Twitter | Search | |
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Exceptionally in public law, "abuse of power" requires the court to go behind the texts to assess motive and intention of those exercising power The government's lawyers will not be enjoying this
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
And these quotes show how loose tongues in political interviews can be fatal in legal cases
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
As long as the incriminating (ahem) quotes are from outside parliament - as Hansard is (rarely) admissible as evidence because of the Bill of Rights
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
The judges are biting Etherton was one of the "Enemies of the People" judges last time round
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Note - I am NOT in court and this commentary is entirely dependent on the excellent court live-tweeting of and If you value this commentary, please them too, as it simply would not be possible without them
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
In theory: when legislation is genuinely ambiguous, under the Pepper & Hart rule In practice: the most boring tax law cases imaginable, and then rarely
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Hmm A witness statement could have cured this problem Oh
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Again, Pannick is taking careful legal aim at the advice to HM, not the HM's decision to prorogue itself
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green
Now, Pannick is moving on to jurisdiction (The correct role and powers of the court) Textbook, top class advocacy Having first explained the horrors of the problem, you *then* tell the judges what they can then do about it
Reply Retweet Like More
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Always love the "clanking mediaeval chains" quote
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Now - a tough submission for Pannick Trying to separate dissolution (ie, ending a parliament for a general election) - where the courts will certainly not intervene - with prorogation This is not going to be easy
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
And one reason that is a tough submission is that Pannick is arguing from first constitutional principles - and so if the court is to be with him, they need to know just how far other constitutional matters will be affected
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
What I think Pannick is aiming at is for the Court to hold that any request for prorogation ("advice") must not be an abuse of power and that there is a reason for its duration Therefore: a 5 week prorogation could meet that test, in theory, but it just has not here
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
There has to be break now on my analysis, sorry Please keep following and for news from court And am sorry to those expecting my reportage/analysis threads to be as colourful and sweary as 's political ones
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Right, back
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Pannick now doing the hard work on "justiciability" - whether this is *really* a matter for the courts, even if in principle there is jurisdiction - the difference between whether judges can and should intervene
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
He has contended there are no "no go" areas for judicial review
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Pannick says - flatly - that the Scots court got the decision wrong yesterday
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Pannick again stresses the principle at stake (Will be interesting to hear the government's argument on this)
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Neat final move Pannick is going for a "declaration" of illegality rather than a quashing order - that will make it easier for the court if they are with him - as quashing orders re the prerogative/advice could have tricky issues
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
"Dicey has been superseded" Please, let this be the case, this over-rated Victorian jurist and his shadow have ruined UK constitutional law for long enough
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
Replying to @davidallengreen
Pannick over, government panic continuing (Sorry, but I have had to up with all your dreadful Pannick puns as if they have not been done 1000s of times before)
Reply Retweet Like
david allen green Sep 5
And that is it from me Read for the government's case Expect government to stress "non-justiciability" as (a) that is where they legally strongest and (b) their case on facts is frightful mess - improper purpose and 5 weeks unexplained
Reply Retweet Like