Cambridge University Press Bills of Rights in the Common Law: 13 (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law, Series Number 13)

Scholars have addressed at length the 'what' of judicial review under a bill of rights - scrutinizing legislation and striking it down - but neglected the 'how'. Adopting an internal legal perspective, Robert Leckey addresses that gap by reporting on the processes and activities of judges of the highest courts of Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom as they apply their relatively new bills of rights. Rejecting the tendency to view rights adjudication as novel and unique, he connects it to the tradition of judging and judicial review in the Commonwealth and identifies respects in which judges' activities in rights cases genuinely are novel - and problematic. Highlighting inventiveness in rights adjudication, including creative remedies and guidance to legislative drafters, he challenges classifications of review as strong or weak. Disputing claims that it is modest and dialogic, he also argues that remedial discretion denies justice to individuals and undermines constitutional supremacy. Book Description This book argues that judges sacrifice individual rights by using less than their full powers in order to appear democratically legitimate. About the Author Robert Leckey is an associate professor and William Dawson Scholar in the Faculty of Law and director of the Paul-André Crépeau Centre for Private and Comparative Law at McGill University, where he researches in comparative law, constitutional law and family law.