header-logo header-logo

Brexit in court

19 October 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7720 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
nlj_7720_zander

Michael Zander QC considers the oral arguments in the Art 50 court case

  • The Divisional Court heard arguments over three days as to whether the government can use the royal prerogative to trigger Art 50 of the Lisbon Treaty thereby threatening loss of important statutory EU rights.

The Brexit court case (Santos and M v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union) is unusual because of its political and constitutional significance. It is also unusual (or, query, unique) because at public expense a transcript of the proceedings was made accessible online within a short time of each morning and afternoon session. The transcript of the three days of oral argument runs to 586 online pages.

Critical contentions

Reading the oral argument with all the judicial interventions offers the opportunity of hazarding an opinion as to what are likely to be the critical contentions the judges will consider when coming to their decision.

The claimants asked the Divisional Court for a declaration by way of judicial review.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll