CO/5050/2017 - The first hearing in the Administrative Court
Yesterday
(30th November) at the High Court in London my Claim for Judicial Review of Brexit made
its first, low-key appearance before Mr. Justice Stuart-Smith.
When I submitted my Claim a few weeks ago I had asked that my Claim for Judicial Review of Brexit be considered by the Administrative Court as an urgent Claim.
On 7th November Mr. Justice Supperstone after consideration of the papers refused to consider the Claim on an urgent basis.
I then lodged an Application for Reconsideration.
On 30th November Mr. Justice Stuart-Smith dismissed my application for reconsideration.
The refusal to allow urgency and interim injunctive relief is, perhaps, unsurprising since I asked the Court for an interim injunction preventing the Prime Minister from carrying forward the Brexit negotiations.
Since I believe that no lawful Article 50 decision has been taken it follows that, if I'm correct, the Prime Minister has no lawful basis on which to carry out the Brexit negotiations.
I made that request for an interim injunction because I believed that it was in the public interest that Brexit be brought to a halt until such time as the serious legal questions which exist are resolved in open Court.
Mr. Justice Stuart-Smith's decision applies only to the request for urgency and interim relief.
The substance of the Claim now falls to be considered according to the routine timetable of the Administrative Court.
My Claim for Judicial Review asks that four matters be considered:
1.
The question of whether a decision has been made of the kind envisaged
in Paragraph 1 of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. If there has been no lawful "decision" then it seems to me that the Prime Minister's purported notification letter of 29th March 2017 is of no legal effect and that therefore the supposed Brexit negotiations are, choose your own label, unlawful or of no legal effect.
2. The question of the effect of "Queen's Consent" (given in 1972 with respect to the European Communities Bill) on whether the Prime Minister or the Queen-in-Parliament decides all matters relating to the negotiations with the European Union. My understanding of the effect of Queen's Consent is that all matters relating to Brexit negotiations lie with the Queen-in-Parliament (often sloppily shortened to Parliament) not with the Prime Minister.
3. The question of whether an "implementation period" as desired by the Prime Minister is lawfully possible. The Prime Minister wants the UK to exit the European Union on 29th March 2019 but to continue to benefit from a Withdrawal Agreement. My reading of Paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is that such a "Deferred Implementation Withdrawal Agreement" isn't lawfully possible. The only option available to the UK after 29th March 2019 is continued membership of the EU, which requires unanimous consent from the EU27.
4. The question of whether an Article 50 decision and/or notification is revocable and, if so, in what circumstances it is revocable. If I'm right that a Deferred Implementation Withdrawal Agreement isn't lawfully possible the UK needs to know whether it can revoke any Article 50 decision and/or notification and, if it can, in what circumstances it can do so.
I'm aware of two further Claims for Judicial Review of matters relating to Brexit which will need to be considered by the Administrative Court in the near future.
One of those Claims is already with the Court for its consideration.
Another Claim is due to be lodged with the Court shortly.
These three Claims for Judicial Review raise fundamental questions about the legal basis for Brexit and whether the Prime Minister, who is Defendant in at least two of the Claims, has acted lawfully.
There are immensely serious legal questions regarding Brexit.
I believe the Court must take the three Claims for Judicial Review seriously but it's maybe stating the obvious that any judge (or judges) who consider these Claims can expect unprecedented scrutiny of their actions and a shedload of controversy whatever they decide.
In my opinion the United Kingdom would be a much better place if the Law is correctly applied and the Brexit Madness is brought to an abrupt end.
When I submitted my Claim a few weeks ago I had asked that my Claim for Judicial Review of Brexit be considered by the Administrative Court as an urgent Claim.
On 7th November Mr. Justice Supperstone after consideration of the papers refused to consider the Claim on an urgent basis.
I then lodged an Application for Reconsideration.
On 30th November Mr. Justice Stuart-Smith dismissed my application for reconsideration.
The refusal to allow urgency and interim injunctive relief is, perhaps, unsurprising since I asked the Court for an interim injunction preventing the Prime Minister from carrying forward the Brexit negotiations.
Since I believe that no lawful Article 50 decision has been taken it follows that, if I'm correct, the Prime Minister has no lawful basis on which to carry out the Brexit negotiations.
I made that request for an interim injunction because I believed that it was in the public interest that Brexit be brought to a halt until such time as the serious legal questions which exist are resolved in open Court.
Mr. Justice Stuart-Smith's decision applies only to the request for urgency and interim relief.
The substance of the Claim now falls to be considered according to the routine timetable of the Administrative Court.
My Claim for Judicial Review asks that four matters be considered:
2. The question of the effect of "Queen's Consent" (given in 1972 with respect to the European Communities Bill) on whether the Prime Minister or the Queen-in-Parliament decides all matters relating to the negotiations with the European Union. My understanding of the effect of Queen's Consent is that all matters relating to Brexit negotiations lie with the Queen-in-Parliament (often sloppily shortened to Parliament) not with the Prime Minister.
3. The question of whether an "implementation period" as desired by the Prime Minister is lawfully possible. The Prime Minister wants the UK to exit the European Union on 29th March 2019 but to continue to benefit from a Withdrawal Agreement. My reading of Paragraph 3 of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union is that such a "Deferred Implementation Withdrawal Agreement" isn't lawfully possible. The only option available to the UK after 29th March 2019 is continued membership of the EU, which requires unanimous consent from the EU27.
4. The question of whether an Article 50 decision and/or notification is revocable and, if so, in what circumstances it is revocable. If I'm right that a Deferred Implementation Withdrawal Agreement isn't lawfully possible the UK needs to know whether it can revoke any Article 50 decision and/or notification and, if it can, in what circumstances it can do so.
I'm aware of two further Claims for Judicial Review of matters relating to Brexit which will need to be considered by the Administrative Court in the near future.
One of those Claims is already with the Court for its consideration.
Another Claim is due to be lodged with the Court shortly.
These three Claims for Judicial Review raise fundamental questions about the legal basis for Brexit and whether the Prime Minister, who is Defendant in at least two of the Claims, has acted lawfully.
There are immensely serious legal questions regarding Brexit.
I believe the Court must take the three Claims for Judicial Review seriously but it's maybe stating the obvious that any judge (or judges) who consider these Claims can expect unprecedented scrutiny of their actions and a shedload of controversy whatever they decide.
In my opinion the United Kingdom would be a much better place if the Law is correctly applied and the Brexit Madness is brought to an abrupt end.
Comments
Post a Comment