Supreme Court
On 25/09/2019 13:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , nightjar
wrote:
Until this ruling, she was constitutionally bound to follow his
advice. Now, she could choose to ignore it, which would be a dangerous
precedent, potentially taking us back to before the English Bill of
Rights.
Well it looks like the SC used what seems to be Art. 1 of the BoR, to
whit:
"the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by
regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;"
even though proroguing does not suspend or dispense with any laws,
merely the sitting of Parliament. Meanwhile I refer you to what seems
to be Art. 8:
"the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought
not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of
Parliament;"
and note that prorogation is a proceeding of Parliament. And further,
Art. 12:
"for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and
preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently."
which provision has just been violated by the SC. Until this Parliament
is prorogued and a new Queens Speech made, no substantial bills can be
passed. So it seems that the SC, and the opposition parties, are
colluding in violating the BoR.
The Supreme Court holds that it is entitled to rule on the lawfulness of
the Prime Minister's actions in this case and the relevant part of the
judgment is as follows:
'The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Ministers
advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The
courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of
acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court
held that the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative
but that which the law of the land allows him. However, in considering
prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different
questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its
extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its
limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon
what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial
review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have
jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative
power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has
concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her
Majesty to prorogue Parliament.'
--
Colin Bignell
|