This article seeks to provide a constitutional law perspective on the contribution of the Lords Spiritual to the scrutiny of legislation in the House of Lords. It examines the legal basis of the bishops’ role in the Upper House and how this has evolved. It considers how far the bishops currently meet expectations about their role against the background of calls for reform of the House of Lords and changes in religious affiliation in the United Kingdom. The paper draws, amongst other things, on the experience of a group of current and former Lords Spiritual who shared their views with the author in the course of some informal semi-structured conversations. It also examines the relationship between the Lords Spiritual and the Church of England's national institutions. It concludes that the Lords Spiritual make a distinctive contribution to the legislature which should be maintained, with some modifications to meet the needs of the time.

This article by Caroline Shenton, Clerk of the Records at the Parliamentary Archives, describes the rich legacy of records relating to the judicial function of the House of Lords from the sixteenth century to 2009, when the new Supreme Court was established.

Although the House of Lords has now made it clear that evidence obtained by means of torture conducted abroad by non-UK nationals is inadmissible in judicial proceedings in the United Kingdom, the position remains unsatisfactory. Restrictive approaches have been taken to many of the key issues, suggesting that there is still considerable scope for the use of evidence which is brought to light as a result of forms of ill-treatment which violate human rights standards. Moreover, the use of ‘foreign torture evidence’ by the executive is expressly sanctioned. Even if this strikes an appropriate balance between conflicting goals of public safety and judicial propriety, it cannot be said to further the realization of the international prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and is a poor reflection of the abhorrence of torture which the House of Lords itself says is a feature of domestic common law.

Three great constitutional conflicts — Great Britain: Commons v. Lords — Parliament Act 1911 — United States: President v. Supreme Court over New Deal — Court Packing plan Belgium: King v. conscience — Democracy wins in each of these cases.

After the attacks by Al-Qaeda on the World Trade Centre in New York and other sites on 11 September 2001, the UK Parliament enacted the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA). Part 4 of the Act allowed the Home Secretary to certify a person as a suspected international terrorist if he reasonably believed that the person's presence in the UK was a threat to national security and reasonably suspected that he or she was an international terrorist. If the person was subject to UK immigration control (i.e., had no right of abode in the UK, not being a British national), he or she could be removed from the UK and detained pending removal under immigration legislation. If a practical consideration (such as the absence of transport links between UK and the place to which the person could be removed) or a point of law which wholly or partly related to an international agreement (for example, where removing a person to his or her country of origin would render him or her liable to torture contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR)) prevented a person's removal or departure temporarily or indefinitely, the Act permitted their detention.