,
4 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
A Q to the excellent lawyers I follow here @WomaninHavana @GeorgePeretzQC @carlgardner @JMPSimor @seanjonesqc @justinbates28 @rowena_kay @JolyonMaugham
I can find one interpretation of why the judges in the Cherry case concluded differently to the Miller case in England
I can find one interpretation of why the judges in the Cherry case concluded differently to the Miller case in England
That is @davidallengreen’s point on the different way constitutional matters are dealt with in Scottish law
DAG also underlined the importance of the missing witness statement in *both* cases
DAG also underlined the importance of the missing witness statement in *both* cases
But other than the different way constitutional matters are dealt with in Scottish law, is there anything *else* in terms of the evidence presented or the way the case was argued that additionally contributed to the success in Scotland?
Any light you can shed on that - for this non-lawyer - would be fantastic. And might also be of use more widely!
