Boris Johnson's lawyers will argue that his decision to prorogue parliament was legalThe government will respond to Gina Miller's case, before Joanna Cherry MP's lawyers make submissionsLord Sales: if there are constitutional provisions to be enforced, shouldn’t it be for us to decide rather than for the Queen? Eadie: yes, but these are matters for political control involving ministers.
He is now talking about dissolution of parliament. Before fixed term parliaments, dissolution was given as a core example of a prerogative power, whose subject matter rendered it political and therefore non-justiciable.He says for present purposes there is no distinction between dissolution and prorogation, because the basis is the lack of political standards and constitutional propriety of politicians deciding, and he can't see why it would be any different.
Sir James acknowledges the extreme of it, and says he will come back to that - but reminds the court that principles shouldn't be established by being tested against the extreme.He says parliament would exercise control over the government in all that. He says in case law, we see that the precious principles sometimes move in order to allow other principles to be used.Sir James says he will touch specifically on sovereignty, and says he will says yes it is precious principle, but it all depends what aspect of that you are looking at - including that parliament can make and unmake laws, and that other branches then bow to that.
Referencing some of the cases which Lord Pannick brought up yesterday, Sir James acknowledges that the world has moved on since those - but he says none of the case law they brought establishes the approach that a power is non justiciable just because it was carried out by an executive power.Eadie is disagreeing with Pannick on the breadth of justiciability. Eadie says a power is not judicially reviewable just because it is the exercise of executive power, as he says Pannick had argued.
But he says it's a recognised constitutional function of the executive, and he will set out whether the decision on that can be made by the court, or if it should be made by parliament.Hale points out that the proposition just cited is “obiter” to the Shergill judgment and therefore not binding. Eadie has to accept this. “There is obiter and obiter,” he says.Sir James says there are no judicial or manageable standards to test against the use of the language.
joannaccherry BorisJohnson And he's right. Everyone knows he is....
European comedians Ritchie, best in the world.
And there they go worh the cheap insults. It’s easy to see when they are rattled.
And people here still want to be a part of this mob
When you are losing resort to name calling
This will only serve to strengthen the resolve of 'leavers' and change the minds of those like myself who voted to remain. Remaining in the EU would be a huge mistake
guyverhofstadt the gift that just keeps on giving 😎 I salute you Sir keep up the good work 🙈
Boris wouldn’t have felt the need to shutdown parliament if the EU hadn’t infested it with biased corrupt officials 🖕
How dare he speak about our PM like this. Disgraceful behaviour from the EU dictators
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Daily Express - 🏆 26. / 68 Read more »
Source: SkyNews - 🏆 35. / 67 Read more »
Source: Daily Express - 🏆 26. / 68 Read more »
Source: The Guardian - 🏆 84. / 53 Read more »
Source: The Independent - 🏆 80. / 59 Read more »