Why the Scottish court ruling on proroguing Parliament is significant By Reevel Alderson Home affairs correspondent, BBC Scotland The ruling by Scotland's highest civil court that it was illegal to shut the UK Parliament is - in the true sense of the word - extraordinary. Normally courts do not intervene in the decisions of the government, using the principle of a "margin of appreciation," which gives ministers more leeway under the law that ordinary people or organisations would have. So the fact that all three judges at the Court of Session have - albeit by different routes - arrived at the decision that they can intervene is highly significant. Stephen Tierney, professor of Constitutional Theory at Edinburgh University, believed the significance of this judgement would be felt not only in the short term but in the longer term also. He explained: "The normal view of the courts is that it would not be appropriate to rule on the exercise of prerogative power. "So the long-term significance of this ruling is very important." "The lower court had said the actions of the executive were 'non-justiciable' - meaning they were not to be examined by judges. "But this decision indicates the courts are more prepared than many people had expected to intervene in government actions." The case was brought to the Court of Session by a cross-party group of 75 parliamentarians, who argued the PM had exceeded his powers. Lord Doherty heard both sides of the argument and ruled last week that the issue was for the judgement of politicians and voters, and not the courts. But when the case was taken to three appeal judges, they saw it differently. They concluded that the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account, ahead of Brexit. Jim Cormack, a constitutional law expert at lawyers Pinsent Mason in Edinburgh said: "The judges have decided this was a clear case in which the government had stepped outside of the normal room for manoeuvre it is allowed by the courts, when it gave its advice to HM the Queen. He added: "This decision of the Scottish appeal court radically changes the legal landscape ahead of an expected hearing before the United Kingdom Supreme Court next week."Why did Scotland's judges get involved? This case was brought in a Scottish court because at the time the High Court in England was on holiday. But that does not diminish the effect of the ruling, as the case was against the actions of the Westminister government which, within the devolution settlement, affects the whole of the UK. So the ruling in Edinburgh is binding on the UK government - although this is by no means the end of the legal battle since the case will now be appealed to the UK Supreme Court which will make a definitive decision. It is also likely to hear arguments arising from decisions in similar cases brought at the High Court in London under English law and the Northern Ireland High Court. What does proroguing parliament mean? Althoug
Why the Scottish court ruling is significant
Why the Scottish court ruling on proroguing Parliament is significant By Reevel Alderson Home affairs correspondent, BBC Scotland The ruling by Scotland's highest civil court that it was illegal to shut the UK Parliament is - in the true sense of the word - extraordinary. Normally courts do not intervene in the decisions of the government, using the principle of a "margin of appreciation," which gives ministers more leeway under the law that ordinary people or organisations would have. So the fact that all three judges at the Court of Session have - albeit by different routes - arrived at the decision that they can intervene is highly significant. Stephen Tierney, professor of Constitutional Theory at Edinburgh University, believed the significance of this judgement would be felt not only in the short term but in the longer term also. He explained: "The normal view of the courts is that it would not be appropriate to rule on the exercise of prerogative power. "So the long-term significance of this ruling is very important." "The lower court had said the actions of the executive were 'non-justiciable' - meaning they were not to be examined by judges. "But this decision indicates the courts are more prepared than many people had expected to intervene in government actions." The case was brought to the Court of Session by a cross-party group of 75 parliamentarians, who argued the PM had exceeded his powers. Lord Doherty heard both sides of the argument and ruled last week that the issue was for the judgement of politicians and voters, and not the courts. But when the case was taken to three appeal judges, they saw it differently. They concluded that the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account, ahead of Brexit. Jim Cormack, a constitutional law expert at lawyers Pinsent Mason in Edinburgh said: "The judges have decided this was a clear case in which the government had stepped outside of the normal room for manoeuvre it is allowed by the courts, when it gave its advice to HM the Queen. He added: "This decision of the Scottish appeal court radically changes the legal landscape ahead of an expected hearing before the United Kingdom Supreme Court next week."Why did Scotland's judges get involved? This case was brought in a Scottish court because at the time the High Court in England was on holiday. But that does not diminish the effect of the ruling, as the case was against the actions of the Westminister government which, within the devolution settlement, affects the whole of the UK. So the ruling in Edinburgh is binding on the UK government - although this is by no means the end of the legal battle since the case will now be appealed to the UK Supreme Court which will make a definitive decision. It is also likely to hear arguments arising from decisions in similar cases brought at the High Court in London under English law and the Northern Ireland High Court. What does proroguing parliament mean? Althoug
0 Comments