Ben Gaston analyses the constitutional implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on HS2
Few projects have aroused such controversy and media furore as HS2, the government’s proposal for a high-speed rail link between London and the north. Equally sparse are judgments that threaten to alter the constitutional landscape that underpins our legal system. The Supreme Court’s decision in R (HS2 Action Alliance Limited) and others v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3 is one such case.
The practical consequence of the judgment is simple: in dismissing the appeals of various HS2 opponents, the highest court in the land gave the green light to phase one of the project. The potential constitutional ramifications are, however, less certain.
This article addresses one particular aspect of the judgment, namely its implications for the supremacy of EU law in the UK.
The arguments
The appellants’ second ground of appeal was that the hybrid Bill procedure, under which Parliament was invited to authorise HS2, did not comply with the requirements of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (Directive 2011/92/EU) (the directive). The directive provides, at
