Crosswords0 min ago
Suspension Of Parliament Ruled Unlawful.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bigbad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As an aside, although Parliament was expected to be in recess for much of September, it wasn't certain to be -- MPs could have voted to cancel the conference recess. Plus the effect of forcing a Queen's Speech is to suck up a few more days to debate solely that. So it's not just a loss of "four or five days", but easily twice that.
This is the full text of the summary,
"The Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.
A petition for judicial review was raised by 79 petitioners, 78 of whom are parliamentarians at Westminster, on 31 July 2019, seeking inter alia declarator that it would be unlawful for the UK Government to advise HM the Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament with a view to preventing sufficient time for proper consideration of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit).
A substantive hearing was fixed for Friday, 6 September, but on 28 August, on the advice of the Prime Minister, HM the Queen promulgated an Order in Council proroguing Parliament on a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October. The Lord Ordinary (the judge hearing the case at first instance) refused to grant interim orders preventing the prorogation, but brought the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday, 3 September. On the eve of the hearing, in obedience of its duty of candour, the respondent lodged some partially redacted documents exhibiting some of the Government’s deliberations regarding prorogation, going back to 15 August.
The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition. He found that the PM’s advice to HM the Queen on prorogation was, as a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable; the decision to proffer the advice was not able to be assessed against legal standards by the courts.
The reclaiming motion (appeal) was heard by the First Division of the Court of Session over 5 and 6 September. Parliament was prorogued in the early hours of Tuesday, 10 September.
CONT...
"The Inner House of the Court of Session has ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament.
A petition for judicial review was raised by 79 petitioners, 78 of whom are parliamentarians at Westminster, on 31 July 2019, seeking inter alia declarator that it would be unlawful for the UK Government to advise HM the Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament with a view to preventing sufficient time for proper consideration of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit).
A substantive hearing was fixed for Friday, 6 September, but on 28 August, on the advice of the Prime Minister, HM the Queen promulgated an Order in Council proroguing Parliament on a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October. The Lord Ordinary (the judge hearing the case at first instance) refused to grant interim orders preventing the prorogation, but brought the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday, 3 September. On the eve of the hearing, in obedience of its duty of candour, the respondent lodged some partially redacted documents exhibiting some of the Government’s deliberations regarding prorogation, going back to 15 August.
The Lord Ordinary dismissed the petition. He found that the PM’s advice to HM the Queen on prorogation was, as a matter of high policy and political judgment, non-justiciable; the decision to proffer the advice was not able to be assessed against legal standards by the courts.
The reclaiming motion (appeal) was heard by the First Division of the Court of Session over 5 and 6 September. Parliament was prorogued in the early hours of Tuesday, 10 September.
CONT...
CONT...
"All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.
The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.
Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.
Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.
The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.
The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
"All three First Division judges have decided that the PM’s advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful.
The Lord President, Lord Carloway, decided that although advice to HM the Queen on the exercise of the royal prerogative of prorogating Parliament was not reviewable on the normal grounds of judicial review, it would nevertheless be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, which was a central pillar of the good governance principle enshrined in the constitution; this followed from the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The circumstances in which the advice was proffered and the content of the documents produced by the respondent demonstrated that this was the true reason for the prorogation.
Lord Brodie considered that whereas when the petition was raised the question was unlikely to have been justiciable, the particular prorogation that had occurred, as a tactic to frustrate Parliament, could legitimately be established as unlawful. This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities. It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.
Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action. The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The documents provided showed no other explanation for this. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK Government and the Prime Minister wished to restrict Parliament.
The Court also decided that it should not require disclosure of the unredacted versions of the documents lodged by the respondent.
The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
In answer to Khandro's question: there is no specific law being broken, but then that's not what "unlawful" means anyway. If it's against a given law then it's illegal; if it's not authorised by a law, or just counter to general principles of the rule of law, then it's unlawful.
We'll have to wait until the full findings are published on Friday. It might be that the judges found the decision to prorogue "unreasonable", rather than strictly unlawful.
We'll have to wait until the full findings are published on Friday. It might be that the judges found the decision to prorogue "unreasonable", rather than strictly unlawful.
"Proroguing is done often enough" -- yes, but usually not for five weeks. If you want a Queen's Speech then you can turn that around in a few days. Or, to turn it around bit, how long is "too long" to prorogue? Two months? Six? A year? At some point, at least, it becomes manifestly unlawful. Especially so with a major constitutional event looming.
I mean, I do remain surprised at the verdict, especially if it was called "unlawful" as opposed to "unreasonable", although it's possible that there are differences in the legal terminology used in Scottish Courts.
In practice, I think the Court of Session's effect on the UK Parliament is because the case will go to appeal in the Supreme Court, but it's also manifestly obvious that if a Scottish Court finds something relating to the UK Parliament is unlawful then Scottish MPs and Scottish citizens are sufficiently affected that Parliament can't just ignore it.
I mean, I do remain surprised at the verdict, especially if it was called "unlawful" as opposed to "unreasonable", although it's possible that there are differences in the legal terminology used in Scottish Courts.
In practice, I think the Court of Session's effect on the UK Parliament is because the case will go to appeal in the Supreme Court, but it's also manifestly obvious that if a Scottish Court finds something relating to the UK Parliament is unlawful then Scottish MPs and Scottish citizens are sufficiently affected that Parliament can't just ignore it.
In the event of it going to the supreme court, it will take so long to get there & then waiting for a result, the UK will be well out of the EU whatever their verdict.
The polls show overwhelmingly, that the population, even former remainers, are tired of these shenanigans and just want it over & done with.
The polls show overwhelmingly, that the population, even former remainers, are tired of these shenanigans and just want it over & done with.
the opposition (or are they now the de-facto government?) are now calling for parliament to be recalled....
https:/
presumably so they can kick the can down the road a bit more?
https:/
presumably so they can kick the can down the road a bit more?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works4 mins ago
News6 mins ago
News19 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.