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 ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series