owlo
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2015
- Messages
- 3,252
My first redcafe thread!
Personal disclaimers: I am not related to the case, have no money invested yet in either side, and am not a qualified lawyer. No QC or judge within my direct or extended family are involved in the case.
What is it about?
The government have prorogued parliament for 5 weeks, ostensibly to implement a Queens speech and start a new session. Opposition have stated that he has done so to deny parliament a say on Brexit and stymy debate and supervision of the executive.
They therefore are challenging the advice the Prime Minister gave to the Queen to progogue parliament (known as a pregogative power). The question: Was this advice lawful or unlawful?
How has it been ruled so far?
The High Court of England has ruled for the government, stating that it is not justiciable. (more on this later)
The Court of Session in Scotland has ruled against the government, stating that not only is it justiciable, but unlawful.
So what happens now?
Beginning Tuesday, 11 justices of the Supreme Court will begin to hear the case. (The SC website states 9, but this has now been upgraded to 11 - Only Lord Briggs will be missing)
They will hear all the appeals together, and decide on a ruling.
What will the case involve?
In general, the judiciary gives the government a lot of leeway with prerogative powers, as they are often seen as political instead of legal. There is an argument that the court are not qualified to rule on what is essentially a political issue. This is known as justiciability.
The divisional court has ruled that 'length of prorogation' is too abstract a concept to rule on, as it is a matter of politics not law. Therefore it is unjusticiable.
This is the first matter the SC must decide.
IF the case is justiciable, the court must decide whether the advice given was unlawful and disingenuous. One might claim that this is a slam dunk, given the circumstantial evidence against the government, but these things are never so simple.
What happens in the event of a judgment?
If the Court decides for the government, the prorogation is legal and no further action is taken.
If the Court decides against the government, it is likely though not certain that the government would recall parliament.
Personal disclaimers: I am not related to the case, have no money invested yet in either side, and am not a qualified lawyer. No QC or judge within my direct or extended family are involved in the case.
What is it about?
The government have prorogued parliament for 5 weeks, ostensibly to implement a Queens speech and start a new session. Opposition have stated that he has done so to deny parliament a say on Brexit and stymy debate and supervision of the executive.
They therefore are challenging the advice the Prime Minister gave to the Queen to progogue parliament (known as a pregogative power). The question: Was this advice lawful or unlawful?
How has it been ruled so far?
The High Court of England has ruled for the government, stating that it is not justiciable. (more on this later)
The Court of Session in Scotland has ruled against the government, stating that not only is it justiciable, but unlawful.
So what happens now?
Beginning Tuesday, 11 justices of the Supreme Court will begin to hear the case. (The SC website states 9, but this has now been upgraded to 11 - Only Lord Briggs will be missing)
They will hear all the appeals together, and decide on a ruling.
What will the case involve?
In general, the judiciary gives the government a lot of leeway with prerogative powers, as they are often seen as political instead of legal. There is an argument that the court are not qualified to rule on what is essentially a political issue. This is known as justiciability.
The divisional court has ruled that 'length of prorogation' is too abstract a concept to rule on, as it is a matter of politics not law. Therefore it is unjusticiable.
This is the first matter the SC must decide.
IF the case is justiciable, the court must decide whether the advice given was unlawful and disingenuous. One might claim that this is a slam dunk, given the circumstantial evidence against the government, but these things are never so simple.
What happens in the event of a judgment?
If the Court decides for the government, the prorogation is legal and no further action is taken.
If the Court decides against the government, it is likely though not certain that the government would recall parliament.
Last edited: