Thread by @RobertCPalmer13

[Ref illegality & corruption THREAD 👇👇]

Been asked to summarise the Susan Wilson (@Suewilson91) v Prime Minister case. This thread gives the basics of the pleadings and relief sought. /1

#UKEUChallenge

#VoteLeaveBrokeTheLaw #FBPE #WATON #FBR @abcpoppins #StopBrexit

There is a principal issue underlying the case that poses a simple question: is a lawful, free and fair vote one of the constitutional requirements of the UK? It's asked after 2 Electoral Commission (EC) Reports found that illegality & corruption dogged the ref campaign. /2

Let me make this clear. The EC findings were to the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) & serious offences were committed by the designated campaign for leaving the EU (& others), in breach of the statutory framework established by Parliament for the ref. /3

It is submitted that the PM's decision & notification to leave the EU was premised on a 'fundamental error of fact' and was not made in accordance with
the UK’s constitutional requirements as required by A50(1) & (2) TEU and/or 'are vitiated' by the corruption & illegality. /4

Although the ref was advisory, the common law principles of legality & constitutionality still apply. So, when considering how & when to exercise her statutory power under s.1(1) the EU(NoW)A 2017 the PM had to act lawfully (in line with public law & constitutional principles)./5

Sue Wilson et al seek declarations that both the Decision and Notification 'were unlawful on established electoral and public law principles and/or not in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the UK'. Thus, shouldn't be treated as, lawful and/or constitutional. /6

The PM's decision and (dependent) notification were vitiated by conduct that fell within the definition of ‘corrupt and illegal practices’ in the Representation of the People Act 1983 (& similar legislation) which the EC has found to have taken place (beyond reasonable doubt). /7

Those 'corrupt and illegal practices' were in breach of the statutory requirements established by and under the EU Referendum Act 2015, as well as other conduct (such that was identified by the Information Commissioner, regarding personal data etc.). /8

The ref was advisory/consultative (not binding) therefore the legal validity of the Decision and Notification have been impaired (vitiated) for two main reasons; first, by depending solely upon the flawed consultation. /9

The 2nd reason that the legal validity of the PM's decison and notification have been impaired is because, despite the advisory nature of the ref, both were founded upon promises to honour & implement the result. The findings of the EC further vitiate honouring that result. /10

The case submits that it is irrational for the PM to treat the ref result as binding which, had it been binding, would be void following the EC findings (clearly the result of the ref would have been affected by illegalities and corruption). /11

Irrationality aside, it is unlawful. As counsel submits that when Parliament gave the PM power to notify it should not be taken to have disapplied principles of legality and constitutionality. In addition it is in breach of s.6 HRA and Art.3 of the First Protocol (A3P1). /12

In line with constitutionality the PM is not permitted to ignore the findings of the EC or 'to take no material steps' or not 'to give anxious scrutiny to their import or otherwise in response to them'. It must be remembered that the investigations began BEFORE notification. /13

That is the case in a nutshell. The Claimants are asking the court to declare that the legal validity of the Decision & Notification are impaired (vitiated) owing to corruption & illegality; they are also asked to quash both the Decision and Notification for those reasons. /14