header-logo header-logo

19 September 2019
Issue: 7856 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Nation transfixed by the Supreme Court

All eyes were on the Supreme Court livestream this week as eleven Justices heard argument on the matter of whether the decision to prorogue Parliament was lawful.

Writing in a number of dispatches on proceedings in NLJ this week, Michael Zander QC, Emeritus Professor, LSE, said he had initially agreed with retired Justice Lord Sumption that the court would rule the case not justiciable. After reading Lord Pannick’s Written Case for Gina Miller, the lead appellant in the English High Court appeal, however, he said: ‘I have changed my mind.

‘I now think there is a fair chance that the decision will go the other way.’

In his written case, Lord Pannick argues the Divisional Court was wrong to hold that the first question was whether the matter was justiciable and only if so, whether there had been a public law error. He highlights the fact the Prime Minister did not make a witness statement explaining the decision. Lord Pannick further argues that the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty was engaged and the advice given to the monarch was an abuse of power because of the length of prorogation and because of evidence that the Prime Minister was, Lord Pannick says, ‘acting by reference to improper considerations which are inconsistent with the very notion of Parliamentary sovereignty’.

After looking at the Advocate General Lord Keen’s arguments on behalf of the government, Zander said the government also had ‘a strong case’.

Outlining the main points put forward by the government’s legal team, Zander writes that the government’s arguments include that the power to prorogue Parliament has historically been ‘used for political purposes including the purpose of restricting the time available to debate legislation and for long periods including at moments of political importance. In the First World War, Parliament was prorogued for a period of 53 calendar days. In August 1930 after the Wall Street Crash, it was prorogued for 87 days’.

Moreover, ‘advice about prorogation involved the weighing up of political considerations, including how most effectively to secure the government’s political and legislative objectives and agenda,’ Zander writes.

The case continues, at the time of going to press.

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