Defendant is reliant on the challenge only relating to the notice dated 29/3/17. Which is incorrect.
Defendant refused to take any account of EC finding
Now dealing with the timeline of the findings of Electoral Commission.
Simor: answers: 1) what is test for court declaring result unlawful? 2) The law must be looked at in its current state. 3) If vote leave were to succeed on appeal on facts position is there is still an overspend.
Simor we are in common law.
The common law can always intervene.
The right to vote according to system provided by parliament.
Going through authorities.
A large scale of wrongdoing across the piste or the referendum.
On any view it is alarming when material is raised in these circumstances whether or not to have regard the referendum.
Arguing against extension of time : damages good administration.
We are into the end game of all of this. It’s plain the claimant didn’t bring it within time.
No magic in the findings of the EC it’s clear from March 18 these issues were public.
Defendant: just saying claimants failed to get on with bringing claim and shouldn’t have waited for the EC report.
No magic in the finding.
Judge saying there comes a point when claimant is in time with many events. And the PM is carrying on.
There was 2015 ref act, then Miller, then further act of Parliament single provision, and then notice was provided.
Judge: discussing ref has effect forever whereas USA president is only for years. And the Russian foreign interference shouldn’t it be resolved?
Defendants say because findings won’t be in time.
PM has full knowledge the ref was advisory so the illegalities are not relevant.