this bit seems to be the nub of the issue:
"...in instances where there is no “boundary” prohibition, a concrete and completed act of government having legal effects and consequences is an essential pre-requisite to the invocation of the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court"
I suspect we'd be seeing different outcomes if they had prorogued over the actual exit date, but given that they have given Parliament plenty of time before and after in order to do something about it, the practical effect of the prorogation seems to be relatively trivial.
Posted By: CWC on September 12th 2019 at 14:07:17
Message Thread
- McCLoskey LJ ... NI pronounces ... (General Chat) - paulg, Sep 12, 13:04:24
- this bit seems to be the nub of the issue: (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 12, 14:07:17
- I'm not sure that would make any difference (General Chat) - paulg, Sep 12, 14:36:04
- but that's where they seem to be neatly ducking a question (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 12, 15:10:38
- maybe at no point does it become justiciable (General Chat) - paulg, Sep 12, 15:28:44
- but that's where they seem to be neatly ducking a question (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 12, 15:10:38
- I'm not sure that would make any difference (General Chat) - paulg, Sep 12, 14:36:04
- this bit seems to be the nub of the issue: (General Chat) - CWC, Sep 12, 14:07:17
Reply to Message
In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.
If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.