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

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