Wednesday, September 25, 2019

PROROGATION PART ONE

Oh to be in England now that Parliament is in session. 
Is Parliament in session? 
Good question. You've come to the right place. 

Prorogation is a Constitutional Act in the United Kingdom used to end one session of Parliament and mark the time period before a new session of Parliament convenes. The order for Prorogation is ordered by HRH Queen Elizabeth, upon request of the Prime Minister (actually the Privy Council makes the request to the Queen pursuant to the Parliament Act of 1797 and the Civil Contingencies Act of 2004, but there are judges reading this post and we cannot make it too complicated). See The Queen on application of Gina Miller And Boris Johnson, The Prime Minsiter, High Court of Justice, Queen's Division, Case No: CO/3385/2019, ("A decision to prorogue Parliament is made by the Sovereign formally on the advice of the Privy Council but in reality on the advice of the Prime Minister.")

Prorogation  has been for many decades a routine order as a session of Parliament ended.  
Enter Brexit. 

The UK is disastrously withdrawing from the European Union. Sort of like North Dakota  withdrawing from the Union, but we are not sure we would notice it much. 
Britain's exit (Br-exit) can be soft and negotiated, or hard- like Trump ignoring an act of congress. 

England's Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is hilariously mocked by Larry the Cat, the official Mouser of the PM's residence at 10 Downing Street, on twitter,  has stated that he will withdraw the UK from the EU by Halloween or die trying. 
Right now Boris's  life span is looking less and less. 

In order to effectuate his hard Brexit, Boris asked the Queen for a Prorogation order well beyond the normal time, effectively shutting down Parliment until two weeks before Brexit. 

The good people of England were outraged and they sued in  England and Scotland (it's a long story why it was in both courts, just take a wee bit of Scotch or have a pint of Guiness and keep reading.) 

The English Court -the High Court of Justice in Westminster London (just a bit more distinguished than our Hialeah Branch Court) ruled the issue "non-justiciable". English law, which we are an acknowledged expert in, does not easily  provide for judicial review of the executive. Courts in England do not wade into politics and they rarely review acts of Parliament. 

“The more purely political (in a broad or narrow sense) a question is, the more appropriate it will be for political resolution and the less likely it is to be an appropriate matter for judicial decision. The smaller, therefore, will be the potential role of the court. It is the function of political and not judicial bodies to resolve political questions.”   A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 1 AC 68, Lord Bingham. 

In Gibson v Lord Advocate 1975 SC 136, 144 Lord Keith said:
“The making of decisions upon what must essentially be a political matter is no part of the function of the Court, and it is highly undesirable that it should be. The function of the Court is to adjudicate upon the particular rights and obligations of individual persons, natural or corporate, in relation to other persons or, in certain instances, to the State.” 


Based on stare decisis, the High Court in London held "In our view, the decision of the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty the Queen to prorogue Parliament is not justiciable in Her Majesty’s courts." 

But the case did not end there. The High Court in Scotland had a different view of the case. 

COMING NEXT PROROGATION THE DECISION OF THE SCOTTISH COURT 


10 comments:

  1. Hey!! Wtf. North Dakota never did anything to you. Lay off city boy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. An you imagine calling these hacks we have for judges “my lord”?
    Does it please my lord? Will my lord XXX allow the lawyer time to breast feed her baby my lord before trial begins?
    Will her ladyship XXX be starting her morning calendar at 230 or 3?

    I’d go back to mopping floors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rump is there anything yo do not know ����

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a native North Dakotan I also take offense to the slight on my birth state but I also have a serious question of the barrister--is it true that the highest court in England is composed of the fossilized aristocrats in the House of Lords and known as "The Law Lords"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can someone from Miami show him how its really done?

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/us/texas-judge-cash-bribes/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dearest Horace,
    I must take exception to your use of HRH ( Her Royal Highness) in reference to the Queen 👑. The proper term is Her MAJESTY, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, North Ireland and Wales, as well as Queen of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
    HRH is used for the Prince Consort, the Prince( Princess) of Wales and his/ her heirs, as well as Her Majesty's siblings.
    Sir Wilfred

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hot tip. Miami attorney charged in Palm Beach for contempt of court. Involves bondsmen, misrepresentation to court, etc:

    CASE NUMBER: 50-2019-MM-008937-AXXX-MB

    ReplyDelete
  8. 2:11. I am not sure. You may be right that HRH is not used for the Queen. I may call the palace and ask. They have a protocol officer that usually answers all my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes I checked. I am wrong. This is a terrible error. I shall correct it when my trial takes a break for the afternoon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. HRH is also used for all the Queen's children and sometime Her Majesty' grandchildren, like Princess Beatrice
    Sir Wilfred

    ReplyDelete