▁issued ▁on ▁ 2 2 ▁October ▁ 2 0 0 8 , ▁the ▁L ords ▁decided ▁by ▁a ▁ 3 – 2 ▁majority ▁to ▁u ph old ▁the ▁new ▁Order ▁in ▁Council , ▁stating ▁that ▁it ▁was ▁valid ▁and , ▁although ▁jud icial ▁review ▁actions ▁could ▁look ▁at ▁Or ders ▁in ▁Council , ▁the ▁national ▁security ▁and ▁foreign ▁relations ▁issues ▁in ▁the ▁case ▁bar red ▁them ▁from ▁doing ▁so . ▁In ▁addition , ▁Cook ' s ▁statement ▁had ▁not ▁been ▁clear ▁and ▁un ambigu ous ▁enough ▁to ▁provide ▁legit imate ▁expectation . ▁ ▁The ▁reaction ▁to ▁the ▁decision ▁was ▁negative , ▁with ▁academ ics ▁acc using ▁the ▁majority ▁Law ▁L ords ▁of ▁failing ▁to ▁do ▁their ▁job ▁as ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁jud ici ary ▁to ▁" re work ▁things ▁like ▁ne o - imper ial ▁texts ▁and ▁out dated ▁legal ▁att itudes ▁to ▁the ▁pr er og ative ▁in ▁order ▁to ▁c ure ▁obvious ▁in just ices ▁and ▁to ▁v ind icate ▁a ▁modern ▁conception ▁of ▁the ▁rule ▁of ▁law "; ▁at ▁the ▁same ▁time , ▁their ▁approach ▁to ▁legit imate ▁expectation ▁was ▁also ▁question ed , ▁with ▁the ▁case ▁described ▁as ▁an ▁" un fortun ate ▁regression " ▁from ▁Council ▁of ▁Civil ▁Service ▁Un ions ▁v ▁Minister ▁for ▁the ▁Civil ▁Service , ▁where ▁jud ges ▁were ▁willing ▁to ▁debate ▁legit imate ▁expectation ▁in ▁a ▁similarly ▁polit ically ▁sensitive ▁situation . ▁ ▁In ▁ 2 0 1 5 ▁B anc ou lt ▁went ▁to ▁court ▁to ▁argue ▁that ▁the ▁jud g ement ▁should