The most interesting recent development in constitutional law has been the Supreme Court's enforcement of very strong presumptions about what Parliament means in its legislation.

One such presumption is the "principle of legality", that Parliament does not legislate in breach of fundamental common law rights. It's not all that easy for ministers to draft legislation clear enough to rebut the presumption.

Another is a very strong presumption that Parliament does not legislate to exclude judicial review. The Privacy International case shows it's really very hard (some judges may think, impossible) for ministers to get round that one.

One we might see considered by the courts before long is the presumption that Parliament does not legislate contrary to the UK's international obligations. I wonder quite how strong a presumption Lord Reed (the President of the Supreme Court) thinks that is.

Particularly where the treaty obligations in question explicitly and unusually say they have direct effect in UK law.

I don't think this question ever came up in an important EU law case during the UK's membership. The courts took an approach to EU law that meant the question didn't really arise. But perhaps its time has now come.