Report comment

From a brief review of its website, the Judicial Power Project is clearly of the view that *only* parliament can or should create law. There's a list of 50 "problematic" cases said to show judicial overreach. The language used suggests the author(s) are extremely confident in their interpretation and understanding of the law, and to me it reads like a more fitting title might be "You won't believe the outrageous mistakes idiot judges made in these 50 cases"...

Several of the cases criticised appear to be in the list purely because they extend the law, and the common law at that e.g. Fairchild v Glenhaven.

More generally though, it's clear that their real concern is with application of Human Rights law in domestic courts, and any interpretation of the ECHR which is not very literal, restricted solely to what was in the mind of the drafters back in the 1950's.

This probably sums it up nicely (referring to Tyrer v UK and Golder v UK):
"In these two cases the ECtHR set out the “living instrument” approach, which has been used repeatedly since to rationalize the misinterpretation of the ECHR in ways that depart from both the plain meaning of the text and the certain intentions of the signatories."