It is good to finally see some dissent in the ranks of the Supreme Court over the use of summary judgements to overturn government policy. The body has just overturned the law on curbing forced marriages for those under the age of 21. The right to family life has trumped policy attempts to mitigate this evil. [Judges, you may wish to note the use of the prefix forced]. The law was universal and bad, but it is not up to judges to strike down laws they don't like.
"Still more obviously, the comparison between the enormity of suffering within forced marriages on the one hand and the disruption to innocent couples within the 18-21 age group whose desire to live together in this country is temporarily thwarted by the rule change, is essentially one for elected politicians, not for judges."
He noted that Article Eight was "a difficult provision which has already led to some highly contentious, not to say debatable, decisions".
And he concluded: "In a sensitive context such as that of forced marriages, it would seem to me not merely impermissible but positively unwise for the courts yet again to frustrate Government policy except in the clearest of cases.
"To my mind this cannot possibly be regarded as such a case. I would allow these appeals."
The Liberal Democrats may feel satisfied that their moral autonomy has been curbed by unelected judges in the name of human rights. [The strange idea that if you think you share the same ideas and values, you will come to the same conclusions; then the courts become a strange validation device until your oops moment!!].
With a public release of the deep disquiet which some judges view overturning statute, we may see a curbing of this distasteful activism that has thwarted Parliament's will and brought justice into disrepute. Until then, there will be bewildered wives brought here, their status barely more than slaves. Some may even die. But they can be satisfied that the Supreme Court took their rights into account.
