Sovereignty Act
Harm Principle Proposal

This proposal embeds John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle (HP) into the Sovereignty Act as a mini-constitution, institutionalising safeguards against majoritarian harm while permitting prevention of societal harm from groups with openly stated subversive intentions (e.g., coercive ideologies). The HP states: interference with liberty is justified only to prevent harm to others (injury to rights/interests via force, fraud, or risk), not self-regarding actions. It applies via an Expanded Special Adjudication Council (replacing the Liberty Council), with 3-5 impartial experts (law, ethics, philosophy) for majority decisions.

Key Elements

• Pre-Legislative Review: Council reviews bills post-First Reading/pre-Second Reading for HP compliance (unjust harm vs. legitimate prevention). Advisory reports with recommendations encourage deliberation; DEMs/MPs must respond; House of Lords considers output.

• Role in Referring Existing Legislation: Council proactively refers up to 5 laws/year for review (via audits, petitions, or flags) if HP violations suspected (e.g., ignored evidence causing harm). Reports force parliamentary debate/amendments if violations found.

• HP Mechanism (Proactive/Reactive Defense): Backstop for post-enactment challenges, scoped to laws risking direct physical harm (e.g., coerced interventions ignoring evidence). Distinguishes from HRA 1998 (rights-based, optional fixes) and JR (executive-focused, no mandatory legislation changes) by mandating evidential reviews and amendments to primary laws.

  • Reactive (Trial Defense): In High Court+ trials for qualifying offenses, invoke HP with evidence. Hearing within 7 days (max 2 days). Case-specific: Immediate acquittal/mitigation. Generalized: 14-day Council review; if violation (ignored evidence), DEM amends bill within 30 days. Stay if extreme harm.

  • Proactive (Citizen-Initiated): ≥100 citizens/50k-signature petition files to High Court. Screening within 14 days; Council review in 14 days. If violation, DEM amends within 30 days; stay within 7 days if imminent harm.

• Institutionalization: Council appointed by Lord Chancellor via Judicial Appointments Commission; removable by parliamentary resolution/Supreme Court appeal. Advisory powers include hearings/annual reports to foster deliberation. Safeguards: High evidential thresholds, annual caps (10 proactive + 5 reactive), penalties for frivolous claims.

• Distinction from Existing Laws: Forces evidential fixes to legislation (vs HRA declarations or JR quashing); focuses on physical harm/ignored evidence.

This creates a dynamic check, preventing tyranny by empowering expertise/citizens against majority errors, while aligning with Sovereignty's accountability.

Amendment to Sovereignty Act Draft

Insert as PART 2A: HARM PRINCIPLE AND LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS, after PART 2/before PART 3. Update SCHEDULE 2 for Expanded Council; add SCHEDULE 3 for HP Mechanism details.

PART 2A

HARM PRINCIPLE AND LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS

17A Establishment of the Harm Principle

(1) This Act incorporates the Harm Principle as a foundational safeguard against the tyranny of the majority and to protect individual liberties in the legislative process.

(2) The Harm Principle provides that—

(a) the liberty of individuals is absolute over actions that concern only themselves, including liberty of conscience, thought, feeling, opinion, sentiment, expression, tastes, and pursuits, so long as such actions do not harm others;

(b) society or the state may interfere with an individual’s liberty only to prevent harm to others, where harm includes injury to rights, interests, or well-being through force, fraud, or significant involuntary risk;

(c) intervention is permissible to prevent harm arising from actions or omissions that breach obligations to society, including preemptive measures against groups or individuals with openly stated and intended goals to cause harm, such as undermining fundamental liberties or imposing coercive rule on others;

(d) self-regarding actions, even if resulting in harm to oneself or deemed unwise by the majority, are not grounds for compulsion or control; and

(e) the principle applies to all legislation, ensuring that laws do not unjustly harm individuals or minorities while enabling protection against intended societal harm.

(3) The Harm Principle does not apply to minors, persons lacking mental capacity, or in circumstances where societal protection requires temporary exceptions, subject to judicial oversight.

(4) Compliance with the Harm Principle shall be assessed in accordance with sections 17B and 17C.

17B The Expanded Special Adjudication Council

(1) The Special Adjudicator in Schedule 2 is replaced by the Expanded Special Adjudication Council (“the Council”), consisting of not fewer than 3 and not more than 5 members, appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission, selected for their expertise in law, ethics, philosophy, and related fields.

(2) Appointments under subsection (1) shall be made following open applications and confirmation hearings by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to ensure impartiality.

(3) Members hold office for a term of 5 years, renewable once, during good behaviour.

(4) A member may be removed by resolution of both Houses of Parliament on grounds of misconduct, incapacity, or bias, with the member entitled to appeal the removal to the Supreme Court.

(5) Decisions of the Council shall be by majority vote.

(6) The functions of the Council are—

(a) to determine whether a bill falls within a Directly Elected Minister’s jurisdiction or requires co-sponsorship, as under section 18;

(b) to review each bill after the First Reading and determination under subsection (6)(a), but before the Second Reading, for compliance with the Harm Principle;

(c) to assess whether the bill unjustly causes harm or legitimately prevents intended harm as defined in section 17A(2)(c);

(d) to produce an advisory report on its findings, including analyses of potential harms, recommendations for amendments, and, where appropriate, requirements for additional parliamentary debates or public consultations to encourage deliberation;

(e) to publish the report for consideration by sub-committees, DEMs, Constituency MPs, and the House of Lords;

(f) to refer up to 5 existing enactments per year for review if potential Harm Principle violations are identified through annual audits, public petitions, or other flags, with reports forcing parliamentary debate and amendments if violations are found; and

(g) to undertake reviews under section 17C for Harm Principle challenges.

(7) The Council’s reports under subsections (6)(d) and (6)(f) are advisory and do not confer a power of veto, but—

(a) sponsoring DEMs must respond to the report during the Second Reading; and

(b) the House of Lords must consider and reference the report in its scrutiny.

(8) The Council may request evidence or hearings on matters of intended harm or compliance, and regulations under section 22 may provide for its procedures and resources.

(9) Schedule 3 makes further provision about Harm Principle challenges under the Council.

Schedules

(Amend SCHEDULE 2 as follows; insert SCHEDULE 3 after)

SCHEDULE 2

THE EXPANDED SPECIAL ADJUDICATION COUNCIL

1 Appointment

The Council members are to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission.

2 Functions

The Council shall determine—

(a) jurisdictional matters under section 18;

(b) Harm Principle compliance under section 17B(6); and

(c) referrals for existing legislation under section 17B(6)(f).

3 Tenure

Council members hold office during good behaviour.

SCHEDULE 3

HARM PRINCIPLE CHALLENGES

1 Scope

Challenges apply to enactments risking direct physical harm where evidence was ignored in the legislative process, leading to Harm Principle violations.

2 Reactive Challenges

(1) In proceedings in the High Court or above for qualifying offenses, a defendant may invoke the Harm Principle with prima facie evidence.

(2) The court shall hold an evidential hearing within 7 days (maximum 2 days duration).

(3) If generalized, refer to the Council for review within 14 days.

(4) If violation found, the sponsoring DEM must introduce an amendment bill within 30 days for parliamentary passage.

(5) In extreme cases, the court may grant a stay.

3 Proactive Challenges

(1) A group of at least 100 citizens or an e-petition with at least 50,000 signatures may file a challenge to the High Court with evidence.

(2) The court shall screen within 14 days and, if met, refer to the Council.

(3) The Council reviews within 14 days.

(4) If violation found, the sponsoring DEM must introduce an amendment bill within 30 days.

(5) In extreme cases, the court may grant a stay within 7 days of referral.

4 Limits and Oversight

Annual caps: 5 proactive and 10 reactive referrals. Frivolous challenges dismissed with costs. Supreme Court appeals within 14 days. The Council operates independently, with public hearings where practicable.