,
7 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
New thread on the Gina Miller v PM case.
Sir James Eadie QC, for Boris Johnson, is now on his feet replying to Ms Miller's team. And straight off he is going to try to convince the judges that they can't rule on the case - the "justiciability" question (see previous thread).
Sir James Eadie QC, for Boris Johnson, is now on his feet replying to Ms Miller's team. And straight off he is going to try to convince the judges that they can't rule on the case - the "justiciability" question (see previous thread).
Sir James's arguments are 1) the proroguing of Parliament is an inherently political act - a matter for politics, not the courts and law.
2) There's an absence of "judicial or manageable standards" against which this political decision can be assessed. (Lord Pannick tried to pre-empt this earlier by arguing that no PM has committed such an abuse of power - so there are no specific precedents to help the court.)
3) The sitting of Parliament is also a matter of constitutional convention, rather than law. And judges cannot tinker with conventions - they are a matter for political balance.
4) And it's all academic anyway, says Sir James. MPs have already passed an Act which requires ministers to come back to Parliament before Brexit day to deliver a report on progress in reforming the power-sharing Northern Ireland executive at Stormont.
5) Gina Miller's case, argues Sir James for the PM, comes down to claiming there would be "insufficient time" for Parliament to consider Brexit, without explaining how judges could assess what would be sufficient time. That, argues Sir James, proves the case isn't justiciable.
Observation: This is going to be the PM's strongest line of attack: 'you judge's can't rule on this case'. But will his lawyers respond to Lord Pannick's repeated question: why must Parliament stop working for five weeks amid a massive political crisis?
