I'm not sure that would make any difference

I think it's the (essentially political) nature of prorogation that's important.

Isn't he referring to the same point made by Lord Keith in Gibson, which he cites - "The making of decisions upon what must essentially be a political matter is no part of the function of the court and it is highly undesirable that it should be. The function of the court is to adjudicate upon the particular rights and obligations of individual persons, natural or corporate, in relation to other persons or, in certain instances, in the State"

And that is one reason why prorogation is not justiciable - it has, in itself, no legal effect or consequence for any person?

Posted By: paulg, Sep 12, 14:36:04