▁L ords ▁had ▁failed ▁in ▁their ▁duty ▁as ▁members ▁of ▁the ▁jud ici ary : ▁" where ▁old ▁principles ▁no ▁longer ▁fit ▁contemporary ▁constitution al ▁and ▁moral ▁standards , ▁why ▁should ▁we ▁follow ▁them ? ▁Sure ly ▁the ▁jud icial ▁task ▁is ▁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 ". ▁Mar git ▁C ohn ▁agreed , ▁writing ▁on ▁the ▁legit imate ▁expectation ▁issue ▁that ▁" It ▁is ▁difficult ▁to ▁accept ▁that ▁a ▁public ▁statement ▁made ▁by ▁a ▁Secretary ▁of ▁State , ▁followed ▁by ▁the ▁prom ul g ation ▁of ▁an ▁order ▁that ▁removed ▁the ▁previous ▁prohib ition ▁to ▁return , ▁could ▁not ▁have ▁created ▁at ▁least ▁some ▁sort ▁of ▁expectation ". ▁C ohn ▁further ▁described ▁the ▁case ▁as ▁an ▁" un fortun ate ▁regression " ▁from ▁the ▁G CH Q ▁case , ▁where ▁jud ges ▁had ▁been ▁willing ▁to ▁debate ▁legit imate ▁expectation ▁in ▁a ▁similarly ▁polit ically ▁sensitive ▁situation . ▁T . ▁T . ▁Ar v ind ▁went ▁further , ▁drawing ▁par alle ls ▁with ▁the ▁jud icial ▁response ▁to ▁the ▁Z ong ▁Mass acre ▁to ▁argue ▁that ▁the ▁decision , ▁despite ▁its ▁formal ist ▁r het or ic , ▁was ▁in ▁reality ▁a ▁p rag m atic ▁one ▁which ▁abandoned ▁centuries ▁of ▁settled ▁constitution al ▁juris pr ud ence ▁in ▁relation ▁to ▁the