Brexit -am I stupid or what

Technically, pete, neither. What they have done is create a precedent by judging themselves as a fit and proper entity to enter into British politics for the first time in centuries. What is illogical, in legal terms, is that they have said that the precedence they have made cannot be recognised as a viable precedence to be used in any further Court case.
Unfortunately, a precedence is a precedence no matter what they say, and they have a created a legal mine field of their own making...............so their decision to make a political judgement is going to cause problems for centuries to come.

 

Well, there's a psychological theory, pete, that one person will make his own decision influenced to what is happening to him/her at the time. But if you put two people together interacting with each other they tend to deveop a third "personality" where they make decisions that they would not have done if on their own. The Judges I worked for did not confer with each other on their separate cases and worked as individuals making their decisions based on precedents and the relevant legislation. Now, despite the Supreme Court Judges being learned and experienced persons, you have to ask, and it already has been at high levels in legal circles, are any Judges or persons conferring in a group vulnerable to developing a "third personality" that unconsciously induces them to make decisions that they would not have made if they were not in a group.

 

But I know my place, and I look up to you, pete

 

He didn't. He took legal counsel on his proposal and presented that to HM. Completely in line with normal practice, other PMs and not to mention the same as John Major did in cash for questions...

I am appalled that her name was mentioned at all. There was no call for it but after being badgered by the House from all sides in their mock anger Boris had a lapse of judgement and joined in. In my opinion he shouldn't have said it as it made no sense but there you go; it most certainly does not require an entire day of MPs whining about it or the BBC to place particular attention on it. This distracting bs about language is just that, a distraction. MPs have gotten death threats and the such for centuries and the language hasn't suddenly taken a downward slide, it's the same as it ever was (from all parties).

MP's after two days back in camp have spectacularly failed to debate what they went to court to return to parliament to debate. They just want as much air time as possible to try and weaken the public perception of the PM as they recognise a GE will not turn out the way anyone expects it.

Parliament don't believe that the government are fit to do the job but refuse to put in the vote of no confidence and have the GE which really should ring alarm bells for everyone.

 

Again, that is defined in Criminal Law, not Political Law, Longk, there is no Law that covers a Prime Minister asking the Queen to prorogue Parliament on advice given to him by his Legal Counsel. Such matters are dealt with by Parliament itself with a Vote of No Confidence ...........and that hasn't happened because that would lead to a General Election which is not what theOppostion want at this time. So, with that in mind, the Supreme Court by unprecedently judging themselves able to take decisions on Political matters have issued opinions, that do not lead to convictions for a plaintiff (i.e. the Government), where an appellant has taken a case to a higher court.
Another thing that muddies the Legal waters is that the original appeal was taken in Scotland, which has a different legal system under the 1707 Treaty of Union between Scotland and England, and so the Scottish Courts decide matters in a completely separate context to English Law. The Scottish Courts are able to pass on cases to the Supreme Court for further examination but would have to do so taking into consideration the difference between Scottish Law and English law and thereby lies the "rub", as some opinions are that is what made the Supreme Courts consider to take the Scottish judgement into English Law. Again, the Scottish Courts had to reach back into a Historic Article to justify their ability to judge on the matter, as did the Supreme Court have to try to find grounds for precedent in the 14th, 15th, 17th Centuries.

Actually, legally, the Supreme Court can and did. They took the unprecedented step of entering into Political decisions of Parliament and they had the choice of not doing so. The "Genie" that has now been let out of the bottle, despite the Supreme Court saying that they have not created a precedent that can be used in future court actions, is that they have. Now all future decisions taken by a Government, whatever the colour, can be taken to Court and that could bring all legislation to a grinding halt, stopping Parliament in mid step should organisations choose to do so.

Judges do not, and cannot, decide whether a case sets a precedent or not, I agree, and that is the point, there has been a precedent created whether or not the Supreme Courts says there hasn't. This case and precedent will be used again in future years with Barristers pulling out a large heavy book containing precedences from centuries of past cases and trying to link such precedences to their particular cases. Most civil court decisions are taken with heavy references to precedence, both by Lawyers and Judges, in order to confirm and strengthen their legal arguments and the decisions/judgements taken.

 

As we all know, personal opinion doesn't hold water in a Court, so the Government is not acting in a criminal way but, legally, has acted with the Constitution. Like it or not Boris Johnson is not a criminal.

Agreed, Common Law exists, but not I assure you as you state it because firstly "accepted standards" is so vulnerable regarding interpretation i.e. Are is Labours standards as acceptable as the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Green Party, the Conservatives, or even you or me??.

The Courts and legal definition of Common Law is "a body of unwritten laws in case for which there is no written Statute and must be based on precedents and Custom" Now this is why the Supreme Courts judgement will cause problems for centuries in the legal system.
(a) The Supreme Court is correct that there is no written Statute to cover this case.
(b) The Supreme Court, itself, has stated during the judgement there there is no precendent for the case, although they themselves has created one by entering the Political arena. So they disregarded the Common Law's requirement for precedents.
(c) I don't think anyone can say that it is Custom (or if you want, Conventional) to take a Government to court on a political and Constitutional matter and question their motives. So again the Supreme Court has abandoned the legal definition of Common Law..
So, they cannot correctly claim they were viewing the case under Common Law when they were missing two of the essential pillars defining Common Law. The whole case has, according to legal practitioners I know, set new precedents in itself, and causing legal debate that will last for years to come. So, no Court, at whatever level, can claim to be using Common Law if any component is not met and, in this case, there are two components missing. The problem for the Judiciary now is to look at the Supreme Courts actions where by definition they were not judging under Common Law as claimed and does that require a review of the UK Legal system.
There is also another problem for the Supreme Court in that the original case took place in Scottish Courts, and there is no Common Law in Scotland. That raises the question as to whether a such a case can be transferrred into an English Court under Common Law, although in this case it appears the Supreme Court decision to do so was flawed anyway, as the requirements of Common Law were not met.
There is also another unwritten Law and that is Poltical Law which exists entirely within Parliament, and we have seen it action recently, where Political Parties pass a Bill to stop a Government from doing something or forcing them to commit to doing something. So they are political laws because they have been passed for political reasons.

 

As you know, I haven't joined in this debate except to point out a fact or two.

I'm not as well up on the law as both you and ARMANDII (that's his job ) but I've been in court sufficient times to understand that there is a difference between illegal and unlawful. From what I can remember (quite some time since I've been in court ) This comment from elsewhere puts it more succinctly than I could do.

Illegal means that it is forbidden by a law that has been passed.

Unlawful means that it is not authorised by law because no such law has been passed.

I thought the Supreme court ruled that what Boris did was 'unlawful'. They carefully stressed the point.

He did not actually break a law because, on that matter, there isn't a law to break.

So when some people (not on here) are saying that Boris should be thrown in jail for what he did, they are showing that they do not know the law - and why should they?

 

The Supreme Court was established in 2009 (I think) and it replaced the 'Law Lords' (officially called 'The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary'). It was originally proposed and set in motion by Tony Blair and established during Gordon Brown's reign