Whether or not you support the smoking ban that is about to come into force in England, you cannot argue that the policy was fully debated and discussed over an extended period by those institutions in the country we trust with the business of setting laws. A legal challenge is not, therefore, something which I think has any merit at all.
I fully expect this challenge to fail. But what if it did succeed? What if courts did decide that the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions guaranteed by the Human Rights Act (and written, I have no doubt at all, to make illegal the arbitrary confiscation of property by a government) really did trump the ability of Parliament to make law and settle policy?
Not only would the decision lack democratic legitimacy, but it would further damage Parliament: if all decisions by MPs were to be second-guessed in court in this way, would that not destroy much of the incentive for MPs responsibly in the first place?
One Comment
So the UK is really trying to emulate the US then?
Roll on the UK Supreme Court.