Report comment

Mr Fearnley’s postings on these threads are always knowledgeable and refreshingly temperate, but they do just occasionally incline towards basic egg-sucking advice for grandmothers. Certainly, parliament may abolish or alter a rule of the common law, but only in accordance with its own common law rules of procedure and in the most deliberate and express way: any ambiguity in the statute will be interpreted in accordance with the existing common law position. Moreover the rule thus altered becomes itself a part of the common law. Surely no solicitor will deny that the common law – regarded not simply as a collection of rules and precedents but as an integral system of thought and procedure – is the bedrock of English jurisprudence, and our surest preservative of democracy and the rule of law. Thus to say that common law is “superior”, historically and logically, to statute law seems the plainest statement of fact.

Let me take this opportunity of also commending Mr Larcombe’s comments. I agree with everything he says, though I suspect we’re on opposite sides of the Great Debate. No doubt many lawyers were “in shock” at the referendum result; but then a great many, too, were delighted and relieved. If the comments and votes on this site afford any guide, I should say the learned profession is pretty equally divided on the question.