We're in the UK. An Act of Parliament is always compatible with the rule of law.
We're not in the US or in a jurisdiction where there's a constitutional document and a supreme court to override things.
The legislation allows the executive an opt out from it's general remit, under specific, exceptional circumstances. That opt out is perfectly legal, and thus falls within the remit of the courts, which are still free to rule that it's being used illegally.
If that goes to court, I await the result, but the opt out is there in law, thus the rule of law is applied. No individual is above the law, but an officer of state has the responsibility to uphold the aspects of the law and the constitution, that action is still subject to judicial interpretation.
no subject
We're not in the US or in a jurisdiction where there's a constitutional document and a supreme court to override things.
The legislation allows the executive an opt out from it's general remit, under specific, exceptional circumstances. That opt out is perfectly legal, and thus falls within the remit of the courts, which are still free to rule that it's being used illegally.
If that goes to court, I await the result, but the opt out is there in law, thus the rule of law is applied. No individual is above the law, but an officer of state has the responsibility to uphold the aspects of the law and the constitution, that action is still subject to judicial interpretation.