Not of to a good start>
Jstce to Eadie: "You seem to have given 2 diametrically opposed answers in past 5 mins. We'll have to choose which answer we accept"
The Great Repeal Bill
There was a back and forth about the Great Repeal Bill. The justices were presented with some details about the bill in their bundles this morning - but Mr Eadie told them it wasn’t going to make up much of his argument today.
The Justices pointed out that in deciding on a matter of law one has to consider the law as it is, and not based on bills which may or may not be passed by parliament in the future.
But Eadie first agrees with Lord Sumption that there the repeal bill has “no legal significance”...but then a few minutes later argues the Government does not consider it “legally irrelevant”, because it will allow parliament to have input on the Brexit process.
Sumption replies with a typically dry: “I think you’ve given two diametrically opposed answers to the same question in the last five minutes.”
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
Lords Reed and Clarke are questioning whether the 2015 referendum had legal or only political significance.
This is the crux of the argument going on in this court case. - if it has legal significance, then presumably the Government can act through prerogative powers.
If it only has political weight, it would need to go back to parliament at least for a one line bill.
- - - - - - - - - - merged double post - - - - - - - - - -
The Supreme Court is very interested in a 1920 case between the Attorney General and the De Keyser’s Royal Hotel.
In the First World War the Government used the Royal Prerogative to requisition this 300-bed hotel on the Victoria Embankment to house hundreds of troops.
Crucially, they refused to pay any compensation. The hotel then took the Government to court demanding it cough up.
The court ruled that the Government had abused its prerogative powers.
“If the whole ground of something which could be done by the prerogative is covered by the statute it is the statute that rules,” it judged.
The question the judges have to decide is if this sets a legal precedent.
Bookmarks