Proroguing Parliament declared illegal

[Old Greg]

The law is at war with democracy - spiked

What a bunch of jokers.

The decision of the Scottish Court represents a significant incursion by the judiciary into the authority of government, and accordingly over the power of the people.

The government is the power of the people?

[sasguru]

The law is at war with democracy - spiked

You quote spike like its a valid source. That's because you really are the prize cretin on this forum, in the teeth of strong competition.

[Mordac]

You quote spike like its a valid source. That's because you really are the prize cretin on this forum, in the teeth of strong competition.

Don't worry, you'll get enough votes to come second.

[AtW]

You quote spike like its a valid source. That's because you really are the prize cretin on this forum, in the teeth of strong competition.

Don’y tell him, Pike!

[DaveB]

Full judgement now published here:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/d...9.pdf?sfvrsn=0

For those asking what law had actually been broken (plus case law supporting the judgement) this is from the original submission to the court:

[7] The Claim of Right Act 1689 regulates and constrains the executive’s power to prorogue Parliament. It outlaws any abusive use by the executive of the power of prorogation to avoid, impede or restrain Parliament from carrying out its constitutional function of addressing and redressing grievances and amending, strengthening and preserving the law. Therefore the exercise of the executive’s power to prorogue Parliament is a matter which is justiciable before the courts and is reviewable on the grounds of irrationality or breach of other judicial review principles (Cf R (Sandiford) v Foreign Secretary [2014] UKSC 44, [2014] 1 WLR 2697, per the joint judgment of Lord Carnwath and Lord Mance JJSC at paras 50, 52, 65).

[8] The executive’s exercise of the power of prorogation of Parliament can only be exercised for a proper purpose. The exercise of the power, even for a proper purpose, is subject to review on ordinary principles of legality, rationality and procedural impropriety in the same way as any other executive action (R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61 [2009] 1 AC 453, per Lord Hoffmann at para 35, Lord Rodger at para 105).

[DealorNoDeal]

Full judgement now published here:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/d...9.pdf?sfvrsn=0

For those asking what law had actually been broken (plus case law supporting the judgement) this is from the original submission to the court:

It would be bloody dangerous if that wasn't the case. Without those safeguards, all it would take is some rogue PM...

[JohntheBike]

Full judgement now published here:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/d...9.pdf?sfvrsn=0

For those asking what law had actually been broken (plus case law supporting the judgement) this is from the original submission to the court:

on that basis, I would expect the Supreme Court to uphold the judgement of the Scottish court, assuming of course that these provisions haven't been over-ruled by later events.

[DealorNoDeal]

on that basis, I would expect the Supreme Court to uphold the judgement of the Scottish court...

Possibly, but the law is a funny old business.

Not surprisingly, there will be the maximum 11 judges on the panel next week.

[TestMangler]

Possibly, but the law is a funny old business.

Not surprisingly, there will be the maximum 11 judges on the panel next week.

Is the maximum not 12 ?

[Old Greg]

Is the maximum not 12 ?

Cummings has the twelfth interned under the Civil Contingencies Act.