Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

originally posted by: bastion

Lady Hale said the unanimous decision of the 11 justices meant Parliament had effectively not been prorogued - the decision was null and of no effect.
But the justices disagreed, unanimously deciding it was "justiciable", and there was "no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power".

It really shouldn't matter but I would be interested in the political leanings

of all 11 of these judges. I know they are supposed to be unbiased but

ones leanings are what colour our views on the way we see things? That is the

human condition after all.

The court also criticised the length of the suspension, with Lady Hale saying it was "impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks".The court may have fallen short of saying Boris Johnson had an improper motive of stymieing or frustrating parliamentary scrutiny, but the damage is done, he has been found to have acted unlawfully and stopped Parliament from doing its job without any legal justification.

^^^That^^^ is supposing they (all of them) are mind readers? Isnt it a

case for innocent until proven guilty?

Of course! The judges were making judgements about the legality of the government's suspension of parliament based upon their suspicions, not on ANY facts or documentary evidence. There are no laws about prorogment. Merely a convention about its use. Being morally outraged about the length of suspension is one thing. But it does not amount to the breaking of any law because a convention is NOT a law. Yet the judges called Boris' decision illegal!!!? It's nothing of the sort! Can't they tell they difference between a convention and a law?

Call this a court?

Stay out of politics, Supreme Court!
And learn how to tell the difference between the law and political convention.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: UKTruth

They can rule on constitutional matters - those areas that are law.
General conventions are not law - so obviously breaking them is not unlawful.


You are clearly unaware of what the Constitution of the UK is - and is not.

you've clearly never read the documents and laws that form the uncodified UK consitution or Parliamentary Law, Public Administration Law in the UK, UK Devolution law, UK Democracy, Parliamentary law. How a PM/Executive knowingly lying to the head of state/queen abusing Royal Prerogative laws to have Parliament porogued to avoid loosing more democratic/parliamentary votes and lying he had a new deal with the EU plan. then immediately turned all Tory donations, press releases, front bench statements, touring the UK on hustings (undermining democratic vote and oversight) to force no-deal through and aren't even attempting to expand on securing more than the total trade deals we need in place in under six weeks' time (Zimbabwe and Seychelled, island in the artic circle dont export much/any goods to US.

Brief example of how to have the right to send local PM, politicians, council sent to jail - Under 1974 Section ii

The LAWS instituted by Parliamentary Act I have no issue with being defined as legally enforceable elements of our Constitution.
Constitutional conventions are NOT law, however.

You can keep saying it, doesn't make it true.

It's not me saying it that makes it true - it's the law of the land and unwritten conventions are not legally enforceable. If a judge decides the are, it's an illegitmate decision.

I agree. The Supreme Court has shown that it is unable to tell the difference between political conventions and laws. Breaking the former cannot be characterised as "illegal", as Lady Hale expressed it in her summary. Only breaking the latter is illegal, geddit, Lady Hale? But then it was all about making a POLITICAL statement about the government, not a legal one, wasn't it, Lady Hale?
Do we now have to open the Thames barrier to cope with your crocodile tears, Lady Hale?

From a legal point of view the result was inevitable because the govt crucially and astonishingly did not serve/file any witness evidence endorsed with a "statement of truth".
This replaced the old procedure of having sworn affidavit evidence.
Consequences result if someone knowimgly lies in a statement so endorsed.
It is astonishing that no such evidence was relied on.
Begs the question why.
The obvious answer was nobody in govt wanted to perjure themselves.
Without any such evidence the govt was doomed to fail.

originally posted by: micpsi

Stay out of politics, Supreme Court!
And learn how to tell the difference between the law and political convention.

Yes because am sure 11 of the of the most senior and respected judges in the country need to be lectured on by wee davie about what is and is not justicable because it’s inconvenient to his politics.

What makes you more qualified than them

originally posted by: micpsi

Stay out of politics, Supreme Court!
And learn how to tell the difference between the law and political convention.

I think that the supreme court judges do actually know their stuff and with any due respect to your good self i think they know a bit more about the law than you do.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
A right royal slap on the tits to auld Lizzie as well. Brilliant.

Would love it if she walked into parliament and just bitch slapped him.

The Queen is Pro Brexit so i doubt that very much.......

The queen has not made her views public either way

Officially, no she hasn't - you are correct.

Unofficially, there have been numerous "anonymous" leaks from the Palace regarding her position.

And then there is simple common sense. For this, you only have to look at photo evidence. Look at Liz's face when meeting Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. Contrast with her face when meeting Boris those few weeks ago. She looks absolutely delighted with one and not so much the rest.......

I suppose an alternative explanation is that she is one of the myriad of women who seem to have a crush on Boris (no, i have no idea why that is the case either!).

a reply to: Flavian

I think we all know what her maj's side on brexit is. And what she thinks of devolution too.

a reply to: eletheia

All very valid points - Agreed on your view on Judges - was trained to be an impartial journalist but after years of trying and scrutinising to eliminate any bias I could to provide the most accurate story - I realised all the documents I read, incidentts I saw, evidence and interviews I heard, gut reactions, hair on neck feelings etc.. we're all still being filtered subconsciously through my senses, even with the best efforts it's impossibe to be truly inbiased - judges are selected and prided for being unbiased but likewise it's be interesting if there was a public record of their leanings/views (not sure if one exists/where to find one but will do some sleuthing.

The case was on illegal Prerogative Power abuse is finiushed. the government didn't submit the required defense/evidence paperwork the Court required which is a major clsuter#.-

See OldCarpy's post for a perfect explanation of why this is standard legal protocol and how much the government screwed up/very wise assumption as why they refused to do so IMO (as far as I'm aware he's an ex-lawyer or solicitor - certainly trained in law and the courts and is very Pro Brexit.)

There's a long past of UK governments shredding documents to try and avoid being found guilty or face perjury - Ken Clarke used Parliamentary Privilege as then Justice Secratary to free my Uncle from jail after shredding documents/lying in Court to avoid prosecution.

---
You could be forgiven for turning the page. So now the hitherto unimpeachable Douglas Hurd has been fingered in the latest round of the impenetrable and seemingly unending Arms-to-Iraq scandal. And we have a new bit-part player - Paul Grecian, managing director of arms suppliers Ordtech, who managed to spy simultaneously for MI5, MI6 and Special Branch - to add to the dramatis personae of this tortuous epic.

War between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 and continued until 1988. In its midst, in 1985, Parliament agreed to abide by a UN resolution which imposed an arms embargo on both sides. But on 21 December 1988, four months after the two nations agreed a cease-fire, the Government, at a meeting between the Defence Minister Lord Trefgarne, the Trade Minister Alan Clark, DTI and the Foreign Office Minister William Waldegrave decided that the export guidelines could be relaxed. The decision may have been for sound strategic reasons and in the national interest. But they decided not to tell Parliament.

But wait. There is more to all this than an accumulation of the kind of details we might normally find only in the middle pages of a John Le Carre novel. Yesterday's court case tells us something rather revealing about the way we have been governed for the past two decades.

It casts light on how Whitehall operates as a dark and secret place whose inhabitants know well how to hide the thimble when they need to. It shows how power corrupts by confusing the interests of the party in government with those of the nation itself. It shows how the Cold War undermined the primacy of truth and made it respectable to lie in government. During the Iraq was But on 21 December 1988, four months after the two nations agreed a cease-fire, the Government, at a meeting between the Defence Minister Lord Trefgarne, the Trade Minister Alan Clark, DTI and the Foreign Office Minister William Waldegrave decided that the export guidelines could be relaxed. The decision may have been for sound strategic reasons and in the national interest. But they decided not to tell Parliament.

With the nod from the Government, British firms began supplying the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Sheffield firm Matrix Churchill shipped out parts for Saddam's intercontinental super-gun. The arms firm Astra through a subsidiary supplied the propellant for the gun. Ordnance Technologies Ltd (Ordtech) sold, via Jordan, shell fuses to the Iraqi dictator.

In February 1992, a case was brought at Reading Crown Court against four men working with Ordtech. The defendants claimed that the Government was aware that Jordan was being used as a conduit for exports to Iraq. They asked for government documents to be produced to prove their case. But "public interest immunity certificates" declaring that the material was too sensitive for the courtroom were signed by Kenneth Baker, then Home Secretary, and Peter Lilley, then Trade and Industry Secretary. Ordtech's managing director, Paul Grecian, and three others were found guilty.

Were the immunity certificates signed to protect the national interest? Or were they to protect Tory ministers from embarrassment? This is a key issue that Sir Richard Scott's report into the Arms-for-Iraq affair, which is due out soon, will certainly address.
--
...


Matrix-Churchill caused Clark much greater difficulties. He had arrived at the DTI with Iran and Iraq at war and Britain committed not to sell arms to either side, yet firms were quietly encouraged to supply Saddam Hussein through third countries to prevent Ayatollah Khomeini scoring a victory by destabilising the Middle East.Clark regarded the guidelines on sales to the warring countries as "tiresome and obtrusive". In January 1988 he met executives of the Matrix-Churchill machine tool company who were frustrated by delays in getting licences for sensitive exports. Clark suggested specifications that implied the machinery "would not be seen as suitable for military purposes". When this was leaked in December 1990, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, had Clark hauled in to explain himself to the Prime Minister.

Despite Sir Robin's realisation that three Matrix-Churchill executives (facing trial for making false claims to evade the arms embargo) would argue that Clark encouraged them, the prosecution went ahead in November 1992. Clark had denied on oath to Customs officers that he advised the businessmen how to circumvent the embargo, and repeated this in court. But when the trial judge admitted in evidence documents proving the opposite, Clark conceded he had been "economical with the actualite". The trial collapsed, greatly embarrassing the government.
-------------

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: micpsi

Stay out of politics, Supreme Court!
And learn how to tell the difference between the law and political convention.

Yes because am sure 11 of the of the most senior and respected judges in the country need to be lectured on by wee davie about what is and is not justicable because it’s inconvenient to his politics.

What makes you more qualified than them

They made a political decision.
The fact they couldn't cite any law, given their legal prowess, makes it quite obvious.

I agree, UKTruth. It is not a matter of having more legal expertise than the rest of us. It is a small matter of the Supreme Court showing in their words that their decision was both impartial and based upon the LAW, not POLITICS.

And that they failed to do.

But then, what do you expect from judges appointed during a Labour government who are pro Labour and whose Remainder sentiments made them decide to make things difficult for a Tory government?

If they cannot tell the difference between a convention (whose breaking is not illegal) and a law (whose breaking is illegal), then they should be encouraged to retire as soon as possible.

To any Yanks watching the nonsense going on in the U (nunited) K (ingdom) these past three and half years our once great country is going off a cliff. Within the past two few days one of our biggest travel Agents just gone down plus our only British owned bus maker went today too. The country is literall falling apart now they want to take us out of Europe with no deal, things really are falling apart and there is every cahnce you will mistake Britain for Zimbabwe in a decade or so. Visit soon as our towns and cities are falling apart full of drugs and homeless people and extreme violent gangs often illegal undocumented immigrants and all the violence that comes with it. The streets are literally full of boarded up shops where business has simply failed. The country is divided like never before and this is reflected in the Brexit nonsense and the divide between left and right. We are sinking so fast, just a financial crisis or similar will sink our nation for decades now loads of firms in the banking and manufacturing sectors are preparing to do a Brexit away from our shores as tarrffis loom on the horizon between us and the biggest trading bloc on Planet Earth, our neighbour the EU. When we make a car here in the UK 80% of components come from the EU as an example, now they want to put tariffs on these then extra tarffis when the car gets exported to the Continent Total insanity and Putin must be laughing his socks off

originally posted by: oldcarpy
From a legal point of view the result was inevitable because the govt crucially and astonishingly did not serve/file any witness evidence endorsed with a "statement of truth".
This replaced the old procedure of having sworn affidavit evidence.
Consequences result if someone knowimgly lies in a statement so endorsed.
It is astonishing that no such evidence was relied on.
Begs the question why.
The obvious answer was nobody in govt wanted to perjure themselves.
Without any such evidence the govt was doomed to fail.

And when was it made a matter of law that witnesss evidence endorsed with a "statement of truth" had to be served?
No law exists? But, m'lord, you said the action was illegal. How can that be if no law was broken, only a convention? Why are you suspecting the worst, m'lord? Could it not be a simple confusion at work? Wouldn't be because you are a Remainer who wants to stop Brexit, would it, m'lord?

Perish the thought!

"Obvious answer was nobody in govt wanted to perjure themselves."

Oh! Someone was worried about lying about the length of suspension of parliament? Why would that be, pray? Do you have have any other daft reasons for the alleged omission?

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: oldcarpy
From a legal point of view the result was inevitable because the govt crucially and astonishingly did not serve/file any witness evidence endorsed with a "statement of truth".
This replaced the old procedure of having sworn affidavit evidence.
Consequences result if someone knowimgly lies in a statement so endorsed.
It is astonishing that no such evidence was relied on.
Begs the question why.
The obvious answer was nobody in govt wanted to perjure themselves.
Without any such evidence the govt was doomed to fail.

And when was it made a matter of law that witnesss evidence endorsed with a "statement of truth" had to be served?
No law exists? But, m'lord, you said the action was illegal. How can that be if no law was broken, only a convention? Why are you suspecting the worst, m'lord? Could it not be a simple confusion at work? Wouldn't be because you are a Remainer who wants to stop Brexit, would it, m'lord?

Perish the thought!

"Obvious answer was nobody in govt wanted to perjure themselves."

Oh! Someone was worried about lying about the length of suspension of parliament? Why would that be, pray? Do you have have any other daft reasons for the alleged omission?

The UK constitution is often based on convention but that doesn't mean it is just a convention.

The ruling was that prolonging parliment was done to prevent it fulfilling it's proper constitutional role.

MY HEAD HURTS!
"The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a member of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union."...direct quote from the Supreme Courts own website...see link below.

The Supreme Court was set up 2 years after Tony Blair was PM. He was an advocate for setting up the Supreme Court. During his tenure as PM, and in an autobiography/biography, it is said that there were huge arguments between himself and Cheri Blair QC, (his wife) as she believed the Supreme Court should not be linked to the EU via the ECHR (European Courts of Human Rights), he disagreed.

In 1998 Parliament passed our own Human Rights Act. By October 2009 the Supreme Court was set up and was tied to the EU under the ECHR. "It is the duty of all such courts, including the UK Supreme Court, to interpret all existing legislation so that it is compatible with the ECHR;" (quote again from their website)

In case you are thinking we are tied via our Supreme Court to just the ECHR only, this quote from the link below "Like other final courts, the UKSC is, in the areas of European law in which the United Kingdom has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), under the duty imposed by Article 267 of the Treaty".

To quote Walter Scott again, in reference to Lady Hale's brooch ....."........O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!"
Supreme Court and Europe

Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: angelchemuel
MY HEAD HURTS!
"The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is a member of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union."...direct quote from the Supreme Courts own website...see link below.

The Supreme Court was set up 2 years after Tony Blair was PM. He was an advocate for setting up the Supreme Court. During his tenure as PM, and in an autobiography/biography, it is said that there were huge arguments between himself and Cheri Blair QC, (his wife) as she believed the Supreme Court should not be linked to the EU via the ECHR (European Courts of Human Rights), he disagreed.

Thank you for that..... It makes the question I posed at the top of the page

irrelevant It really didn't make any difference to any of the Judges political

leanings because we the UK is firmly wedded (welded? only it's not funny)

to the EU in many more ways than we know and have been led to believe.......

And YES that was one of the many many reasons us leavers voted to leave.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: oldcarpy
From a legal point of view the result was inevitable because the govt crucially and astonishingly did not serve/file any witness evidence endorsed with a "statement of truth".
This replaced the old procedure of having sworn affidavit evidence.
Consequences result if someone knowimgly lies in a statement so endorsed.
It is astonishing that no such evidence was relied on.
Begs the question why.
The obvious answer was nobody in govt wanted to perjure themselves.
Without any such evidence the govt was doomed to fail.

And when was it made a matter of law that witnesss evidence endorsed with a "statement of truth" had to be served?
No law exists? But, m'lord, you said the action was illegal. How can that be if no law was broken, only a convention? Why are you suspecting the worst, m'lord? Could it not be a simple confusion at work? Wouldn't be because you are a Remainer who wants to stop Brexit, would it, m'lord?

Perish the thought!

"Obvious answer was nobody in govt wanted to perjure themselves."

Oh! Someone was worried about lying about the length of suspension of parliament? Why would that be, pray? Do you have have any other daft reasons for the alleged omission?

Its in the Civil Procedural Rules Practice Direction 22, m'unlearned friend.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: micpsi

Stay out of politics, Supreme Court!
And learn how to tell the difference between the law and political convention.

I think that the supreme court judges do actually know their stuff and with any due respect to your good self i think they know a bit more about the law than you do.

That's not the point. I was not doubting their knowledge of the law. I was doubting their ability to keep their own political views out of their legal judgement, especially as they were appointed by a Labour government. It was clearly a political decision based upon political considerations about a convention that the judges incorrectly treated as a law (hence their declaration that the decision to suspend parliament was "illegal"). Violating a convention can never be "illegal" because a convention is not a law. It can only be "morally wrong", in which case it lies outside the jurisdiction of ANY court.

KEEP POLITICS OUT OF THE LAW, SUPREME COURT!

a reply to: micpsi

Again 11 of the most senior and respected judges in the land at the highest court in the land ruled that it was a justiciable matter, meaning that yes it is a matter that the courts can rule on and their ruling was that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful.

Can you please state why you are right and they are wrong?