Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

I was never a constitutional lawyer, and cannot judge whether the arguments before the court and its reasoning are questionable. I am grateful to Adam Hodson for providing a link to the judgment itself, which I have read (although I skimmed in places). Overall, the judgment reads coherently and logically. I would particularly recommend paragraphs 25, 30, 32, 93, 94 and 107. It is worth remembering that the whittling or confining of prerogative power was a signal outcome of the Civil Wars, and, in context, the notion that the Government of the day (and of whatever stripe) can overrule Parliament is one to be resisted. Could a Corbyn led Government, in exercise of claimed prerogative powers, disband the armed forces despite the various statutes relating to them, even if disbandment was an election pledge?

As lawyers, we should all consider ourselves fortunate to witness some of the most exciting and important legal peturbations for decades; as voters, we may rue that the political classes have contrived, over the last 18 months or so, to provide such convincing evidence to support the old saw that there is no situation so bad that politicians cannot make it worse. But, as Churchill is said to have observed, the democratic system of government is better than any of the alternatives.

Your details

Cancel