header-logo header-logo

25 September 2019
Issue: 7857 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

Prorogation ruling stirs debate

The Supreme Court’s seismic ruling that the prime minister’s advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was both justiciable and unlawful prompts constitutional questions, a senior lawyer has said.

The unanimous judgment by 11 Justices this week rendered the order in council to prorogue Parliament null, void and of no effect. Lady Hale, president of the Supreme Court, said Parliament had ‘not been prorogued’.

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe and NLJ consultant editor, said: ‘The condemnation of a prime minister’s conduct by our highest court of law is of the ultimate constitutional importance.

‘This and the Article 50 judgment set the parameters of our constitution. But they also raise issues on the nature of our constitution. Has the uncodified constitution had its day or does the flexibility inherent in its conventions provide sufficiently for modern politics as now policed by the courts?

‘There are mixed views with the common law feel to our constitutional arrangements still favoured. The Shadow Chancellor announced the other day the creation of a constitutional right to access to justice. Article 6 in the European Convention and the rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights already prescribe but obviously Labour is thinking of something more directive and codified. That tends towards a codified constitution maintaining the statutory drift towards codification in “constitutional” statutes such as the European Communities Act and the Human Rights Act.

‘When the dust has settled this debate will be reignited.’

Richard Atkins QC, chair of the Bar Council, said he hoped there would ‘now be a period of calm reflection and that we do not see any comments using inflammatory language or which seek to vilify the judges or lawyers involved in the Brexit (or any) litigation.’ However, several newspaper headlines attacked the judges' decision while the prime minister himself said he disagreed with the judgment. 

Robert Buckland QC, Lord Chancellor, has since said: ‘We must all remember that our world-class judiciary always acts free from political motivation or influence and that the rule of law is the basis of our democracy, for all seasons. Personal attacks on judges from any quarter are completely unacceptable.’

Issue: 7857 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Constitutional law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll