Supreme court judge hints at legal hitch that could seriously delay Brexit | Politics. A supreme court judge has raised the prospect that Theresa May would have to comprehensively replace existing EU legislation before the government could even begin Brexit, in a move that could seriously delay the process. In a speech that angered leave campaigners, Lady Hale said the supreme court judges could go further than simply forcing May to publish a short piece of legislation to approve the triggering of article 50. The deputy president of the court said that next month’s case – in which the supreme court will hear the government’s appeal against a high court ruling that MPs must approve the triggering of article 50 – raised “difficult and delicate issues” about the relationship between government and parliament.
Hale set out the arguments on both sides of what is expected to be the most constitutionally significant case ever heard by the supreme court. “It is not their job to tell parliament … how they should go about that business, that’s for parliament to decide.” The legal questions at the heart of the High Court Article 50 ruling. Image copyright EPA The ramifications might be seismic, but the question at issue in this momentous legal dispute could not have been clearer. The Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas put it in this way: "The sole question in this case is whether, as a matter of the constitutional law of the United Kingdom, the Crown - acting through the executive government of the day - is entitled to use its prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 for the United Kingdom to cease to be a member of the European Union. " He stressed that it was a "pure question of law" with "no bearing" on the merits of the UK withdrawing from the EU.
Many of today's papers took issue with that. In beginning his judgment, Lord Thomas firmly asserts the critical importance in our law of the sovereignty of parliament: "The most fundamental rule of UK constitutional law is that the Crown in Parliament is sovereign and that legislation enacted by the Crown with the consent of both Houses of Parliament is supreme. " Slam dunk! Brexit ruling: Lord Chancellor backs judiciary amid row. The Lord Chancellor has backed the independence of the UK's judiciary but stopped short of condemning attacks on senior judges over the Brexit ruling. The Bar Council had demanded Liz Truss respond to criticism from some MPs and newspapers over the decision that MPs should vote on triggering Article 50. The Daily Mail branded judges "Enemies of the people"; the Daily Express said it was "the day democracy died". Ms Truss said the "impartiality" of the courts was "respected the world over".
On Thursday, the High Court ruled Parliament should vote on when the government can trigger Article 50, beginning the formal process of the UK leaving the EU. Three judges found that the government could not start the formal process by using the royal prerogative alone, and would need the backing of both the Commons and the Lords. The government is seeking to overturn the decision at the Supreme Court - the UK's highest court of appeal - next month. Image copyright AFP Analysis 'Silence embarrassing' Calm Brexit ruling backlash, government urged. Image copyright AFP Labour has urged the government to come out and defend the three judges behind the controversial High Court ruling on the process of leaving the EU. The Daily Mail branded them "Enemies of the people", while the Daily Express said the ruling had marked "the day democracy died".
Labour called the silence of Justice Secretary Liz Truss "embarrassing" and said she had "let down" the judiciary. On Thursday, the court ruled Parliament should vote on triggering Article 50. The judges found that the government could not start the formal process of leaving the EU - the triggering of Article 50 - by using the royal prerogative alone, and would need the backing of Parliament. That would require publishing legislation to be debated by the Commons and the Lords. Conservative MP Dominic Grieve said the criticism in parts of the media over the judges' decision was "horrifying" and reminiscent of "Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe". Ms Truss has made no comment yet. Image copyright Reuters. Is English common law at risk of becoming out of date? Poundland made me feel like I was free labour, says Cait Reilly - video | Business.
Appeal court rules bedroom tax discriminatory in two cases | Society. The bedroom tax has been declared unlawful by the court of appeal due to its impact on vulnerable individuals, dealing a significant blow to the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith. Judges ruled that in two cases – those of a victim of extreme domestic violence and grandparents of a severely disabled teenager – the government’s policy amounted to unlawful discrimination. The first case involved A, a single mother living in a three-bedroom council house fitted with a secure panic room to protect her from a violent ex-partner. The other was brought by Paul and Sue Rutherford, grandparents of Warren, who is seriously disabled child and who needs overnight care in a specially adapted room. In both cases, the claimants faced a cut in housing benefit because they were deemed to be “under-occupying” the additional rooms which were classified as spare.
A spokesman said: “We know there will be people who need extra support. Rutherford told the BBC: “I’m a bit lost for words. Terrorism Act incompatible with human rights, court rules in David Miranda case. A key clause in the Terrorism Act 2000 is incompatible with the European convention on human rights, the master of the rolls, John Dyson, has said as part of a court of appeal judgment. The decision came in the case of David Miranda, who was detained at Heathrow airport in 2013 for carrying files related to information obtained by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The court of appeal’s judgment on Tuesday will force government ministers to re-examine the act. Lord Dyson, who made the ruling with Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Floyd, said the powers contained in schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 were flawed. It allows travellers to be questioned to find out whether they appear to be terrorists.
They have no right to remain silent or receive legal advice and they may be detained for up to six hours. The ruling rejects the broad definition of terrorism advanced by government lawyers. Greenwald welcomed the judgment on Twitter: Top judge says justice system is now unaffordable to most | Law. Civil justice is unaffordable for most people, more people are being forced to represent themselves, and judges – whose pensions have been cut – feel underappreciated, according to the lord chief justice. In his annual report to parliament, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd welcomed the government’s commitment to spending £780m on modernisation and new technology, but delivered a downbeat assessment of the courts in England and Wales.
“Our system of justice has become unaffordable to most,” Thomas said in the introduction to his report. “In consequence there has been a considerable increase of litigants in person for whom our current court system is not really designed. “Although in common with many other European states the number of court buildings has been reduced through closure, the failure to invest has meant that many of the courtrooms have not been modernised and lack modern means of communication to provide for better access to justice.” Lord Neuberger on the Supreme Court: Five key cases from its first five years | People | News | The Independent. "One of the risks of this job is that you get too interested in the law and forget the human aspect," said Lord Neuberger, the president of the Supreme Court. "We don't have witnesses, whereas trial judges are reminded of the real world constantly. One wants to be detached, but not remote. " They are surprisingly candid words from Britain's most senior judge.
In a rare interview, to mark five years since the opening of the country's highest court, Lord Neuberger tells The Independent on Sunday what it is like to be one of the 12 justices given the task of deciding cases which raise points of law of critical public importance. "It's a great privilege to be able to do it, and it's a great responsibility," he said. "You find yourself considering all sorts of very interesting, difficult and challenging points of law affecting all sorts of different people in all sorts of different ways.
" Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court "We have been much more visitable. Supreme Court case studies. UK Supreme Court: The Highest Court in the Land - Documentary. Fast-track asylum system 'unlawful', High Court rules - BBC News. The future of a key part of the government's system to remove failed asylum seekers is in doubt after the High Court ruled it was unlawful. Mr Justice Nicol said the Home Office's system to "fast track" certain cases contained "structural unfairness". The process accelerates legal hearings and appeals, while keeping the individual detained at all times. The government said it was disappointed by the judgment and would be appealing. 'Serious disadvantage' The judge said that despite a number of safeguards, applicants were not able to properly prepare their cases and their lawyers were also put in an unfair position. Ruling on a case brought by campaign group Detention Action, the judge said: "In my judgment the Fast Track Rules (FTR) do incorporate structural unfairness.
They put the appellant at a serious procedural disadvantage. Analysis By Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent But the judge said the power to adjourn had a "very limited role" in ensuring a just outcome. 10 things that Prince Charles wrote letters about - BBC News. Prince Charles's letters to Labour ministers from a decade ago have been released after lengthy legal battle. Here are 10 things they have revealed. In the letters he discusses issues he has long been known to be interested in - including the plight of dairy farmers, climate change and architecture - but he also covered a number of other topics. 1. The issue of Lynx helicopters performing poorly in high temperatures was brought up with then Prime Minister Tony Blair. The prince suggested the slow speed with which they were being replaced arose out of pressure on the defence budget. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The issue of regulations affecting "complementary medicine" also came up in one letter to Tony Blair. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Supreme court clears way for release of secret Prince Charles letters | UK news. The UK supreme court has cleared the way for the publication of secret letters written by Prince Charles to British government ministers, declaring that an attempt by the state to keep them concealed was unlawful. The verdict – the culmination of a 10-year legal fight by the Guardian – is a significant blow for the government, which has been battling to protect the Prince of Wales from scrutiny over his “particularly frank” interventions on public policy.
In 2012, Dominic Grieve, then attorney general, said the correspondence contained the prince’s “most deeply held personal views and beliefs” and disclosure might undermine his “position of political neutrality”, which he might not easily be able to recover when king. The 27 letters were sent between Charles and ministers in seven government departments in 2004 and 2005. Five of the seven judges in the supreme court ruled in favour of the Guardian’s case to see the letters. “He thinks that’s a principle that we should uphold. Introductory film - The Supreme Court. Introductory film What is the Supreme Court? Why was it established in 2009? And what issues does it hear about? This introductory film, primarily aimed at GSCE/Standard Grade students, explores the role and the workings of the Supreme Court, the only court with UK-wide jurisdiction and the highest court in the land.
It also explains its relationship to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the highest court for British Overseas Territories and a number of Commonwealth countries. Taking a look around the Court's home in the grand former Middlesex Guildhall, in Parliament Square, the film also gives a glimpse of what you can expect to see on a visit here. If you are a teacher or student interested in an educational visit, please see our Education page for further information. Please note that the film may be filmed by clicking above or on our YouTube channel. UK court rulings show move away from European to common law | Law. Leading judges are putting "renewed emphasis" on British constitutional principles after years of concentrating on European legislation as a source of rights and obligations, according to the UK's most senior female judge.
Brenda Hale, deputy president of the supreme court, said a theme was emerging from recent court decisions which suggested that UK constitutionalism was "on the march". She said she wondered whether the trend was developing as a response to a "rising tide of anti-European sentiment". Lady Hale made her comments in a lecture to lawyers, which was published on the supreme court website on Friday. "After more than a decade of concentrating on European instruments as the source of rights, remedies and obligations, there is emerging a renewed emphasis on the common law and distinctively UK constitutional principles as a source of legal inspiration," she told the Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association conference in London.