Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
17 Sep 19
10:35
Joined:
Date Joined:
06 Jul 10
...
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 178
|
By:
Also on Sky News and BBC News for now ......
|
|
By:
Open justice so good to see it on TV
|
|
By:
i guess bbc and sky news will get bored of technical speeces
thought it worth putting up link in case anybody wants to see whats happening between races! |
|
By:
Have the supreme court judges have got their black caps handy for dealing with Boris.
|
|
By:
Do you think it will get as lively as PMQ's
 |
|
By:
speeches
|
|
By:
Will The Incredible Hulk make an appearance?
|
|
By:
Waste of time
|
|
By:
The Incredible Sulk more like
 |
|
By:
Also available on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mvkbgw2p38 |
|
By:
An administrative fiasco
 |
|
By:
Has anyone got a bag of washers to pay this lot.
|
|
By:
never a good start when the office junior is on their phone and misses
a page out of the submission. still, its better to find out now, than when the judges are deciding.. |
|
By:
What time is the verdict expected?
|
|
By:
When do they take a gin break
 |
|
By:
Lord Sumption on Newsnight last night expected that it was likely that today would be fully occupied with the submission of arguments.
A verdict would not be given until likely Thursday or Friday, a fuller disclosure becoming available early next week. |
|
By:
Oh ok, thanks. I had been under the impression that a verdict would be announced today.
|
|
By:
only get a verdict today if they kick it out.
not sure pannick is making much of a case here? |
|
By:
He's pacing himself
 |
|
By:
Surely it's the documents submitted to the court from inside No. 10 that make the case. These were heavily referenced within the ruling of the Scottish Court.
|
|
By:
Lord Jonathon Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, appeared on Newsnight last night.
Emily Maitlis interviewed him, asking a series of questions on two main topics. Those topics were the ongoing court cases that were raised to challenge the legality of the proroguing of parliament, and the robustness of the Benn Bill. Proroguing of Parliament Q. Would it be odd for you if Scotland and the Supreme court weren’t on the same page? A. The law is exactly the same in both Scotland and England, there may be a difference of opinion between the Scottish courts and the English courts as to what it is but we’ve had the same parliament and the same monarch for 300 years and there cant be a difference , a different law in Scotland and in England about what the relations between them are. Q. How do you explain the divergence of outcomes? A. One of the two courts is wrong. Q. Which one do you think it is? A. Well, I’m not going to be dogmatic about this, the situation is too novel. My own view is the orthodox opinion is the one given by the English courts, but one has to accept that if you behave outrageously and defy the political culture on which our constitution depends , a lot of judges are going to be tempted to push the limits out, and the problem is that Boris Johnson has taken a hammer and sickle to our political culture in a way that is profoundly provocative to people who believe that there ought to be solutions consistent with our traditions. He went on to say: The essential issue is whether there are any legal standards by which you can distinguish between good political reasons for proroguing parliament and bad political reasons for proroguing parliament. If it’s all politics, it’s hard to see how the courts can decide between the two without taking an essentially political view. But we are in an extraordinarily unusual situation and undoubtedly government has behaved disgracefully and that is a situation which is going to be very difficult to predict what happens. Q. So, you would accept then the judiciary does have to become, to a degree, politicised? A. No, I wouldn’t, I think if they’re wise, they’ll take the same view as the divisional court did in the High Court in England. But if the government loses, in a sense, it will serve them right, but serve you right is not really a very good juridical principle. Benn Bill Sumption stated that "It’s a very tightly drafted act, it’s obviously been professionally drafted and the courts interpret legislation so as to give effect to its obvious purpose unless there is something in the language that makes that absolutely impossible." Q. Do judges look for loopholes? A. No, they look for ways of closing loopholes, they look for ways of saying that the purpose of the act is actually achieved. |
|
By:
they were part of the basis for the scottish ruling, and pannick seems to be trying
to make a case that that should be considered here, but not really finding a direct reason why they should be, as there aint any as far as he knows. but none to say they should not be either, so hes asking for new law to be made or for supteme court to recognise that the law exists but has not yet been codified. i think  |
|
By:
Will be interesting to compare and contrast his efforts with those of the Cherry case submission.
|
|
By:
Joanna Cherry, the SNP MP who led the legal challenge against prorogation at the Scottish court of session, told BBC Radio Scotland this morning that she was “cautiously optimistic” about winning at the supreme court. She said:
"I’m cautiously optimistic that [the Scottish ruling] will stand. I think that Scotland’s supreme court reached the right decision here for the right reasons and I’m cautiously optimistic that at least a majority of the UK supreme court justices will follow. I think Scotland does have a unique constitutional tradition but I think the way in which Scotland’s supreme court decided this case could easily be followed by the UK supreme court and I think the heart of the matter was set out very well by Lord Drummond Young in Scotland when he said it’s not the job of the courts to subject government to political scrutiny, that’s the job of parliament, but where government prevents parliament from doing that job of scrutiny, the courts can step in to make sure that parliamentary democracy is restored. I think that’s the heart of the Scottish judgment and I think that sets out the constitutional position as it should be and as I believe it is across the UK and that’s why I’m cautiously optimistic that the UK judges will follow the Scottish courts." |
|
By:
Adjourn for lunch .....
|
|
By:
It matters not what the reasons for prorogue were
As long as it was legal to prorogue when boris prorogued , and it was That’s all there is to it , they’ll get there eventually |
|
By:
The Supreme Court has just asked one of the prime minister’s lawyers for clearer written undertaking about how he would abide with a decision against him.
Lord Kerr - one of the longest-serving justices, began interrogating the Advocate General Lord Keen (the PM’s top lawyer in Scotland) about the consequences of losing. Lord Keen replies: "The consequence could be that he goes to the Queen and seeks the recall of Parliament.” That doesn’t satisfy Supreme Court justice Lord Kerr who then asks: "Would he prorogue Parliament again?” Lord Keen, for the PM, replies: "I won't comment on that.” Lord Carnwath, another of the justices, then says it would be “helpful” to have clearer written undertakings. |
|
By:
Lord Keen starts to give "clear examples" of where the government has prorogued Parliament for political reasons in the past - and sometimes for an extended period of time than usual.
He mentions the prorogation of Parliament in 1914, at the outbreak of the World War One. "That clearly was not for the purpose of the King's Speech," he says. He adds: "Parliament was prorogued for 87 days in 1930 during the onset of the Great Depression." Lord Keen gives another example of 1948, when Parliament was prorogued to force a bill to be passed. "This last example was clearly for a party political purpose," he says. "It was a naked political reason." |
|
By:
So, he might prorogue again and he may have prorogued for naked political reasons
 |
|
By:
This defence lawyer is doing a great job for the prosecution
 |
|
By:
Rather curiously, Lord Keen, for the government, couldn't answer the question from one of the justices, Lord Hodge, about how the government can comply with regular NI reports to Parliament if it has been forcibly closed. He says he’ll come back on that later.
|
|
By:
To the layman and that's 99.99% of people it is blatantly obvious that the extended prorogation had nothing to do with a Queen's Speech.
You can work that out in a few seconds yet this palaver is likely to drag for several days. It is a complete nonsense. How is it going to look if they come up with a verdict of 'this is nothing to do with us'? This is just as much a trial of the judges as it is of Johnson. A technicality will just make them look foolish. |
|
By:
But that's exactly what Lord Sumption believes they should come back and say
 As you say, it is blatantly obvious that they have taken advantage of the conference season. Lord Keen has argued that it is perfectly valid to prorogue for naked political reasons. In that case, why couldn't Boris just state that openly, rather than hide behind a paper thin argument? |
|
By:
Wasn't 3 years long enough to debate Brexit
|
|
By:
Most laymen abd indeed some judges are too stupid to realise the dangers involved if there is a guilty verdict
It’s subtle and you have only to read the comments here to realise that most people can’t grasp why |
|
By:
Boris is toast ... lied to Parliament; and as Brexiteers have said MPs represent the people so by default he has lied to us .. i am angry
 also he has possibly lied to Her Majesty Well done Lord Keen ... will he now be the next to resign  |
|
By:
What are the dangers involved if there is a guilty verdict?
|
|
By:
 your legal knowledge is unmatched on the forum lfc, who would deny that? |