header-logo header-logo

15 January 2020
Issue: 7870 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit
printer mail-detail

Beware the Brexit power grab

A committee of Peers has raised serious constitutional concerns about ministerial powers granted by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

The primary source of concern is clause 26(1) of the bill, which gives ministers powers to require courts and tribunals to deviate from retained EU case law and, instead, apply ministerial guidelines. In a report published this week, the House of Lords Constitution Committee branded the cl 26(1) powers ‘inappropriate’ and ‘constitutionally significant’,and called for their removal from the bill.

In contrast, the previous version of the clause―s 6(1) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018―provided that retained EU law would be interpreted by courts and tribunals in line with case law applicable on or before exit day.

In the report, the committee agrees that ‘it is inappropriate for courts other than the Supreme Court and the Scottish High Court of Justiciary to have power to depart from the interpretations of EU case law’.

Second, the government’s proposal to consult with senior judges on the applicable tests for departures ‘is not an adequate substitute for the determination of such issues in adversarial proceedings in open court, open to interventions and with the assistance of counsel’.

Third, the committee said there ‘is no case for such broad and constitutionally significant regulation-making powers, the effect of which may undermine legal certainty’.

Baroness Taylor, chair of the committee, said: ‘The government should reconsider the implications of cl 26 and the potential for significant legal uncertainty if lower courts are to be given the power to depart from previous European Court of Justice case law and previous domestic interpretations of retained EU law.’

The committee also recommends the government reinstate provision for parliamentary oversight of negotiations and allow greater scrutiny of Henry VIII powers and other delegated powers.

Meanwhile, the Institute for Government has warned the government only has time to agree a goods-only free trade agreement in the 11 months before the end of the transition period. In a report published this week, ‘Getting Brexit Done’, it said the Northern Ireland Protocol, on regulatory and customs checks, ‘is almost certainly undeliverable’ by December 2020.

Issue: 7870 / 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