDE0E30911DB9628FD37664FF158/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
118.
Elliott M. Judicial Power and the United Kingdom’s Changing Constitution | Public Law for Everyone. Published 2018. https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2017/10/31/judicial-power-and-the-united-kingdoms-changing-constitution/
119.
Arvind TT. The Curious Origins of Judicial Review. Law Quarterly Review. Published online 2017:91-117. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I17F84060BE0811E689319702776550D2/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
120.
Craig P. Political Constitutionalism and the Judicial Role: A Response. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2011;9(1):112-131. doi:10.1093/icon/mor025
121.
Waldron J. The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal. 2006;115(6). doi:10.2307/20455656
122.
Ringhand L. Fig Leaves, Fairy Tales, and Constitutional Foundations: Debating Judicial Review in Britain. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law. 2005;43(3). http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=false&handle=hein.journals/cjtl43&id=1
123.
Allan TRS. Constitutional Dialogue and the Justification of Judicial Review. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2003;23(4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/3600687
124.
Forsyth C, Elliott M. The Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Public Law. Published online 2003:286-307. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I795AA3A0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
125.
Allan TRS. The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review: Conceptual Conundrum or Interpretative Inquiry? The Cambridge Law Journal. 2002;61(1):87-125. doi:10.1017/S000819730200154X
126.
Barber NW. Review: The Academic Mythologians. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2001;21(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20468373
127.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Developing Constitutional Principles of Public Law. Public Law. Published online 2001:684-694. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I849E17B0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
128.
Elliott M. The Demise of Parliamentary Sovereignty? the Implications for Justifying Judicial Review. Law Quarterly Review. Published online 1999:119-137. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ICCCA7BD0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
129.
Webley L, Samuels H. Illegality. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Fourth edition. Oxford University Press; 2018.
130.
Webley L, Samuels H. Illegality. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
131.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Illegality. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018.
132.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Illegality. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198722939.001.0001
133.
Hilson C. Judicial Review, Policies and the Fettering of Discretion. Public Law. Published online 2002:111-129. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID10F7880E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
134.
Gregson R. When Should There Be an Implied Power to Delegate? Public Law. Published online 2017:408-425. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IB5E035E04C6411E79A6EF925F51871C7/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
135.
Forsyth C. Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review. The Cambridge Law Journal. 1996;55(1):122-140. doi:10.1017/S0008197300097762
136.
Craig P. Ultra Vires and the Foundations of Judicial Review. The Cambridge Law Journal. 1998;57(1):63-90. doi:10.1017/S0008197300134397
137.
Oliver D. Is the Ultra Vires Rule the Basis of Judicial Review? Public Law. Published online 1987:543-569. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID3D7E750E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
138.
Knight CJS. A Framework for Fettering. Judicial Review. 2009;14(1):73-80. doi:10.1080/10854681.2009.11426590
139.
Jowell J. Of Vires and Vacuums: The Constitutional Context of Judicial Review. Public Law. Published online 1999:448-460. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID1392090E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
140.
Webley L, Samuels H. Irrationality and Proportionality. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Fourth edition. Oxford University Press; 2018.
141.
Webley L, Samuels H. Irrationality and Proportionality. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
142.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Irrationality and Proportionality. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018.
143.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Irrationality and Proportionality. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198722939.001.0001
144.
Williams R. Structuring Substantive Review. Public Law. Published online 2017:99-123. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IF32A9D40BAFC11E695A4FB481AEC10EF/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
145.
Varuhas JNE. The Reformation of English Administrative Law? "Rights”, Rhetoric and Reality. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2013;72(2):369-413. doi:10.1017/S0008197313000500
146.
Where Next for the Wednesbury Principle? a Brief Response to Lord Carnwath | Public Law for Everyone. https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2013/11/19/where-next-for-the-wednesbury-principle-a-brief-response-to-lord-carnwath/
147.
Kavanaugh A. Defending Deference in Public Law and Constitutional Theory. Law Quarterly Review. 2010;222. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IF3B510D22E5211DFBE2FA967ED04D069/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
148.
Elliott M. Mark Elliott: Justification, Calibration and Substantive Judicial Review: Putting Doctrine in its Place | UK Constitutional Law Association. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2013/09/17/mark-elliott-justification-calibration-and-substantive-judicial-review-putting-doctrine-in-its-place/
149.
Young AL. Will You, Won’t You, Will You Join the Deference Dance? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2014;34(2):375-394. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqu004
150.
Allan TRS. Judicial Deference and Judicial Review: Legal Doctrine and Legal Theory. Law Quarterly Review. 2011;127(1). https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I38697650034411E088BDC597D432CBAC/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
151.
Turner I. Irrationality, the Human Rights Act and the Limits of Merits-Review. Nottingham Law Journal. 2009;18:18-36. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IC5A4DCE02B5711E08221F700C27502AE/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
152.
Allan TRS. Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of "Due Deference”. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2006;65(3):671-695. doi:10.1017/S0008197306007264
153.
Walker P. What’s Wrong With Irrationality? Public Law. Published online 1995:556-576. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID3967180E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
154.
Norris M. Ex Parte Smith: Irrationality and Human Rights. Public Law. Published online 1996:590-600. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID37F6710E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
155.
Jowell J, Lester A. Beyond Wednesbury: Substantive Principles of Administrative Law. Commonwealth Law Bulletin. 1988;14(2):858-870. doi:10.1080/03050718.1988.9985971
156.
Chan C. A Preliminary Framework for Measuring Deference in Rights Reasoning. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2016;14(4):851-882. doi:10.1093/icon/mow058
157.
Varuhas JNE. The Reformation of English Administrative Law? "Rights”, Rhetoric and Reality. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2013;72(2):369-413. doi:10.1017/S0008197313000500
158.
Sales P. Rationality, Proportionality and the Development of the Law. Law Quarterly Review. Published online 2013:223-241. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I69812151881411E2BACCBED531DFD77E/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
159.
Craig P. The Nature of Reasonableness Review. Current Legal Problems. 2013;66(1):131-167. doi:10.1093/clp/cut010
160.
Poole T. The Reformation of English Administrative Law. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2009;68(1):142-168. doi:10.1017/S0008197309000063
161.
Hickman T. The Substance and Structure of Proportionality. Public Law. Published online 2008:694-716. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I010EBB7099A111DD9611E019A6BFBE26/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
162.
Rivers J. Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review. Cambridge Law Journal. 2006;65:174-207. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IFB69CD50E72A11DC88EB9BE684C867E2/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
163.
Poole T. Of Headscarves and Heresies: The Denbigh High School Case and Public Authority Decision-Making Under the Human Rights Act. Public Law. Published online 2005:685-695. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I848A1A80E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
164.
Blake N. Importing Proportionality: Clarification or Confusion. European Human Rights Law Review. Published online 2002:19-27. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I84B178A0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
165.
Fenwick H. The Anti–Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: A Proportionate Response to 11 September? The Modern Law Review. 2002;65(5):724-762. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.00405
166.
Craig P. The Courts, the Human Rights Act and Judicial Review. Law Quarterly Review. Published online 2001:589-603. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I848E3930E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
167.
Wong G. Towards the Nutcracker Principle: Reconsidering the Objections to Proportionality. Public Law. Published online 2000:92-109. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID1301FE1E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
168.
Supperstone M, Coppel J. Judicial Review After the Human Rights Act. European Human Rights Law Review. Published online 1999:301-329. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I84ACE4C0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
169.
Webley L, Samuels H. Procedural Impropriety. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Fourth edition. Oxford University Press; 2018.
170.
Webley L, Samuels H. Procedural Impropriety. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
171.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018.
172.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198722939.001.0001
173.
Ali v United Kingdom: Article 6(1) ECHR and Administrative Decision-Making | Public Law for Everyone. https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2016/03/13/ali-v-united-kingdom-article-61-echr-and-administrative-decision-making/
174.
Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council [2010] UKSC 8. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0050-judgment.pdf
175.
Elliott M. The Appearance of Bias, the Fair-Minded and Informed Observer, and the "Ordinary Person in Queen Square Market”. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2012;71(2):247-250. doi:10.1017/S0008197312000372
176.
Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council [2010] UKSC 8. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2009-0050-judgment.pdf
177.
Olowofoyeku AA. Bias and the Informed Observer: A Call for a Return to Gough. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2009;68(2):388-409. doi:10.1017/S0008197309000373
178.
Craig P. The Human Rights Act, Article 6 and Procedural Rights. Public Law. Published online 2003:753-773. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I84890911E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
179.
Loveland I. Does Homelessness Decision Making Engage Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights? European Human Rights Law Review. Published online 2003:176-204. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I7E856C70E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
180.
Olowofoyeku AA. The Nemo Judex Rule: The Case Against Automatic Disqualification. Public Law. Published online 2000:456-475. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID12EE760E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
181.
Malleson K. Judicial Bias and Disqualification After Pinochet (No. 2). Modern Law Review. 2000;63(1):119-127. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.00254
182.
Williams D. Bias; the Judges and the Separation of Powers. Public Law. Published online 2000:45-60. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID1246010E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
183.
Atrill S. WHO IS THE "FAIR-MINDED AND INFORMED OBSERVER”? BIAS AFTER. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2003;62(2):279-289. doi:10.1017/S0008197303006317
184.
Le Sueur AP. Legal Duties to Give Reasons. Current Legal Problems. 1999;52(1):150-172. doi:10.1093/clp/52.1.150
185.
Campbell NR. The Duty to Give Reasons in Administrative Law. Public Law. Published online 1994:184-191. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/ID39F4B20E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
186.
Webley L, Samuels H. Procedural Impropriety. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Fourth edition. Oxford University Press; 2018.
187.
Webley L, Samuels H. Procedural Impropriety. In: Complete Public Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 4th edn. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198798064.001.0001
188.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018.
189.
Stanton J, Prescott C. Judicial Review: Procedural Impropriety. In: Public Law. Oxford University Press; 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198722939.001.0001
190.
Tomlinson J. The Narrow Approach to Substantive Legitimate Expectations and the Trend of Modern Authority. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal. 2017;17(1):75-84. doi:10.1080/14729342.2017.1311514
191.
Ahmed F, Perry A. The Coherence of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2014;73(1):61-85. doi:10.1017/S0008197314000026
192.
Watson J. Clarity and Ambiguity: A New Approach to the Test of Legitimacy in the Law of Legitimate Expectations. Legal Studies. 2010;30(4):633-652. doi:10.1111/j.1748-121X.2010.00177.x
193.
Craig P, Schonberg S. Substantive Legitimate Expectations After Coughlan. Public Law. Published online 2000:684-701. https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/I84A4F580E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A/View/FullText.html?skipAnonymous=true
194.
Elliott M. Legitimate Expectations: Procedure, Substance, Policy and Proportionality. The Cambridge Law Journal. 2006;65(2):254-256. doi:10.1017/S0008197306227119
195.
Bamforth N. Fairness and Legitimate Expectation in Judicial Review. The Cambridge Law Journal. 1997;56(1):1-4. doi:10.1017/S0008197300017530
196.
Unmarried Mother Siobhan McLaughlin Wins Supreme Court Benefit Case | BBC. Published 2018. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45355028
197.
Unmarried Mother Wins Supreme Court Fight for Widowed Parents’ Allowance | Good Morning Britain | YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs4viID3KWI
198.
In the Matter of an Application by Siobhan McLaughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 48. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0035-judgment.pdf
199.
McLoughlin Supreme Court Press Summary. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0035-press-summary.pdf
200.
An Application by Siobhan Mclaughlin for Judicial Review [2016] NICA 53. https://judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/decisions/McLaughlin%27s%20%28Siobhan%29%20Application.pdf
