header-logo header-logo

07 October 2019
Issue: 7859 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Next steps in countdown to Brexit

Parliament has been suspended again as a weakened Prime Minister contends with the rejection of his Brexit deal proposals and a fast-brewing scandal over alleged impropriety during his time as London Mayor.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been telephoning EU leaders to discuss the potential for securing a deal, after the European Parliament dismissed his latest plans as unworkable last week. At home, he faces allegations of favouritism during his tenure as London Mayor over grants and places on international trade delegations given to US businesswoman Jennifer Arcuri. Inquiries into the allegations have been launched by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the London Mayor and the London Assembly’s oversight committee.

Meanwhile, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland is considering whether a court can sign an Art 50 extension request in the place of Johnson should he refuse to do so. This procedure, which is unique to Scots law, is known as ‘petitioning the nobile officium’. Johnson is compelled to seek an extension until 31 January 2020 unless a deal has been agreed by 19 October, under the Benn Act (otherwise known as the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act 2019).

Lord Carloway, the Lord President, has said the issues are so significant and time-sensitive that the court will not give its decision until 21 October, after the 19 October deadline has passed.

Last week, the Outer House rejected the petition. Delivering his judgment, Lord Pentland said he was ‘not satisfied that the petitioners have made out their case based on reasonable apprehension of breach of statutory duty on the part of the Prime Minister’. During the case, Aidan O’Neill QC, on behalf of petitioners Dale Vince, Jolyon Maugham QC and Joanna Cherry QC MP, cited press reports quoting ‘Number 10 sources’ which, he said, indicated government policy was to frustrate the legislation. However, papers submitted by the government to the court stated that Johnson would comply with the Benn Act.

Parliament was prorogued after close of business on 8 October. A Queen’s Speech is scheduled for 14 October, curtailing all Bills not passed during this session apart from the Domestic Abuse Bill, which will be carried over.  

Issue: 7859 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll