Court Ruling Goes Against Johnson

[apelike]

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

Nope - they tried to conflate a recess (which requires parliamentary approval) and prorogation. With flimsy excuses that the prorogation had nothing to do with wanting to railroad through a no deal Brexit.

That still does not alter the fact that as no laws were in place at the time regulating the above that the advice given at the time was sound. Notice that it was unlawful and not illegal. If laws were in place then the latter would apply.

 

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Surely that’s a good thing?

I'm not arguing that its not! 

Edited September 26, 2019 by apelike

[Top Cats Hat]

3 minutes ago, apelike said:

That still does not alter the fact that as no laws were in place at the time regulating the above that the advice given at the time was sound. Notice that it was unlawful and not illegal. If laws were in place then the latter would apply.

That is true however good legal advice would have been “Yes, on the face of it there is nothing stopping us doing this but it so outside the normal use of prorogation that it will almost certainly be subject to legal challenge particularly since the Prime Minister has already publicly announced that the reason for prorogation is to exclude Parliamentary scrutiny before he announced that it is to allow a Queen’s speech.

[Longcol]

23 minutes ago, apelike said:

That still does not alter the fact that as no laws were in place at the time regulating the above that the advice given at the time was sound. Notice that it was unlawful and not illegal. If laws were in place then the latter would apply.

 

Civil Law, as oppossed to criminal, is largely based on case law and precedent, not statutes.

 

Unlawful and illegal are virtually one and the same - it is usually only cranks like self proclaimed "freemen on the land" that pretend otherwise.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Longcol

[apelike]

3 hours ago, Longcol said:

Unlawful and illegal are virtually one and the same - ...

But they aren't.

 

Illegal means that it is forbidden by a law that has been passed.

Unlawful means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed.

 

1 hour ago, CaptainSwing said:

I'm strictly a neophyte when it comes to constitutional law, but my take on it is this.

 

Prorogation was traditionally a formality, not a political matter.  Prerogative powers only exist on the understanding that they are not abused.  When it looks like they have been abused, that's when the exercise of them can be challenged in court.  If the challenge is successful, the court can place a limit on them, which is what has just happened.  It's a moot point whether this is changing the law or just clarifying it in reaction to unprecedented events.  If the legal status of prorogation has not been discussed judicially before, that's because no Prime Minister has ever attempted quite such an egregious abuse of power before.

 

[Well, you could argue the same about Miller (1), notwithstanding that Parliament actually agreed with what the PM was trying to do in that case.  That's two Conservative Prime Ministers in a row who've been caught trying to subvert the constitution.]

 

One main point of the Supreme Court's judgment was that prorogation is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but is imposed on Parliament.  It is not a "proceeding in Parliament", hence isn't within the scope of the Bill of Rights (Article 9).

Thanks for that.

Edited September 27, 2019 by apelike

[ANGELFIRE1]

On 26/09/2019 at 20:54, apelike said:

But that wasn't the case. Any legal advice he gave was sound at the time, given the then current laws in place. The Supreme Court made a new law by their judgement thus making the previous prorogue unlawful. It means that the prerogative powers of the PM can now be the subject of the Courts and because of that it was not flawed legal advice.

 

See above...

Put better than I could express it. But on the money.

 

Angel1

On 26/09/2019 at 22:17, apelike said:

By becoming involved in what was traditionally a political matter and ruling on it the Courts have changed the law and set a precedent. The Attorney General thinks it has and has stated such and so have many legal experts. This has changed the constitutional process not only here but in other Commonwealth Countries as well that have the same political system of proroguing. Its not just about scrutiny by parliament now but scrutiny by the courts as well. Because of this it is now made into law that the prerogative power of Her Majesty, advised by the Prime Minister, can be the subject—the justiciable subject—of the court’s control whereas before it was not. 

Same again, on the money.

 

Angel1.

[ANGELFIRE1]

Does the Supreme Court ruling now mean if the Government were to implement a "new" law that was passed by a large majority through the house, it could be stopped or altered by the Supreme Court. In other words, has the decision to un prorogue the prorogue set new precedents.  Serious question.

 

Angel1.

[Top Cats Hat]

Just now, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Does the Supreme Court ruling now mean if the Government were to implement a "new" law that was passed by a large majority through the house, it could be stopped or altered by the Supreme Court. In other words, has the decision to un prorogue the prorogue set new precedents.  Serious question.

Only if it is challenged on proper legal grounds.

 

You seem to have a problem with government being subject to proper legal scrutiny.

[melthebell]

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Only if it is challenged on proper legal grounds.

 

You seem to have a problem with government being subject to proper legal scrutiny.

And of parliament and our courts being sovereign lol

[Manlinose]

On 28/09/2019 at 09:19, melthebell said:

And of parliament and our courts being sovereign lol

Surely you can't have Parliament and the Courts both being sovereign. One has to have sovereignty over the other.

 

It's simplistic, but not necessarily wrong to go back to the old adage that Parliament makes the laws and The Courts interpret them (although admittedly not relevant to this particular discussion)

[Top Cats Hat]

3 minutes ago, Manlinose said:

It's simplistic, but not necessarily wrong to go back to the old adage that Parliament makes the laws and The Courts interpret them (although admittedly not relevant to this particular discussion)

It is actually more accurate to say that Parliament makes the law and the courts enforce them.