header-logo header-logo

08 December 2016 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7726 / Categories: Features , Public , Brexit , EU
printer mail-detail

A nation divided?

nlj_7726_zander

Could the Sewel Convention scupper Brexit, asks Michael Zander QC

  • The Scottish intervention in the Brexit appeal case.

Triggering Art 50 to start the process of withdrawal from the EU requires not only an Act of Parliament but the consent of the Scottish Parliament according to the 58-page written case submitted by the Lord Advocate in the Supreme Court Brexit case appeal. If the Supreme Court made that part of its judgment in the case being argued this week, the political consequences would be far-reaching.

The Supreme Court received written arguments from all three devolved governments—Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland (accessible on the Supreme Court’s website, as is also the government’s reply).

The Northern Ireland submissions supported the UK government’s contention that no Act of Parliament was required to trigger Art 50 but, if that was wrong, it could be done without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Counsel General’s submission for Wales argued that the Divisional Court’s decision that triggering Art 50 required an Act of Parliament

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

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