Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The PM made an unlawful request.

Y'all think I've been fooling about lawyers and their dictionaries. I am not.

SCOTUK chose to adjudicate questions of "lawfullness" advisedly. The PM did not commit a crime. Royal prerogative per se is judiciable --subject to review and judgment-- to the extent provided by parliamentary acts (laws). If the manner and subject of PM "advice" for teh monarch is not prescribed by law, but by "convention", the court proceeds to certify and adjudicate merits of the PM's (un)lawful conference with teh monarch brought by appellant(s) according to common law doctrine ("case law") deciding equity.

27. Both cases raise the same four issues, although there is some overlap between the issues: (1) Is the question of whether the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen was lawful justiciable in a court of law? (2) If it is, by what standard is its lawfulness to be judged? (3) By that standard, was it lawful? (4) If it was not, what remedy should the court grant?
Of course, "constitutional" law does not vest legislative and executive authority in judiciary.

So. Did Owen mention yet what remedy the court granted appelants?

archived "English law"
Not that equity, the other one.
the law is retrospective as it should be

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 04:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure about the USA, but in UK (and common law generally?) there is a distinction between constitutional, civil and criminal law. Only breaches of the latter are deemed to be "crimes" and their perpetrators "criminals". You can be in breach of contract - e.g. not paying your rent - without being a criminal.

But tbh a higher standard applies to PM's who are supposed to be fully compliant with all law at all times - as to be otherwise reduces respect for the law in general. For the government to have to say they with "obey the law" or "respect a judgement" as if this were a magnanimous concession is in itself astonishing. How could it be otherwise?

Why does even have to be said, and what credit does it give to the government which says it? THE LAW used to be the stick with which Conservatives bludgeoned liberal protestors. Now it is conservatives who are the law breakers...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 05:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Common law" also called "case law" is the body of of appellate opinions by courts. A litigant of a criminal or civil trial (the first instance), petitions a superior court to review and rule on error of an inferior court. The error alleged by the appellant might be in a finding of law (statutory procedure or "common law" application to merits of the case admitted by judge or jury instruction) or a finding of fact (typically, omission of exculpatory evidence).

The SCOTUK judgment relies heavily on "common law" opinions for its own reason, because the merits of the case have so little relevance to statute. They admit that. The appellants' objections to the PM's exercise of royal prerogative rely exclusively on "convention" --the duration of the prorogation is unlawful, unacceptable to "the Crown in parliament"; prorogation per se is not unlawful. The SCOTUK ruled against  unlimited exercise of royal prerogative, because "the Crown in parliament" had not limited by statute a "reasonable" prorogation period to Sir John Major's units of Queen's Speech and legislative agenda prep time.

The descent of common pleas
common law
common law and restatements

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Sep 24th, 2019 at 10:50:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series