2.4.1 – The UK Supreme Court
In January, the UK Government controversially announced that it would allow the postponement of around 30 local elections that were due to take place on 7 May 2026. The stated justification was that the affected councils were undergoing significant restructuring, moving from a two-tier system (county and district councils) to single unitary authorities. The government said the delay had been requested by the councils themselves in order to focus on the reorganisation.
The decision was widely criticised. Opposition parties, campaign groups and even the Electoral Commission raised concerns. The Electoral Commission – the independent regulator of British elections – said:
“We are disappointed by both the timing and substance of the statement. Scheduled elections should as a rule go ahead as planned, and only be postponed in exceptional circumstances.”
It warned that delaying elections risked undermining public confidence in democracy. Opposition parties suggested the Labour Government’s decision was politically motivated, pointing to polling that indicated Labour could suffer significant losses in May – losses that would inevitably increase pressure on Keir Starmer. Notably, 21 of the 30 councils affected were Labour-controlled – further suggesting a political motive beyond the decision.
Among the most vocal critics was Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. Reform is widely expected to benefit strongly from the upcoming elections. Farage described the postponement as the action of a “banana republic” and framed it as an attack on democratic rights.
Reform UK responded by launching a legal challenge, submitting an application for judicial review of the government’s decision. In the UK, courts cannot strike down legislation as “unconstitutional” in the way that courts can in some other countries. However, they can rule that a government decision is unlawful if it is ultra vires – meaning beyond the legal powers granted by Parliament. A court can examine whether ministers acted without proper legal authority, misused their powers, or failed to follow required procedures.
The case was filed in the High Court, with a hearing scheduled for later in February. However, on Tuesday 16 February, shortly before the hearing was due to take place, the government abruptly announced that it was abandoning its postponement plans. Ministers said they were acting on legal advice. It is widely assumed that government lawyers had warned there was a significant risk of defeat. Rather than risk a formal ruling declaring the decision unlawful, the government chose to reverse course.
This episode illustrates the practical power of judicial review: even without a final court judgment, the prospect of losing in court can force a government to change policy.
Local councils must now organise their elections with roughly 12 weeks to prepare. Although the government has offered additional funding to assist with the process, the compressed timetable presents a significant logistical challenge. Politically, the episode reinforces the perception of another policy U-turn under Starmer’s leadership – a narrative that is likely to prove damaging.
In a dramatic development last week, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested and taken into police custody for questioning on suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office. He is believed to be the first member of the Royal Family to be arrested since Charles I was taken into custody by Parliamentary forces in 1646 during the English Civil War. The decision to arrest is legally significant. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, arrest requires not only reasonable suspicion but also necessity. In many cases, suspects are invited to attend a voluntary interview rather than facing arrest. In this instance, the police clearly considered the necessity threshold met.
Constitutionally, it is entirely proper for a member of the Royal Family – other than the Monarch – to be arrested. Indeed, it illustrates a central pillar of the rule of law, famously articulated by A. V. Dicey in Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885):
- The supremacy of regular law, not arbitrary power
- Equality before the law
- Government limited by established law
The arrest of Andrew – formerly a Prince of the realm, still a Counsellor of State, and eighth in line to the throne – underscores the principle of equality before the law. This was reinforced in a statement issued by King Charles III in which he said “…Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied wrongdoing in relation to Jeffrey Epstein and has made no public comment on the present allegations. He was released on the same day and remains under active police investigation. It will be a decision of the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether to charge him with an alleged offence.