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

A Question of Law.

A Question of Law.

Postby triken3 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:52 pm

The dispute of law that was before the Supreme Court of the UK on 24th January 2017;

David Davis, a servant of the Crown, had made a representation as to the Constitutional law of the UK, namely that the prerogative of the Crown conferred upon him the authority to issue the Notice required to 'trigger' the Article 50 process.

Ms. Miller disputed that validity of that representation.

The Supreme Court agreed with Ms. Miller that the representation made by David Davis, was both untrue and misleading, and accordingly ruled in her favour.

It was common ground of the parties to the dispute that the giving of Notice would expose Ms. Miller to the risk of loss of some or all of her Constitutional Rights.

A Right is in English law a 'thing in action', in that the Right guarantees to the Rights Holder a specific performance, and is property personal to the Rights Holder.

The Explanatory Notes to Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 say this:

12.Subsection (2) defines the meaning of “false” in this context and subsection (3) defines the meaning of “representation”. A representation is defined as false if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

13.Subsection (3) provides that a representation means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to a person’s state of mind.

14.Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. It can be stated in words or communicated by conduct. There is no limitation on the way in which the representation must be expressed. So it could be written or spoken or posted on a website.

15.A representation may also be implied by conduct. An example of a representation by conduct is where a person dishonestly misuses a credit card to pay for items. By tendering the card, he is falsely representing that he has the authority to use it for that transaction. It is immaterial whether the merchant accepting the card for payment is deceived by the representation.



Given that a representation that was untrue and misleading was made, and the maker of the representation knew and accepted that it would expose Ms. Miller to a risk of loss of personal property, my question is this;

How is it that Davis Davis has not had his collar felt by the boys from the Met. for Fraud by False Representation as to the law of the UK, conduct which is criminalised by Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006: is it that a complaint must be made first, before the Police can act, even if the Police are well aware of the Fraud?
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:09 pm

FFS.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:12 pm

What Atti is trying to say is that if it was as simple as that then it probably would not have got to the High Court to answer the question and it certainly would not have gone to the Supreme Court.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:15 pm

Two people can disagree on a point, and go to court to resolve their dispute, without either of them being a fraudster.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6293
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:20 pm

I was actually expressing exasperation at the stupid question by someone who obviously has his own agenda.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:27 pm

The OP might take the trouble to read the full definition of each of the types of fraud, in sections 2, 3 and 4.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:43 pm

Are they likely to be relevant?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10011
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby atticus » Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:45 pm

Highly likely. If the ingredients of the offence cannot be made out, the question becomes even dafter.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby triken3 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:58 am

atticus wrote:I was actually expressing exasperation at the stupid question by someone who obviously has his own agenda.


You seem to 'know' a lot about me, Atticus.
You know I'm stupid.
You know I have an agenda.

Can you please explain what you know my agenda to be, and the source of your knowledge?
triken3
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:50 am

Re: A Question of Law.

Postby atticus » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:58 am

I read what you write and the way you write it. That is all. That is enough.

I did not say that you are stupid.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19699
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Next

Return to Constitutional Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron