High Court hearing on Article 50 ~ the transcript

Updated 20th and 24th October - additional links

On 13th, 17th and 18th October 2016 the High Court heard the cases of R (Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and M v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.  The court composition was the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales.

A very welcome development was the publication of transcripts of the proceedings - see Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. 

The issue in the case was stated by Lord Pannick QC (Counsel for Gina Miller) - "Can the defendant, on behalf of the government, lawfully use prerogative powers to give a notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union of this country's intention to withdraw from the EU."

The court will give judgment in the near future.

Similar proceedings are underway in Northern Ireland and here is the skeleton argument of the government.

Links:

UK Constitutional Law Association Blog - Robert Craig - Report on the proceedings 13th October (i.e. the first day of the hearing) and On the Second Day of the Hearing and On the Third (and final) Day of the Hearing.   Note: the Association's blog has numerous articles on many aspects of "Brexit."

Jolyon Maugham QC - Financial Times 14th October - The Article 50 challenge shows parliament should have its say.  Also see, by the same author,  A whine from sour grapes.

Michael Zander QC - New Law Journal - Oral arguments in the Art 50 court case

New York Times - Without a Constitution; "Bexit" is guided by a prerogative.  But whose?

UK Constitutional Law Group - Piet Eeckhout - The UK decision to withdraw from the EU: Parliament or Government 

My view of 27th June and links to views of other commentators

Human rights news

Proposed derogations from European Convention on Human Rights:

Journalonline has reported that proposals to  derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the actions of British troops involved in foreign conflicts, were announced at the Conservative Party Conference.  "Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said that in future conflicts, subject to a vote of both Houses of Parliament, the UK would "derogate" from article 2 (right to life) and article 5 (right to liberty) of the Convention.  Troops will remain subject to other articles of the Convention, including the prohibition on torture. The changes will not apply retrospectively.  The Government claims the derogations will prevent "vexatious" claims being brought against the armed forces by foreign civilians."

Great Repeal Bill - some of the reaction

In her speech of 2nd October 2016, the Prime Minister duly announced that there is to be a Great Repeal Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 - (previous post).  The Bill will transpose into domestic law a mass of European Union legislation and powers will be given to Ministers to make domestic secondary legislation so that changes to the law may be made after Brexit actually takes place.  The problem with secondary legislation made under powers given to Ministers is that it usually receives minimal Parliamentary attention and this is a point which MPs would do well to consider carefully.

Unsurprisingly, the idea of the Great Repeal Bill has resulted in considerable comment and here is some of it:

A Great Repeal Bill? A note just before the Conservative Party Conference.

The Conservative Party Conference is to be held in Birmingham from Sunday 2nd October to Wednesday 5th.  As usual, there will be "keynote speeches" by the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers - see the Conservative Party Conference Agenda.

Two items in the agenda struck me as being potentially in conflict.  Under the heading "Global Britain: Making a success of Brexit" there will be speeches by the Prime Minister and three speeches by the Secretaries of State for Exiting the EU (David Davis MP), for International Development (Priti Patel MP) and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson MP).  Interestingly, the Secretary of State for International Trade (Liam Fox MP) gets a slot on Monday afternoon.

On Wednesday

Smiler Rollercoaster Accident ~ Health and Safety

On 2nd June 2015, members of the public suffered life changing and serious injuries in an accident on the Smiler Rollercoaster at Alton Towers.  The company responsible for the rollercoaster - Merlin Attractions Operations Ltd - was charged with an offence under section 33(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.  The company therefore accepted that it had failed to conduct its undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that the visitors to Alton Towers theme park were not exposed to material risks to their health and safety.

The company entered a guilty plea when the case first appeared in the Magistrates' Court and the case was committed for sentence to the Crown Court at Stafford where the sentencing was conducted by His Honour Judge Michael Chambers QC.    The judge's sentencing remarks highlight the company's failure to assess risk and to have in place a structured system of work.  Following application of sentencing guidance for Health and Safety offences, a fine of £5 million was imposed.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published Health and Safety Guidelines for Fairgrounds

See also HSE Statement 25th February 2016 and  22nd April 2016

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse - Counsel to the Inquiry

Updated 30th September:

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse - previous post - is in the news this morning.  It has emerged that Mr Ben Emmerson QC (Counsel to the Inquiry) has found out that he has been "suspended" from his duties to the inquiry.  The Inquiry has issued a statement dated 29th September in which it is said:

"The Inquiry has recently become very concerned about aspects of Mr Emmerson's leadership of the Counsel Team. He has therefore been suspended from duty so that these can be properly investigated.

Suggestions in the press that Mr Emmerson was considering resigning after raising disagreements over the future direction of the Inquiry are untrue. They are not a matter on which he has advised the Chair or Panel."

What those concerns are is not explained.  It would be wrong to speculate on this but the public interest demands a more detailed explanation of the Inquiry's decision.

Update 30th September:

Brexit litigation - the arguments

The court hearing relating to whether constitutionally Parliament should authorise the triggering of Article 50 is approaching.

Mishcon de Reya has published the Skeleton Argument of the Lead Claimant (Gina Miller) - link HERE.

Monckton Chambers has published the "Interested Parties Skeleton Argument" to be used in the forthcoming High Court hearing - Article 50 litigation: Interested Parties' skeleton argument.   The People’s Challenge IPs invite the Court to declare that the UK’s constitutional arrangements mean that only Parliament can lawfully “decide” to leave the EU for the purposes of Article 50 TEU; and that the Defendant may only “notify” such a decision to the European Council under Article 50(2) TEU once he has been properly authorised to do so by an Act of Parliament.

The government's Detailed Grounds of Resistance are HERE and the Secretary of State's Skeleton Argument is HERE  

The case will be heard at a public hearing in the High Court (Queen's Bench Divisional Court) commencing 13th October.

Previous posts on this topic:-

The role of Parliament - (with links to various arguments on this subject)

Brexit Another legal challenge in Northern Ireland

Article 50 again: Litigation; QMV and Trade agreements