Eadie now expanding on his introduction. Justiciability depends on the subject matter; some may be unsuitable for judicial intervention. Proceeds to respond to points raised by Pannick. 8/
Justice: Are we being asked to determine where political decision collides with principles? 10/
Eadie: Depends on what aspect of Parl Sovereignty we are dealing with. Parl can make/unmake own laws. 11/
Justice: What if PM decided to prorogue for 1 year?
Eadie: That's the challenge from Pannick yesterday. Extreme example. Need to be cautious about testing law against extremes. 12/
Eadie: Yes, Court would be enforcing primary legislation. 13/
Justice wants him to cover Section 3(2a) mentioned yesterday. 14/
Eadie: Position in relation to personal prerogative of Sovereign is matter of uncertainty.
Justice now questioning Govt's position on HMQ's prerogative power. 16/
Eadie: Prior to proroguing - legislation, prior/after - VoNC.
Justice: What about time sensitive issues?
Eadie: Parliamentary control was exercised & can be exercised on/after October 14. 27/
Justice: What about checks & balances on proroguing?
Eadie: Sidesteps implied question, widens it to encompass *all* Parliamentary business. 28/
Extended prorogation scenario dealt with. Govt argues Miller case specifically focused on 5 week prorogation. Pannick seeks to identify standards for Court to rule. /34
Discussion on law = talking about legislation, case law authorities, etc. 38/
Justice: No affidavits from Govt. Isn't it odd that nobody signed affidavit to say "this is true"?
Eadie: Court rules on documentation produced. 39/
Eadie: Typically, have a covering affidavit; never experienced minister providing affidavit; uniformly not common practice. Cross-examination of affidavit is a feature of judicial review. 40/