Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/17

Re: Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:18 am

Yes, but all of that is because Parliament has passed an Act to that effect. Parliament is free to pass an Act to say that it no longer has effect.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6293
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/

Postby triken3 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:43 am

I totally agree with you, the UK can leave, but it must be done according to the New Constitutional Process of the UK.

As students of law, you will understand that if a prescibed process of law is not complied with the outcome is null and void.

As the Americans say 'Due Process prevails'.

Witness the law halting a Presidential Executive Order today, until the lawfulness of that Order is substaniated.
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:48 am

There is no new constitutional process, so far as this is concerned. We are following the prescribed process of law: the Supreme Court says so.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6293
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/

Postby triken3 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:54 pm

The Supreme Court never said any such thing.

They in fact agreed with Ms Miller that the Crown's claim of authority to issue notice, was untrue and misleading, unlawful and not allowed by the Constitution of the UK.
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/

Postby triken3 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:27 pm

The attitude of Crown Officers to 'the Law' was revealed by the House of Lords in Factortame No.5, which followed the preliminary ruling of the European Court.

In the main speech to their Lordships Lord Slynn of Hadley said the following;
“Officials and ministers were clearly aware that there was a risk that if the legislation was adopted it would be held to be contrary to Community law. (See letter of Margaret Lind Smith of 17 July 1987 and of Mr. Ingram of 6 October 1987.) The Secretary of State for Transport wrote to the Attorney-General on 22 October 1987;
"Officials have … concluded that we should proceed as originally intended. While this does pose a risk to our position on damages, the official view was that the applicant would have to overcome so many obstacles - not least of which would be winning his case in the European Court on the substantive issue on whether our law is compatible with the Treaty - that the risk was worth taking... given the drawbacks of the alternatives."

Here we have clear documented evidence that on 22/10/87 a Minister of the Crown, who's job it was to make sure that EU law was enforced, allowed and followed in the United Kingdom pursuant to his duties under Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972, admitting to the Attorney-General, the highest ranking Law Officer of the Crown, that it was considered, by officials of the Crown, worth taking the risk that UK legislation was unlawful under EU law, but staggeringly, that his main concern was not the fact that the legislation was or might be unlawful, but that if caught in the unlawful act, the Crown could then be exposed to a risk of facing claims for damages for the unlawful act!

The Secretary of State for Transport freely admits to an Officer of the Law that it is his intention to expose Rawlings(Trawling) to a risk of loss(fraud), and the Attorney-General does nothing about it.

Did either Officer of the Crown face a charge of Misconduct in a Public Office contrary to Common Law as a result of this disgraceful conduct? Of course not!

In fact their Lordships did not even pass comment on the misconduct, and merely referred to it in the context of evidence.
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:38 pm

Tricky - can I suggest that you park your preconceptions and read the judgments again.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/

Postby triken3 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:54 pm

Please enlighten me.
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: Interesting portion of the Supreme Court Decision 24/01/

Postby dls » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:11 am

People frequently do things when the legal controls are unclear - and also when they think things are clear but their own position is later disapproved by the court.

The factortame case is indeed a fundamental case on arrangements with the then EEC(?). it would not have been quite as clear beforehand.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12196
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Previous

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron