Environmental Law News Update – Six Pump Court

‘In this latest Environmental Law News Update Gordon Wignall, Christopher Badger and Natasha Hausdorff consider the recently published Environment Bill, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill and whether public nuisance might provide a means of taking action in cases of climate change.’

Full Story

Six Pump Court, 23rd October 2019

Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk

How Brexit may have changed Parliament forever – OUP Blog

Posted October 30th, 2019 in brexit, constitutional law, news, parliament by sally

‘During 2019, the Brexit process has radically changed the dynamics between the prime minister and the House of Commons. Normally the United Kingdom’s government, led by the prime minister and her Cabinet, provides leadership, and drives and implements policy while Parliament exercises control over the government by scrutinising its actions and holding it to account. This is a carefully balanced relationship, although a government with a strong majority can dominate decision making in the House of Commons.’

Full Story

OUP Blog, 30th October 2019

Source: blog.oup.com

What’s (or what’s not) in the Johnson draft Withdrawal Agreement Bill? – Monckton Chambers

Posted October 29th, 2019 in bills, brexit, constitutional law, EC law, news, parliament by sally

‘The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill (“WAB”) is (to put it mildly) a web of complexity.’

Full Story

Monckton Chambers, 25th October 2019

Source: www.monckton.com

Adam Tucker: A First Critical Look at the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation in the Withdrawal Agreement Bill – UK Constitutional Law Association

Posted October 24th, 2019 in bills, brexit, news, regulations by sally

‘In this post, I make a preliminary attempt at assessing the provision made in the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill – or WAB – for the scrutiny of the legislative powers which it delegates to the executive. My conclusions are not positive. The scrutiny procedures it seeks to enact are inadequate – so inadequate that it would be a constitutional mistake for Parliament to approve this aspect of the WAB without significant amendment. At the very least (or so I suggest) the Bill ought to be amended to incorporate the so-called “sifting process” developed for equivalent delegated powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (EUWA). Better still, this should be seen as an opportunity to embrace further incremental improvements on that process.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 24th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Court asked to consider if PM’s Brexit delay tactic is lawful – BBC News

Posted October 21st, 2019 in appeals, brexit, constitutional law, delay, news, parliament, Scotland by sally

‘Scotland’s highest court is to consider whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson has fully complied with a law requiring him to ask for a Brexit delay.’

Full Story

BBC News, 21st October 2019

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Government revokes Brexit regulation after judicial review threat – Law Society’s Gazette

‘The government has pledged to not use Henry VIII powers to make Brexit legislation after a public law charity threatened legal action.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 17th October 2019

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

No-Deal Brexit: EU Citizens Could Gain New Appeal Rights – Rights Info

Posted October 16th, 2019 in appeals, bills, brexit, citizenship, freedom of movement, immigration, news by sally

‘EU citizens and their family members could gain the right to appeal decisions on their applications for settled status in the event of a no-deal Brexit.’

Full Story

Rights Info, 15th October 2019

Source: rightsinfo.org

Jeff King: The Prime Minister’s Constitutional Options after the Benn Act: Part II – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘This is the second of a two-part discussion of this theme. The first part addressed the obligations under the Benn Act and the legal response to attempts to frustrate it; this second part addresses non-confidence motions, resignation and change of Government. Heading numbering is continued from Part 1.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 10th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Jeff King: The Prime Minister’s Constitutional Options after the Benn Act: Part I – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘This is the first of a two-part discussion of this theme. This first part addresses the obligations under the Benn Act and the legal response to attempts to frustrate it; the second part will address non-confidence motions, resignation and change of Government.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Finnian Clarke: Habeas Corpus and the Nature of “Nullity” in UK Public Law – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘In the case of The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill – A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland, the Supreme Court briefly directed its focus to its understanding of the nature of “nullity” following a finding of administrative unlawfulness. Its approach surprised some commentators, but in this post I will suggest that, far from being completely novel, the distinctions it appears to draw are familiar within the law of habeas corpus. This comparison will, I suggest, cast light upon the shifting and somewhat complex idea of “nullity” in UK public law.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 8th October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

The UK Supreme Court’s “One Off” Judgment – Oxford Human Rights Hub

‘It was a “one off”. A conclusive determination on a series of seismic constitutional clashes: representative democracy versus direct democracy, the executive versus Parliament, and the role of the Court in the separation of powers. Judges examining the constitution against a seething political background. But the lions emerged from beneath the throne, unanimously, in a judgment that unlocked the doors of Parliament and clearly, soberly reasserted our sovereign legislature.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 9th October 2019

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

The Four Categories of Risk to Rights in the Brexit Process – Oxford Human Rights Hub

Posted October 9th, 2019 in brexit, EC law, human rights, news by sally

‘Writing only weeks before the (re)scheduled date of UK withdrawal from the EU, there seems little of which to be certain: it is still uncertain whether the UK will withdraw on a ‘No-Deal’ basis, or under a Withdrawal Agreement. Whatever the process of withdrawal, however, there should be no doubt that it will have a negative impact on the system of rights protection in the UK. Beyond the immediate loss of rights and remedies which arise directly from EU membership, the legal process of withdrawal has already indicated this negative impact: under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be retained, just as general principles (including recognisably fundamental rights) are retained only where they have been recognised by EU case law but given no right of action or remedy. The 2018 Act also follows similar Brexit legislation in delegating wide legislative power to the executive (unprecedented in scale and scope) to amend or repeal retained EU law. While the cumulative effect of Brexit is as yet near-impossible to fully gauge, the aim of this post is to introduce four categories of risk to the protection of rights posed by the Brexit process.’

Full Story

Oxford Human Rights Hub, 7th October 2019

Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk

Krishan Nadesan: Asking the Impossible: Benn, Kinnock and Extending Article 50 – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Boris Johnson seems caught in an impossible bind. The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act – the Benn Act for short – obliges him to seek an extension of Article 50 on 19 October. He can extend, honour the law, but break his promises. He can refuse to extend, honour his promises, but break the law. Or he can resign. The Benn Act appears to trap the Prime Minister between these unpalatable options. Nevertheless, he may be able to escape. For the Act may ask the impossible.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 1st October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Theodore Konstadinides, Noreen O’Meara and Riccardo Sallustio: The UK Supreme Court’s Judgment in Miller/Cherry: Reflections on Its Context and Implications – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘On 24 September, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Prime Minister’s advice to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, and that the resulting Order in Council and subsequent prorogation were ‘null, void and of no effect’. The litigation on the justiciability of prorogation and the lawfulness of the Prime Ministerial advice has led to one of the most engaging constitutional cases of recent times. As observers at the High Court and Supreme Court hearings, this post considers the context of the ruling, and certain striking implications of the judgment for the current and future Prime Ministers.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 2nd October 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

In Court – Stephen Sedley – London Review of Books

Posted October 2nd, 2019 in brexit, constitutional law, Crown, news, parliament, prorogation by sally

‘For at least four centuries the courts have contested the claims of monarchs to untrammelled authority. ‘The king,’ Chief Justice Coke said in 1611, ‘hath no prerogative but what the law of the land allows him.’ Although the historic settlement of 1688-89, which gave us today’s constitutional monarchy, left in existence a wide swathe of prerogative powers, these have become subject to two governing principles. One is that they cannot be enlarged. The other is that both their constitutional extent and their lawful use are subject to judicial review. If the rule of law is to mean anything, it has to mean this.’

Full Story

London Review of Books, 10th October 2019

Source: www.lrb.co.uk

Ep 95: A Rogue Prorogation – Law Pod UK

‘Emma-Louise Fenelon talks to Jo Moore and Jon Metzer from 1 Crown Office Row about the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry & Ors v Advocate General for Scotland.’

Full Story

Law Pod UK, 27th September 2019

Source: audioboom.com

Banking regulation after Brexit – OUP Blog

Posted October 1st, 2019 in banking, brexit, financial regulation, news by sally

‘It is a truism that Brexit will have a significant impact on banks and the wider financial services industry. The loss of passports by UK firms has received some attention from the non-specialist media, and is relatively well-understood. However, the loss of passports, significant as it is, is just one of many issues. Others have received no or little coverage outside the industry. In this blog, we will touch upon some of them. To do so, we need to step back and consider the very legal nature of a bank.’

Full Story

OUP Blog, 30th September 2019

Source: blog.oup.com

After 10 years, the supreme court is confident in its role – The Guardian

‘Next Tuesday, 1 October, marks the 10th anniversary of the supreme court. Over the past decade, its neo-gothic portico, beneath which lawyers, litigants, protesters and politicians parade, has become an increasingly recognisable feature of national life.’

Full Story

The Guardian, 26th September 2019

Source: www.theguardian.com

Sam Fowles: Cherry/Miller: What’s Next? – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous judgement in Cherry and Others v The Advocate General and Miller v the Prime Minister. The court found that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful and, consequently, null and void. This article aims to identify some of the immediate constitutional and political impacts of that decision.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th September 2019

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Parliament was not prorogued: Michael Zander QC assesses the Supreme Court’s remarkable decision – New Law Journal

‘The decision of the Supreme Court is remarkable for many reasons. One is that it was produced in such a short time. Another, of immense importance, is that it is unanimous. A third is that it rejects the reasoning of the Divisional Court’s unanimous decision given by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President that the issue was not justiciable.’

Full Story

New Law Journal, 24th September 2019

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk