Scotland rules prorogue 'unlawful'

[cheesytoasties]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/scottish-judges-rule-boris-johnsons-prorogation-unlawful

We are living in crazy times.

[Motheroffourdragons]

Ok, not sure what the point was. It certainly will be interesting to see what the eventual rule will be.

[TheSandman]

I would be very concerned if the Supreme Court allowed anything other than the strict rule of law to be applied when determining a case. It would be more of a constitutional crisis if the UK Supreme Court felt obliged to uphold the Courts of Session verdict because of potential political ramifications!

Quoting - slightly trimmed for clarity - from a post on another site:

"The UK Supreme Court requires that Scottish Law Lords judge on issues of Scots Law as the English Law Lords have [...] no competence on issues of Scots Law. The Cherry Case was brought under Scots Law and practice. The judgement was made on the affidavits and legal arguments brought before the Court of Session by both parties.

"The judgement can only be over-ruled by the UK Supreme Court if the Court of Session has exceeded its powers under Scots Law, in error in its interpretation of Scots Law, the evidence before it or in EU Law."

So what Supreme Court is doing is hearing arguments about whether the correct procedures - all the i dotting and t crossing was done in the right order. That the evidence submitted was submittable, that the right rigmaroles were gone through, not hearing the case all over again.

Essentially the government are hoping to 'get off on a technicality'.

[NoWordForFluffy]

If the SC comes to a different conclusion, it'll be because of an error of law, i.e. the Scottish Judges got it wrong in saying that it's a legal, rather than a political, issue.

I'd assumed there'd be 5 judges hearing it, but read yesterday that there's 9! That's a far few legal minds on the case!

[StealthPolarBear]

When does it happen?

[NoWordForFluffy]

It's heard over 3 days startling on Tuesday next week. Judgment the week after.

[StealthPolarBear]

Thanks. So time is being lost

[Oakenbeach]

@Motheroffourdragons

My point was that I’d be concerned if the UK Supreme Court allowed political considerations to be a part of their decision making as suggested by your brother.

In a properly functioning legal system, a court, especially a Supreme Court, must always be able to “dare” to make what they believe is the correct legal judgment irrespective of other consequences.

[NoWordForFluffy]

You can't just convene a number of Judges at the drop of a hat. One judge, yes, 9, not so much. This is a scheduled appeal hearing after the initial hearing last week which the Scottish one has now been joined with.

It's quite clear that the government should be reopening the HoC following yesterday's decision. The fact they keep choosing to flout legal and parliamentary rulings shows what contempt they hold anyone but themselves in.

[Motheroffourdragons]

It's not about political considerations - it is about the laws of the land. So it will be very interesting and there will be constitutional issues following a different decision by the Supreme court.

And as fluffy says there is no excuse for the HoC not to be reopened following the decision yesterday, as I read yesterday the next decision will not be till the 23rd September so a full extra week later.

[meditrina]

It's not hogwash. It's parliament's actual agreed dates.

There was no vote, nor calls for a vote, to alter those dates.

The expected length of time for Supreme Court to rule falls entirely within the Parliamentary recess.

I am not sure what elect committee business is actually being lost (it's usually none, because it is in abeyance for practical reasons during conference) but happy for more info on that.

Also, if Parliament only took its agreed conference recess, what business would there be on the 5 recovered days?

And should new Parliamentary session begin without a prorogation? Or is a new session to be denied for the time being? Even if you think those issues were raised as an excuse, they are now matters which need to be dealt with

[NoWordForFluffy]

Actually, MPs were discussing voting to shorten the conference recess. You're talking utter nonsense to try to prove your inaccurate point.

[BunchMunch]

Slightly off topic, but didn't John Major prorogue Parliament to try to avoid the cash for questions scandal? Interesting that he's up in arms over this proragation.

I think that the SC will overrule the Scottish decision. Crazy times we live in.

[Quartz2208]

Yes it’s fascinating and the implications of this regarding the separation of powers and government, the Government and Parliament are fascinating

The problem is it’s really hard to see any sensible way out of any of this

[NoWordForFluffy]

John Major prorogued Parliament prior to a general election. It was a few days before he HAD to prorogue due to the maximum amount of time allowed between elections under the law at that time.

[YeOldeTrout]

Remainiacs has a specific 18 minute podcast explaining the legal principles that led to the Scottish & English rulings, and the next steps, what to expect, and the legal basis of each ruling so far. Very good for amateur legal anoraks.

[ProfessorSlocombe]

All UK courts deliver justice in the name of the Monarch, and as such only answer to the Monarch. Judges don't swear oaths to parliament, the government, the Prime Minister, Nigel Farage, or the bloke that shouts at pigeons in the town square.

So a court delivering a ruling the government don't like is doing so as part of their sworn oath to Her Majesty (in this case).

Governments are, of course, free to seek to change the law - which is what parliament is there for. Of course if parliament don't vote in favour of change, then change comes there none.

[Quartz2208]

Yes very much the separation of powers we hold so dear between government parliament and the judiciary is exactly why this case needs to go to the Supreme Court to decide if he has overstepped
Parliament could change and overrule judicial precedent the Government cannot

[YeOldeTrout]

afaik, the nature of the British constitution is that Parliament makes the laws, so can effect change in any court ruling simply by changing the law. In that way, Parliament checks the power of the courts.

[ProfessorSlocombe]

afaik, the nature of the British constitution is that Parliament makes the laws, so can effect change in any court ruling simply by changing the law. In that way, Parliament checks the power of the courts.

Pretty much, yes. However it's considered poor form, generally for parliament to make laws which act retrospectively, (for what I hope are obvious reasons). However, we've already fallen into that rabbit hole with governments rushing to pass laws to get them off the hook for having acted unlawfully more than once, which highlights that in the UK the separation between the executive and the legislature is sometime blurred if not non existent.

[TheSandman]

in the UK the separation between the executive and the legislature is sometime blurred if not non existent.

I would have though, given the fact most of them grew up stoned and/or buggering each other at Eton, there were no lines at all.