Prorogation - Supreme Court Verdict: Legal or Illegal

[jamesbrown]

I think that is only part of the matter, precedent has been used as well as legislation

Er, you mean case law? Precedent is part of common law, which operates w/r to legislation.

[jamesbrown]

Maybe. But not how British justice works.

Well, we'll find out soon. What about the other stuff, I said? This case is really about the separation of powers and the extent to which, to coin a phrase, there is a backstop to prerogative powers and, if so, what that is and who drafts it (the judiciary if the gov't fails).

[BrilloPad]

So decision due early next week.

[Whorty]

How many mods are there currently?

3

They're split 50/50

[meridian]

I’ll go for “justiciable, but in this case not illegal”.

Everybody wins.

[jamesbrown]

I’ll go for “justiciable, but in this case not illegal”.

Everybody wins.

Not likely, IMHO. That would effectively say that the Court of Sessions erred because, unlike the HC, they found it to be justiciable and, therefore, ruled on the substance. They may be wrong about the former, but I cannot see the latter. It's pretty clear that a main purpose was to evade Parliament and not to prepare for a QS. Difficult to see how they were wrong on the substance, and the SC needs to judge that ruling against Scottish law. If the gov't is going to win, I think it can only be on justiciability (i.e., the lack thereof).

[NotAllThere]

What about the other stuff, I said? .

Funnily enough, quite cogent. What is happening here is a battle between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. As soon as the SC was created, it was inevitable that sooner or later something like this would happen.

I'm just stocking up on popcorn.

[Old Greg]

Er, we know the High Court verdict.

I'd say illegal at the SC, on balance, although it will be interesting to hear their justification because legislation is the yardstick by which to judge illegality (e.g., improper purpose), so what is the made-up yardstick by which to judge political impropriety (noting that Parliament could've legislated against prorogation too, as with the NI Act)?

If it is illegal, there is no need for parliament to legislate against it.

[jamesbrown]

If it is illegal, there is no need for parliament to legislate against it.

Yeah, I'm not sure a judicial review triggered by a citizen is the best route for Parliament to achieve something clearly within its own power.

I mean, suity might take that approach.

Speaking of which, I saw this earlier and it reminded me of suity...

Tariq Rauf on Twitter: "I want to be in the meeting where this idea was proposed… "

[Old Greg]

Yeah, I'm not sure a judicial review triggered by a citizen is the best route for Parliament to achieve something clearly within its own power.

I mean, suity might take that approach.

Speaking of which, I saw this earlier and it reminded me of suity...

Tariq Rauf on Twitter: "I want to be in the meeting where this idea was proposed… "

This is not being achieved for parliament but for the electorate who are represented by parliament. So perfectly right that a citizen steps in.