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

Supreme Court hears Brexit case

For discussion of all matters relating to the UK's departure from the European Union

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby atticus » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:15 am

According to the Independent, the Department for Exiting the EU is refusing to say how much the case has cost.

I don't think the Court has yet heard submissions on costs; no orders have yet been made.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19434
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby Goldensyrup » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:10 pm

The Independent were turned down on the high court costs with the engagement of section 22. I thought s22 could only be engaged if the department have said prior to any request that the information would be published at a later date (to the public at large) but cannot use s22 if they 'post' the request state that they will publish in the future. The weakness of s22 is that the future date for publication can be any date, but the ICO do state that it must be reasonable in the circumstances.
Goldensyrup
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:52 pm

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby b1969 » Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:01 am

The Independent doesn't say in terms that they exempted the information on the basis of section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, although one can certainly infer that:

The Department stated two months ago that this was because figure would be announced in due course by Minister David Davis, however they refused to specify a timetable for such an announcement and no announcement has been forthcoming.


To be relied upon section 22 does not require a prior statement to have been made - it merely requires the information to have been held "with a view" to its future publication.

Goldensyrup is correct in saying that there doesn't have to be a fixed date for the future publication, and whether it is reasonable to rely on the exemption when the future date is not fixed (or is a long way off) will depend upon the circumstances.

ICO guidance on the exemption is here.
b1969
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:23 am

Not like the Independent to exaggerate a point: I expect they don't know yet. Can we necessarily assume that even their own lawyers have presented their bills yet?

Should we all have a guess, and see who comes closest? ;)
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby miner » Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:28 pm

I'll pitch in at £2.5 million.
miner
 
Posts: 2341
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 12:22 am

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby dls » Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:49 pm

Given the potential constitutional significance - the first ever 11 judge supreme court case - I appreciate it will have been extremely expensive, but in the context it is money which had to be spent.

Again, two courts with very senior judges had on the same day come to conflicting conclusions on a matter as central as any could be to or constitution.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby Hairyloon » Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:35 pm

dls wrote:I appreciate it will have been extremely expensive, but in the context it is money which had to be spent.

Did it? Why?
What was the advantage of going to court (twice) rather than simply going to Parliament in the first place?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby dls » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:45 am

Because going to Parliament is a waste of time. The Parliamentary process an have no effect, beyond the absolute marginal, on the negotiations, and Parliament has in effect to approve the results whatever they are.

I do not accept the argument that somehow Parliamentary sovereignty has to be respected (on this occasion). Parliament faced a difficult question - should we stay in or leave. MPs are paid to make such decisions. They should have done so, and exercised parliamentary sovereignty. Instead, they chickened out. They surrendered their sovereignty to 'the people' as regards this topic in an ill begotten half wit referendum. Having abandoned their personal duty to decide, it is no longer proper or moral for them to seek to take it back.

The intended Bill will only to allow the sh*t stirrers to do what they do best.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12085
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:50 am

dls wrote:Because going to Parliament is a waste of time.

It may be a waste of time, but it is a constitutional necessity: it was a waste of time going to court to confirm what any sensible person already knew.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Supreme Court hears Brexit case

Postby Hairyloon » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:09 am

A C Grayling wrote:“The Government’s action in rushing through a Bill to trigger Article 50, in advance of a White Paper objectively examining all the costs and consequences of a ‘Brexit’ and comparing them to remaining in the EU, is a contempt of Parliament, a contempt of the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment, and a contempt of the British people, only a quarter of whom voted to leave the EU. We are being subjected to a de facto coup against our Parliamentary democracy and this is wholly unacceptable. MPs can and should defuse this dangerous moment by voting against the Bill and demanding a full White Paper first.”
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9884
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

PreviousNext

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest