Report comment

It sits rather uncomfortably that a Supreme Court judge cannot differentiate between the punitive need for the criminal law and the restitution required from the civil law. The civil law was never designed to punish.

More concerning still is his apparent description of judicial action (sorry “hindsight”) to change the law. Is his role not to follow the law rather than to make it? I thought his fellow judges were clear behind this concept when the papers came for them over Brexit?