LAWYERS have reacted with fury to reports that Downing Street is plotting to allow ministers to rip up any judicial rulings they don’t agree with.

The Times claims that plans have been drawn up by Justice Secretary Dominic Raab and Attorney General Suella Braverman at the behest of the Prime Minister.

The top Tories are planning to have an “Interpretation Bill” pass the Commons on an annual basis, allowing the Government to summarily dismiss any court rulings they did not like from that particular year.

READ MORE: Question of meaning of 'sex' in Scotland's census heads for court battle

Johnson had reportedly clashed with Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, over the plans. Buckland was replaced in the role by Dominic Raab in September’s reshuffle, ostensibly removing the opposition to the Prime Minister’s plans.

Joanna Cherry commented that Buckland's approach had been "too vanilla" for Johnson, adding: "These proposals are an affront to democracy and the rule of law."

Johnson is reportedly still fuming about the Supreme Court ruling on a case brought by Cherry which found his prorogation of Parliament in the run-up to one of the multiple Brexit “deadlines” was unlawful.

The Prime Minister’s allies will argue that the bill reinforces the idea of constitutional sovereignty, prioritising the decisions of elected ministers over unelected judges.

The National: Suella Braverman pregnancy

Braverman (above) said previously: “If we keep asking judges to answer inherently political questions, we are ignoring the single most important decision-maker in our system: the British people.”

However, the plans have sparked outrage in the legal community.

Edward Garnier QC, solicitor-general in David Cameron’s administration, told The Times that Johnson’s government had been reminded by the Supreme Court “that this is a country under the rule of law and not under a dictatorship”.

He added: “This government seems to forget that like all of us it, too, is subject to the law.”

Human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar also drew comparisons to authoritarian regimes.

READ MORE: Boris Johnson 'taking people for mugs' in row over No10 Christmas parties

He wrote: “Usually the final step to dictatorship, no more rule of law, no more equality before the law, accountability to or fairness in application of law, @BorisJohnson wants to end our rights to his government enacting law in an open and transparent manner, it’s about democracy.”

Good Law Project director Jolyon Maugham QC said the Government was aiming to “secure a more compliant judiciary”.

He added: “It's the same strategy as the Government successfully adopts with the BBC. Attack it, keep it fearful of its future, and you win obeisance.”

Dr Mike Galsworthy commented: “It really is more than ‘one rule for them’ … It’s a case of ‘we are above the law - and we’ll throw it out when we don’t like it’.”