header-logo header-logo

Prorogation ruling stirs debate

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

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

NLJ career profile: Liz McGrath KC

A good book, a glass of chilled Albarino, and being creative for pleasure help Liz McGrath balance the rigours of complex bundles and being Head of Chambers

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Burges Salmon—Matthew Hancock-Jones

Firm welcomes director in its financial services financial regulatory team

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Gateley Legal—Sam Meiklejohn

Partner appointment in firm’s equity capital markets team

NEWS

Walkers and runners will take in some of London’s finest views at the 16th annual charity event

Law school partners with charity to give free assistance to litigants in need

Could the Labour government usher in a new era for digital assets, ask Keith Oliver, head of international, and Amalia Neenan FitzGerald, associate, Peters & Peters, in this week’s NLJ

An extra bit is being added to case citations to show the pecking order of the judges concerned. Former district judge Stephen Gold has the details, in his ‘Civil way’ column in this week’s NLJ

The Labour government’s position on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is not yet clear

back-to-top-scroll