The nitpicky substantial objection I had, though, is to the respect accorded the court's opinion. Whether the opinion was right or wrong, a judicial opinion holding that statute X is itself unlawful cannot be interpreted to allow statute X to continue in operation, without altering behavior, until the government fixes statute X (and, in this instance, any fix would require resubmission to the court). Instead, if statute X is itself unlawful, its operation must be completely suspended until it's fixedunless one is relying upon common-law crimes, a practice that Parliament previously rejected. The continued operation of statute X reduces the Law Lords' opinion to little more than a white paper; this only reinforces my objection to calling the system an evolution toward a US-style Supreme Court.
Appearances do matter.