Meaningful vote on a withdrawal agreement?

It is not too often that the House of Commons Procedure Committee gets a great deal of notice.   The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU wrote a letter (dated 10 October) to the committee which seems to have ruffled some feathers.  The letter came in response to a request from the committee for the government to contribute its views to the committee's inquiry into the procedure to be applied to the vote provided for in section 13(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

A pretty pass ~ European Council 17 October

Brexit negotiations have come to a pretty pass with the principal outstanding issue being the Northern Ireland border and the so-called "Backstop" question.  (Or even the backstop to the backstop)!

The Prime Minister made a statement about Brexit Negotiations to the House of Commons on Monday 15 October 2018  - see statement and debate.

On 17 October, the Prime Minister went to the European Council which was meeting in Brussels.  It was hoped that, by this meeting, sufficient progress would have been made in securing a withdrawal agreement but

Fracking protesters ~ sentences were manifestly excessive

The three men convicted of public nuisance in connection with their protest against "fracking" at a Cuadrilla site near Preston have had their sentences of imprisonment quashed.

Whilst The Guardian reports that the men "walked free" this is not strictly accurate.   They are out of prison but they remain convicted.  The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) held that their sentences were "manifestly excessive" and that community sentences with a significant amount of unpaid work would have been appropriate.  Given that the men have been in prison for three weeks, the court substituted conditional discharges for 2 years.

Brexit ~ some thoughts on an autumn morning

Autumn leaves are with us and so is the mess that has become of Brexit.  In fact, it is a major understatement to describe the situation as a mess.  Where are we now?  A few thoughts ....

Leaving date:

As things stand, the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 - only 168 days away at the time of writing.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is the mechanism by which a Member State of the EU leaves the club.

The fracking protesters ~ sentence ~ was there bias?

The  common law has developed various principles underpinning the integrity of legal process.  An example is the avoidance by decision-makers of bias.  A judge, trying a case, cannot have any direct personal or financial interest in the outcome but the law goes further and seeks to prevent even an appearance of bias.

One of the most famous judicial statements throughout legal history was that of Lord Hewart CJ in Ex p McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 - ". . . it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

Investigatory Powers Tribunal ~ Covert agents and crime

The Pat Finucane Centre has highlighted a case which is before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) - Pat Finucane Centre 4 October.

The case has been brought by Privacy International which claims that covert agents recruited by the Security Service are being authorised to carry out crimes within the UK under a policy which has no legal basis.  It is said in the Claimant's skeleton argument that - "No meaningful limits have been disclosed" and "it appears that the Security Service thinks it could, if it thinks it would be in the public interest authorise participation in murder, torture, sexual assault or other grave criminality in the UK.  Neither the victim of the crime, the Police or the Crown Prosecution Service are notified of authorisations.  In practice, this will mean that criminal conduct will not be investigated or prosecuted."  It is also claimed that oversight carried out by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is "so narrow as to be ineffective."

Brexit-related litigation - (updated 15 February 2019)

Updated to 15 February 2019.  For further updates see post of 22 February 2019

This post is a "catch up" on a number of "Brexit-related" applications for judicial review. 

Judicial review:

Judicial review may be described as a legal process by which the High Court reviews the lawfulness of official decision-making.  The court is able to consider whether a public body has acted in accordance with its legal obligations and within its legal powers.  Where legal error is found, the court is able to grant appropriate relief.  Judicial review is not a process to allow judges to replace duly appointed decision-makers such as Ministers, Local Authorities, NHS Trusts, Chief Constables and so on.  The court does not entertain mere busybodies since applicants have to show "sufficient interest" to bring judicial review but there is a public interest in ensuring that the rule of law is maintained.