Report comment

All very well Anonymous 20:00 but an objective reading of the High Court judgment shows (a) that the judges were fully aware of the political context of the decision and were at pains to point out that their role was not to enter that arena but simply to decide upon the procedural question that was put to them (and therefore that they were bound to answer one way or the other), and (b) a very careful and balanced analysis of the constitutional and legal issues with a conclusion grounded solidly in that analysis.

A fair reading of the judgment provides no evidence of any tendency to fudge the arguments in order to arrive at a pre-ordained conclusion. The real problem is the passionate feelings on all sides of the Brexit debate, such that, whichever way the judgment went, there would be cries of 'foul' by those who were disappointed by the outcome. Let us see what the Supreme Court has to say when deciding on the appeal. That, for the first time, all 11 SC judges will be participating in the appeal demonstrates the seriousness with which they will approach their task. Yet I regret that, if they uphold the original decision, there will be many who will, as now, lambast the judges for their presumed bias, without bothering to read the judgment and weight the arguments dispassionately. On the other hand, if they overturn the judgment, the same people, with the same lack of thought, will trumpet how this vindicates their accusations of bias against the High Court judges. This will be despite the fact that, again, the SC judgment will be based on another careful and balanced analysis of the constitutional and legal issues involved with, I have no doubt, a tribute to dispassionate way in which the High Court judges dealt with the case at first instance.

This is how British justice works and why the Lord Chancellor (rather late in the day) referred to it as the envy of the world. Sadly, those who dismiss the High Court judgment as a politically motivated pro-EU attempt to halt the exit process will close their minds to any thought that the judges might have been fulfilling their primary duty to administer impartial justice under the law, because it does not fit with their world view.