Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Mark Elliott

@profmarkelliott.bsky.social

6.5K followers 360 following 270 posts

Professor of Public Law, University of Cambridge. Fellow, St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Blog: www.publiclawforeveryone.com. Website: www.markelliott.org

Videos

Mark C. Elliott is the Mark Schwartz Professor of Chinese and Inner Asian History at Harvard University, where he is Vice Provost for International Affairs. He is also a seminal figure of the school called the New Qing History. .. more

Political science 51%

Law 27%

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 23h

New post, in which I argue the government's attempt to pin the blame for the collapse of the China spy trial on a single official will not wash constitutionally. Ministers must bear responsibility for an apparently deeply flawed decision-making process.

publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/13/c...

Cock-up or conspiracy? The Security Minister’s statement on the China espionage case

The Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, has made a statement to the House of Commons regarding the collapse of the prosecution of two individuals who had been accused of espionage contrary to section 1(…

publiclawforeveryone.com

4 7

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 21h

I was pleased to hear my analysis of the China espionage case being relied on by the Leader of the Opposition in yesterday’s House of Commons debate. parliamentlive.tv/event/index/...

Parliamentlive.tv

House of Commons

parliamentlive.tv

1 3

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 23h

* ie his account taken at face value.

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 23h

Yes, absolutely. (In post, I explain that I am trying to provide explanations that fit the Minister's factual account to the House of Commons, but I certainly don't discount your sixth possibility.)

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 1d

In the post, I reflect on the Security Minister's statement to the House of Commons on the collapse of the China espionage case. I conclude that if a single official really is responsible, Ministers cannot evade responsibility for an inadequate decision-making system. 2/2

1 3

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 1d

New post | Cock-up or conspiracy? The Security Minister’s statement on the China espionage case /1 publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/13/c...

Cock-up or conspiracy? The Security Minister’s statement on the China espionage case

publiclawforeveryone.com

2 4 6

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 1d

The court's treatment of the principle of legality reflects aspects of the Supreme Court's recent approach in Spitalfields, which I criticised in this post for the unnecessarily 'all or nothing' approach adopted to the applicaation of the principle. 2/2 publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/03/28/t...

The principle of legality and heightened-scrutiny rationality review: The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Spitalfields case

The Supreme Court’s judgment in R (The Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2025] UKSC 11 traverses some important ground concerning the principle of legal…

publiclawforeveryone.com

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 1d

A very helpful post on the Palestine Action judicial review so far. In particular, I agree with @conorcrummey.bsky.social that the court's approach to the argument concering ultra vires/the principle of legality was problematic. /1
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/10/13/c...

Conor Crummey: The Principle of Legality, the Definition of ‘Terrorism’, and Palestine Action

Two judgments have so far been handed down in the matter of R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; the challenge to the Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as …

ukconstitutionallaw.org

2 3 6

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 1d

When the Prime Minister referred to designation in an interview last week, I thought it might be a case of misspeaking rather than deliberately obfuscating. The ongoing (and misplaced) reliance on "designation" puts things in a different light. 3/3

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 1d

As I explained in this post, designation is a concept unknown to the Official Secrets Act 1911, the only relevant Q being whether a court is satisfied, on the evidence, that the country in question was a national security threat at the relevant time. /2 publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/08/o...

On China, the Official Secrets Act and ‘enemies’: Is the Prime Minister wrong?

The Prime Minister has claimed that his government’s hands are tied in relation to whether China constituted an ‘enemy’ for the purpose of a now-dropped criminal prosecution under…

publiclawforeveryone.com

1 6

Reposted by Colin Murray

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 1d

It will be interesting to see what Ministers are prepared to say about the China spying case from the despatch box. I am surprising that this morning's line to take still seems to turn on China not having been "designated" a threat/enemy by the last government. /1

1 3 6

Reposted by Tim Bale

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 4d

Really enjoyed this piece.

"Lawyers and academics therefore find themselves in the difficult position of ... trying to reason people away from a view or belief they never reasoned themselves into to begin with. We are bringing facts to a vibes fight."

UK Constitutional Law Association @ukcla.bsky.social · 5d

Alan Greene: Bringing facts to a vibes fight: Kayfabe and debates on the UK and the ECHR ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/10/09/a...

Alan Greene: Bringing facts to a vibes fight: Kayfabe and debates on the UK and the ECHR

It is now 25 years since the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) entered into force and far from this endurance cementing its legitimacy, the judicial protection of human rights in the UK finds itself in t…

ukconstitutionallaw.org

2 12 29

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 4d

Excellent letter, David.

Reposted by Mark Elliott, Geoff Pearson

David Mead @seethingmead.bsky.social · 5d

A letter from @crwerren.bsky.social @suzmd.bsky.social @storiesfromjack.bsky.social and me on the plans to allow cumulatively disruptive protests to be regulated by the police

www.theguardian.com/world/2025/o...

Anti-protest proposals put free speech at risk | Letters

Letters: Readers respond to the proposal to give police further powers to curb ‘cumulative’ protests, in response to actions by the proscribed group Palestine Action

www.theguardian.com

1 8 11

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 5d

I was pleased to speak to Sky News about the China espionage case, including the difficulties that arise from the PM's attempts to explain why the CPS dropped the charges following the government's failure to provide relevant national security-related evidence. news.sky.com/story/the-bl...

The blame game over China spy trial collapse - who is right and who is wrong?

Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry were accused of spying for China but three weeks before their trial was due to start, it was dropped. The pair have denied the allegations.

news.sky.com

1 3

Reposted by Tim Bale, Mark Elliott, John L. Cotter , and 1 more Tim Bale, Mark Elliott, John L. Cotter, Roger Masterman

UK Constitutional Law Association @ukcla.bsky.social · 5d

Alan Greene: Bringing facts to a vibes fight: Kayfabe and debates on the UK and the ECHR ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/10/09/a...

Alan Greene: Bringing facts to a vibes fight: Kayfabe and debates on the UK and the ECHR

ukconstitutionallaw.org

10 15

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 6d

New post | On China, the Official Secrets Act and 'enemies': Is the Prime Minister wrong?
publiclawforeveryone.com/2025/10/08/o...

On China, the Official Secrets Act and ‘enemies’: Is the Prime Minister wrong?

The Prime Minister has claimed that his government’s hands are tied in relation to whether China constituted an ‘enemy’ for the purpose of a now-dropped criminal prosecution under…

publiclawforeveryone.com

5 7

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 12d

I agree, David.

Reposted by Glen O’Hara

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 12d

Excellent (but depressing) analysis by @gsoh31.bsky.social on the fragile state of higher education in the UK. This passage particularly struck me. politicalquarterly.org.uk/blog/where-n...

1 18 58

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 13d

A report on tonight’s Channel 4 News about the devastating funding cuts at Arthur Rank Hospice in Cambridge. It is unconscionable to reduce access to palliative care while simultaneously contemplating the legalisation of medically assisted suicide. www.channel4.com/news/budget-...

Budget cuts forcing hospitals to pull hospice contracts

The UK government wants patients' care to be moved from hospitals into the community.

www.channel4.com

1 9 13

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 14d

Just as the state contemplates the possibility of a fully-funded assisted dying service, public funding for the award-winning Arthur Rank House Hospice in Cambridge is being cut by almost £1 million pa, risking the closure of nearly half of its in-patient unit. www.arhc.org.uk/protectourca...

5 5

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 18d

It was a great pleasure to speak at today's annual training day for the Administrative Court (at the Oval cricket ground: hence the photo!), looking at how recent case law intersects with key academic debates about substantive judicial review.

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 27d

... or jettison the classical account and accept the authoritarian implication that administrative acts, however unlawful they might actually be, are valid until set aside.

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 27d

Yes, as I say, I think ultimately the choice is about how we manage the various dangers/difficulties that are sometimes in play — and whether we take as our default that unlawful acts are void (recognising that the harshness of that position will sometimes need to be ameliorated) ...

1 1

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 27d

As to the presume validity of administrative acts, I see no tension between that presumption and the underlying nullity of unlawful administrative acts. If an act is presumed to be valid but later turns out to be (and always to have been) void, the presumption was simply wrong. /3

1 2

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 27d

Affording individuals the possibility of running that risk does not seem inherently problematic to me, and the alternative seems unattractively authoritarian, in that it compels adherence to administrative acts, including delegated legislation, even if they are unlawful. /2

1 2

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 27d

Thanks for reading. I fully take your point. As I see it, however, someone who chooses to ignore the SI they think is UV must do so recognising that they run the risk of being wrong, in which case they may later have to suffer the consequences of breaching what turns out to be a valid SI. /1

1 1

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 27d

The broader point, I think, it that it is always possible to envisage circumstances in which the apparent rigidity of the classical view produces inconvenient (or worse) results. Ultimately, however, I think the dangers of abandoning the classical view justify continued adherence to it. 3/3

1 2

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 27d

But of course the right of collateral challenge, although tied to the underlying voidness of the impugned administrative act, is not itself unlimited, as the Lords' decision in R v Wicks illustrated and as its judgment in Boddington affirmed. /2

1 2

Mark Elliott @profmarkelliott.bsky.social · 27d

Thanks, Jonathan. That's an important point, and a difficult one — because the rule of law pulls in opposing directions: legal certainty/planning favours the interests of the party who has relied on the SI, while legality favours treating the unlawful SI for what it has always been. /1

1 2