[Thread Pt2]
Official summary of Govt's response to Wilson v PM JR claim (@UKEUchallenge) 👇👇
This thread continues with counsel’s response to the govt's Summary Grounds of Resistance (SGR) and picks up with why the @UKEUchallenge is both arguable and justiciable. /25
Official summary of Govt's response to Wilson v PM JR claim (@UKEUchallenge) 👇👇
This thread continues with counsel’s response to the govt's Summary Grounds of Resistance (SGR) and picks up with why the @UKEUchallenge is both arguable and justiciable. /25
The findings of the EC Reports comprised findings of misconduct by Vote Leave & Leave.EU serious enough to amount to ‘illegal or corrupt practices and/or fraud’. This conduct is covered by the RPA as a species of conduct rendering the result of an election void./26
In this species, the one the Claimant relies upon, illegal practice is defined as when a candidate is guilty, or guilty by his agents, of any corrupt or illegal practice. Erlam v Rahman [2015] EWHC 1215 held that proof of its effect is irrelevant and not required. /27
The EC findings would’ve rendered the outcome of an ordinary election void. This questions whether the PM’s decision to take the UK out of the EU was lawful and/or whether she acted lawfully in taking no steps regarding the relevant corrupt and illegal practices. /28
It is both mine & counsel’s opinion that the PM acted unreasonably & unlawfully when she decided to rely on the result as the basis for taking the UK out of the EU. In addition she had the information of corrupt & illegal practices prior to the A50 notification. /29
The PMs decision to take no action in response to the EC findings such corrupt and illegal practices was unlawful having regard to the original basis for her decision, its grave implications and the necessity for a democratic, that is, lawful mandate. /30
In the SGR the Defendant made a ‘distinction without a difference’ by submitting that the court is not concerned with issues of ‘constitutionality’ but only with issues of ‘legality’. The UK Constitution is based on the principles of legality & constitutionality. /31
The principles of legality & constitutionality are set out in the common law and constitutional instruments. ‘The common law itself also recognises certain principles as fundamental to the rule of law’. It is essential for the court to decide on those principles. /32
In R (Buckinghamshire County Council) v Transport Sec. [2014] UKSC 3 it was held that it is for UK courts to determine whether Parlt did not either contemplate or authorise the abrogation of fundamental principles when it enacted the ECA 1972. /33
If a majority in parlt ‘abusively sought to entrench its power by a curtailment of the franchise or similar device, the common law, informed by principles of democracy and the rule of law’ then the court is ‘able to declare such legislation unlawful’ (Moohan [2014] UKSC 67) /34
By suggesting that the principle of ‘democracy’ or the concept of ‘democratic’ is little more than a political or value judgement ignores both fundamental principles of the rule of law, as reflected in the common law, and the electoral law as enacted by Parliament. /35
The PM attempts to circumvent the rule of law and principles of legality and constitutionality in the SGR & strives to remove the essential role of the courts in defending democracy. The function of judges is universally recognised as a feature of modern democratic states. /36
In saying that the court is not concerned with issues of ‘constitutionality’ the PM is submitting that a cornerstone of the rule of law & universal function of the judiciary no longer exists & stigmatises judicial decision-making as being not part of the democratic process. /37
