Supreme court

The English tradition of dissenting judgments in important civil cases is a good one. They are often better than the majority view, because they tend to be advanced by judges who resist the self-aggrandisement of their profession. In the Miller case on triggering Article 50, before the Supreme Court, Lords Reed, Carnwath and Hughes dissented from the other eight. This is what Lord Reed says: ‘…the argument that withdrawal from the EU would alter domestic law and destroy statutory rights, and therefore cannot be undertaken without a further Act of Parliament, has to be rejected even if one accepts that the 1972 Act creates statutory rights and that withdrawal will alter

The Government may be accepting its defeat in the Supreme Court graciously overall, but David Davis was in a rather dismissive mood when he responded to Labour’s questions about the ruling in the House of Commons this afternoon. The Brexit Secretary gave a statement to the House explaining that ministers would publish ‘within days’ a bill that would give the Government the legal power to trigger Article 50. Both in the statement and in his responses to questions about it, he repeatedly told the Chamber that it would be a ‘straightforward’ bill. Meanwhile the Government had already offered MPs plenty of scrutiny of the Brexit negotiations, and the Prime Minister had

The Supreme Court’s landmark case on triggering Article 50 has now finished. We’ll have to wait until January to hear the verdict of the 11 judges involved. But for now you can follow all the main events as they unfolded on our Spectator live blog: 4.20pm: It’s all over at the Supreme Court. Lord Neuberger rounds off proceedings by making it clear that the judges are ‘not being asked to overturn the referendum’. Before his comments, Eadie attempted to knock down Pannick’s view that the 2015 referendum act had political, rather than legal, significance. Not so, said Eadie, who insisted that the Government thought the act ‘speaks volumes about the

It’s day three of the Supreme Court’s landmark case on the triggering of Article 50. Here’s how the day unfolded:  4.15pm: The Supreme Court hearing has now finished for the day. The Lord Advocate, Lord Wolffe has been putting forward the Scottish Government’s case. So far, he has told the court that using prerogative powers to trigger Article 50 would be an ‘unconstitutional’ step. But he makes it clear that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to veto Brexit. You can read the Scottish Government’s full submission to the Supreme Court here. 3.30pm: Ronan Lavery now takes up the argument on behalf of Northern Ireland. Lavery warns that Brexit

The second day of the Supreme Court hearing has seen the Government continue to put forward its case for why it should be allowed to pull the Article 50 trigger without the say so of Parliament. And Lord Pannick has been arguing why Parliament must give approval for the start of the process of Brexit. Here’s how the day unfolded on our Spectator live blog: 4.30pm: Pannick’s main pitch is about the power of Parliament. He tells the Supreme Court that ‘Parliament is sovereign and only Parliament can remove that which it has incorporated into domestic law’ – meaning that Brexit cannot be started by the Government without the agreement of Parliament. He

Today’s Supreme Court hearing did, for once, live up to its billing as being a ‘landmark case’. The court’s 11 judges – sitting together for the first time – will hear four days of evidence before ruling next month on the government’s appeal against the decision that Parliament must be given a say on triggering Article 50. Here’s the full coverage from today’s Supreme Court case: 4.30pm: Eadie finishes off his argument with a simple point. He urges the Supreme Court judges to measure their decision based on a test of asking the ‘man in the street’. Would the average person think that the referendum outcome gave the Government the right to kick start

It was Henry Fairlie in his famous article in The Spectator in 1955 that made the critical point about the way ‘Establishment’ power (political, legal, media, foreign office, civil service and so on) is exercised in Britain: namely such a ‘matrix’ of influence was exercised ‘socially’, behind closed doors; or maybe ‘closed chambers’ would be more apt as the Supreme Court faces the biggest legal showdown in its short history on Monday 5 December. Charles Moore has come close to saying something similar to Fairlie, while reflecting in the Telegraph on the liberal credentials of certain members of the eleven Supreme Court judges who will be deciding whether to overturn the High Court ruling (brought by Gina Miller)

In November the High Court decided that the Government had no power to give notice to leave the EU under Article 50. Leaving the EU would entail changes in the law that embodied the rights of citizens and such changes could not be brought about by the prerogative power but only by primary legislation in Parliament. The court considered the referendum only advisory, even though in the Parliamentary debate it was made clear that the decision would be implemented by the Government. Moreover, the Government had circulated a leaflet to all households giving a solemn undertaking to honour the decision. On 5 December the Supreme Court will hear an appeal

It seems perplexing that François Fillon, now the Republican candidate for the French presidency, should be a declared admirer of Margaret Thatcher. Although she certainly has her fans in France, it is an absolutely standard political line — even on the right — that her ‘Anglo-Saxon’ economic liberalism is un-French. Yet M. Fillon, dismissed by Nicholas Sarkozy, whose prime minister he was, as no more than ‘my collaborator’, has invoked her and won through, while Sarko is gone. In this time of populism, M. Fillon has moved the opposite way to other politicians. He says his failures under Sarkozy taught him that France needs the Iron Lady economic reforms which it

It is not self-evidently ridiculous that Nigel Farage should be the next British ambassador to the United States. The wishes of the president-elect should not automatically be discounted. John F. Kennedy’s wish that his friend David Ormsby-Gore (Lord Harlech) should be ambassador was granted. It is also not true that the post must be filled by a professional, or that the Prime Minister should not appoint a political rival to the post. Churchill gave the job to his main rival, Lord Halifax, from 1940. Certainly Mr Farage is not the conventional idea of a diplomat, but then Mr Trump is not the conventional idea of a president. Although its own

The row over last week’s High Court ruling on Article 50 rumbles on this morning. Theresa May has given her backing to the judiciary, with the PM saying she ‘values the independence of our judiciary’. Yet some of this morning’s newspaper editorials are in much less forgiving mood. The Daily Telegraph points out the distinction between the rule of law and the rule of judges and says that Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Terence Etherton, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales quite simply got it wrong last week. The paper says the government is right to appeal the decision, pointing out that it’s not uncommon for