Research by Farthing Scholar Dane Luo quoted by Law Commission of England and Wales

In a report published about liability for contempt of court, the Law Commission of England and Wales made use of and quoted from a piece published by Dane Luo, the Farthing Scholar in Administrative Law at Pembroke College and a Stipendiary Lecturer in Law at St John’s College.

In R (Campbell) v His Majesty’s Attorney-General for England and Wales [2025] EWHC 1653 (Admin), the Divisional Court held that the discretionary ‘public interest functions’ of the Attorney-General, including the power to grant consent for proceedings for contempt of court, were categorically immune from judicial review. Shortly afterwards, Dane published a post on the UK Constitutional Law Association blog entitled 'The Anomalous Islands of Public Interest Functions Immune from Judicial Review’. 

‘In that piece, I acknowledged that the Divisional Court were bound by precedents from the House of Lords and Court of Appeal to reach their conclusion,’ said Dane Luo. 'However, I argued that the Supreme Court should revisit the issue and submitted that they should depart from these earlier precedents. The Attorney-General’s exercise of powers should be subject to judicial review on limited grounds. This is fundamental to the rule of law and to hold otherwise is to stand that constitutional principle on its head.’

Shortly after Dane’s piece was published, the Supreme Court granted leave for a ‘leapfrog appeal’ (ie directly from the Divisional Court to the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court is hearing argument on the case in October 2026. Dane’s piece was the subject of a reply by Conor Casey and cited by Marianne Holbrook and Conor McCormick in subsequent publications.

The Law Commission in their report on liability for contempt of court cited and quoted Dane’s piece on page 274. On page 275, the Law Commissioners stated that 'we remain convinced that contempt decisions by the AG should be judicially reviewable’.