header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 September 2019 / Michael Zander KC
Categories: Features , Brexit , Constitutional law , Media
printer mail-detail

The state we are in

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Michael Zander QC on what the press said about the judges after the Supreme Court’s prorogation decision

One remembers the disgraceful Daily Mail front-page ‘Enemies of the People’ article in November 2016 that greeted the Divisional Court’s decision in the first great case brought by Gina Miller (R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, [2017] All ER (D) 70 (Jan)). The three ‘out of touch judges’—the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales—were said to have ‘declared war on democracy’ for deciding that Parliament’s consent was required for triggering Art 50.

It seemed worth looking at the attitude of the press to the judges on the morning after the 11-0 decision that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful (R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry and ors v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, [2019] All ER (D) 61 (Sep).

The Daily Mail led

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

Read All
Sponsored by
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
Read All
NLJ this week: When saying no to mediation pays
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
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’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
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
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
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’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
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
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll