Editing John Laws (judge) (section)

==Legal career==
He was [[called to the Bar]] at the [[Inner Temple]] in 1970,<ref name="hmcourts">{{cite web|title=Info about – Court of Appeal Civil Division – The Court of Appeal|url=http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1287.htm|publisher=[[Her Majesty's Courts Service]]|access-date=25 July 2009|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100718191227/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1287.htm|archive-date=18 July 2010}}</ref> and appointed a [[Bencher]] in 1985. He was appointed [[First Junior Treasury Counsel (Common Law)]] in 1984, and a [[Recorder (judge)|Recorder]] in 1985, holding both positions until his appointment to the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] in 1992.

===Judicial career===
Laws was appointed a [[High Court judge (England and Wales)|High Court Judge]] in 1992, serving in the [[High Court of Justice#Queen's Bench Division|Queen's Bench Division]], and was [[knight bachelor|knighted]] at this time. He served until 1998, and in 1999 was appointed to the [[Court of Appeal of England and Wales|Court of Appeal]] as a [[Lord Justice of Appeal]] and appointed to the [[Privy Council (United Kingdom)|Privy Council]].

====Notable decisions====

''[[Thoburn v Sunderland City Council]]'' 2002 – Perhaps Sir John's most famous decision, and extremely controversial in the public law sphere.{{According to whom|date=October 2021}} In it he recognises principles in common law contrary to parliamentary sovereignty. The foundation of his decision was on four propositions:<ref>[http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2002/195.html bailii.org – England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions: 2002 EWHC 195 (Admin)]</ref>
<blockquote>
# All the specific rights and obligations which EU law creates are by the [[European Communities Act 1972 (UK)|ECA]] incorporated into our domestic law and rank supreme: that is, anything in our substantive law inconsistent with any of these rights and obligations is abrogated or must be modified to avoid the inconsistency. This is true even where the inconsistent municipal provision is contained in [[primary legislation]]. 
# The ECA is a constitutional statute: that is, it cannot be [[Implied repeal|impliedly repealed]]. A constitutional statute can, however, be explicitly repealed by a subsequent statute.
# The truth of (2) is derived, not from EU law, but purely from the law of England: the common law recognises a category of [[constitutional statutes]]. 
# The fundamental legal basis of the United Kingdom's relationship with the EU rests with the domestic, not the European, legal powers. In the event, which no doubt would never happen in the real world, that a European measure was seen to be repugnant to a fundamental or constitutional right guaranteed by the law of England, a question would arise whether the general words of the ECA were sufficient to incorporate the measure and give it overriding effect in domestic law. But that is very far from this case. 
</blockquote>

''[[R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings]]'' – Sir John sat in the first instance hearing of this historic case, concerning the legality of a decision made to prohibit hunting on a small area of land which the council had acquired and was argued to maintain under s120(1)(b) [[Local Government Act 1972]].

''[[McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd]]'' – Sir John attracted considerable press attention for stating "The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds [...] is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary." This was in response to a witness statement submitted by former [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] [[George Carey|Lord Carey]] that Christians should be afforded special protections under equality legislation on the grounds of earnestly held religious belief.