What is the responsibility of the government to uphold the rule of law? - Lady Hale 

Lady Hale is an absolute star as is Lord Sumption. Both people of great integrity who understand the value of real justice, the role of the law, freedom of speech and liberty. The politicians should listen and learn.

Such an inspirational lady. I have bought three copies of her book..1 for my niece who has just entered family law (which has taken her 10 years) and my unborn granddaughter to whom I will encourage to be a gentle, strong and independent woman. Thank you for this interview.

What a lovely and amazing person, great interview.

thank you Channel4 & Lady Hale, that was both interesting & instructive

5⭐ Excellent interview.

What an inspiration! I also loved the interview between Baroness H & RBG 🥰

Really interesting interview. Thanks!

Johnson proves that bad government drives out good government; a corollary to Gresham’s law.

She's such a hero!

At the start....'TRYING' being the key word... and at the end..... don't back track MRS there would be no point in stating that you would have 'a functioning Justice System'... UNLESS 'a functioning Justice System' was LACKING.... and as for the comments in regard to the FAMILY COURTS.... YOUR WORDS 'putting children nearer the top in decision making' SAYS IT ALL. Regarding 'Everyone is subject to the law'..... would that be BLACKS LAW or COMMON LAW??????

*IM SORRY I ALWAYS FEEL WEIRD LISTENING TO FOREIGN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT **#NATIVE** PEOPLE OF THE GENERATIONAL SORTS 🤧*

Hallo guys....i like video friend

Why is this individual still being permited to apear on National TV as a broadcaster?

Prerogative powers are "not constituted by any document." There is not a single source of law limiting whether the length of a prorogation can only be so many seconds, hours, days, or months. Its variable length is a subjective political decision. Thus there was, and remains, ZERO laws or precedents that say the prorogation of parliament is justiciable. Nor is there any doubt that Boris Johnson's advise to Her Majesty, regarding the prorogation, was anything other than established political practice. In fact, the limited sources that mention the extant prerogative powers describe them as being "excluded categories" whose exercise is "non-justiciable." John Major affirmed this principle when he prorogued Parliament in 1997, undoubtedly to avoid scrutiny over the Cash-for-Questions Affair. Contrarily, this court decided their Parliament would have been unduly deprived of time to assert its right to scrutinise the government of the day, undermining the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. This didn't take into account the fact that the House of Commons had previously given itself control of the Parliamentary timetable and could pass legislation as quickly as it wished, or of the fact that that a general election was consistently accessible in order to put the government before the people to be judged accordingly. Parliament soon went on to do both, without issue or assistance. In asserting its right and obligations to intervene where there was no explicit violation, the court could justify itself with little more than vague musings that it seemed like there SHOULD be limits to this prerogative power, so there WAS, 'because of'-- more vaguely-- 'the Stuart kings', and Edward III gets a mention too. This is not the application of established precedent, this is the creation of a new precedent, and there is no precedent for it. The courts in the United Kingdom do not make laws, they apply them. Nor is this merely an interpretation, as it is so removed from the above mentioned letter and established practice. Then, having created this new 'law', they went on to blatantly apply it retroactively-- positively ex post facto! Those who accused the government of quashing democracy and changing the rules, as well as breaking them, surely did a lot of it themselves, and we must ask, why? Why did the court go to the trouble and break with all tradition for something which made no difference, before or after, to Parliamentary sovereignty? The answer is, of course, in the opening line-- Brexit. Far from taking no "issue [with] when and on what terms the United Kingdom [was] set to leave the European Union", this decision revels in it. Here was a court bent on forcing the government to accept a disadvantageous foreign treaty, by changing the rules in order to help the Opposition that was avoiding an election it would obviously lose, and did. Before, however, they had to make sure the UK (and its sovereign Parliament) were bound to stay as close to the EU as possible. With the court's help, the opposing parties deprived the Prime Minister of his established rights and a fairly elected majority until he was forced to submit. Why else would this court so glibly, in its only moment of candor, describe its sloppy mangling of powers as a "one off"? This person is no objective sage. She is a political partisan.

disgusting man, whoever would entertain such a person has “rather” questionable judgement.

So why is nothing done to stop politicians and governments breaking the laws?

This is, and always has been, so revealing and obvious- making her look even more politically unhinged and delusional. Only now there is no speculation. Semantics isn't her strong point; which is unbelievable for a 'judge'.

No to discriminatory vaccine passports

She seems thoroughly uninspiring and rather shamefully states statistics on women in law followed by 'i dont know the numbers on working class and ethnic minorities...'