header-logo header-logo

26 January 2017
Issue: 7731 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

“One-liner Bill” under scrutiny

Leading litigator warns that citizen’s rights are at risk if Art 50 trigger is rushed

The “one-liner” Bill introduced to Parliament this week—enabling the government to trigger Art 50—may not offer the security needed to maintain citizens’ basic rights, according to David Greene, one of the country’s foremost litigators.

“Post judgment we are likely to see a one-liner bill within days. Passing the Bill and serving the notice inevitably removes us from the EU and its associated rights. It fires the bullet for Brexit. We should question the entitlement of Parliament to remove these rights—the rights of establishment, the right to travel freely etc, in a one-line Bill.”

NLJ consultant editor Greene, one of the claimant lawyers acting in this week’s successful Art 50 challenge against the government, said: “These rights go to the basics of life for EU citizens here and UK citizens within Europe, and I think it’s important for Parliament to consider them and be in a position to offer assurances that they will be protected before Art 50 is triggered.”

Speaking to Professor Dominic Regan during a post-judgment NLJ webinar, Greene went on to say: “Given the uncertainties surrounding the mechanics and nature of Brexit, it would not be impossible that after two years we could get to a situation where negotiations fail or Parliament votes a deal down. The removal of rights then will be automatic”

In a majority vote of eight to three this week, the Supreme Court found the government required an Act of Parliament to notify of its intention to leave the EU. Greene said he thought that the court might want to bring a unanimous decision but it became clear that there were differences: “In the end we expected a 7/4 or 8/3 split,” he said.

Greene added that the constant revolution in civil justice for 20 years—from the small claims limit, costs budgeting, fixed costs, to changes in practice and procedure, needed to be taken more slowly when we have the prospect of the added revolution of Brexit.

The webinar, which includes a wide ranging discussion covering: pending Brexit litigation; the dissenting judgments; the Sewel Convention, can be downloaded here .

See also LexisNexis Current awareness News team & Public Law PSL team coverage:

The Supreme Court’s judgment on Article 50—what happens now?
Article 50 litigation—UK Supreme Court rules on the limits of the prerogative and devolved powers
The Dublin case—Brexit and the revocability of Article 50

Issue: 7731 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll