header-logo header-logo

15 January 2020
Issue: 7870 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Beware the Brexit power grab

A committee of Peers has raised serious constitutional concerns about ministerial powers granted by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

The primary source of concern is clause 26(1) of the bill, which gives ministers powers to require courts and tribunals to deviate from retained EU case law and, instead, apply ministerial guidelines. In a report published this week, the House of Lords Constitution Committee branded the cl 26(1) powers ‘inappropriate’ and ‘constitutionally significant’,and called for their removal from the bill.

In contrast, the previous version of the clause―s 6(1) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018―provided that retained EU law would be interpreted by courts and tribunals in line with case law applicable on or before exit day.

In the report, the committee agrees that ‘it is inappropriate for courts other than the Supreme Court and the Scottish High Court of Justiciary to have power to depart from the interpretations of EU case law’.

Second, the government’s proposal to consult with senior judges on the applicable tests for departures ‘is not an adequate substitute for the determination of such issues in adversarial proceedings in open court, open to interventions and with the assistance of counsel’.

Third, the committee said there ‘is no case for such broad and constitutionally significant regulation-making powers, the effect of which may undermine legal certainty’.

Baroness Taylor, chair of the committee, said: ‘The government should reconsider the implications of cl 26 and the potential for significant legal uncertainty if lower courts are to be given the power to depart from previous European Court of Justice case law and previous domestic interpretations of retained EU law.’

The committee also recommends the government reinstate provision for parliamentary oversight of negotiations and allow greater scrutiny of Henry VIII powers and other delegated powers.

Meanwhile, the Institute for Government has warned the government only has time to agree a goods-only free trade agreement in the 11 months before the end of the transition period. In a report published this week, ‘Getting Brexit Done’, it said the Northern Ireland Protocol, on regulatory and customs checks, ‘is almost certainly undeliverable’ by December 2020.

Issue: 7870 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll