*/
All 11 Supreme Court justices will hear the government’s appeal against the High Court’s Art 50 ruling.
The judgment that the government requires parliamentary approval before triggering Art 50, the formal mechanism to leave the EU, prompted outrage among some sections of the press and politicians.
The judges – the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – were accused by some of attempting to subvert the result of the July referendum and branded ‘Enemies of the People’ (The Daily Mail).
In the wake of the media storm and personal abuse of members of the court, the Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss, came in for strong criticism from the legal profession for failing to speak up to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of the law, as she is statutorily obliged to do.
A Bar Council resolution called on her to condemn the ‘serious and unjustified attacks’ on the judiciary.
On her behalf, the Ministry of Justice issued a statement saying: ‘The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality.’
Former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge told the BBC’s Newsnight programme the statement was ‘too little and not a lot’. Labour’s former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer called on Truss to resign and Justice Committee chair, Bob Neill condemned the attacks on the judiciary.
Sixteen Silks from One Crown Office Row – including former Bar leaders Guy Mansfield QC and Robert Seabrook QC – wrote an open letter to Truss saying they were ‘dismayed’ by her ‘inadequate defence’ of the judges. Other sets may do likewise.
In a speech at the Law Society the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, who represented the government, backed judicial independence and press freedom.
Contrary to reports that Number 10 had briefed against him following the judgment, he insisted he had the Prime Minister’s support and that he would represent the government in the Supreme Court.
He dismissed suggestions that the government had been advised that it will lose its appeal, but said if it did, the government would ‘respect’ the judgment. ‘The rule of law matters more than however big and important an issue may be,’ he said.
The appeal has been listed for four days from 5-8 December. The judgment will be reserved, most likely until the new year.
All 11 Supreme Court justices will hear the government’s appeal against the High Court’s Art 50 ruling.
The judgment that the government requires parliamentary approval before triggering Art 50, the formal mechanism to leave the EU, prompted outrage among some sections of the press and politicians.
The judges – the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – were accused by some of attempting to subvert the result of the July referendum and branded ‘Enemies of the People’ (The Daily Mail).
In the wake of the media storm and personal abuse of members of the court, the Lord Chancellor, Liz Truss, came in for strong criticism from the legal profession for failing to speak up to defend the independence of the judiciary and the rule of the law, as she is statutorily obliged to do.
A Bar Council resolution called on her to condemn the ‘serious and unjustified attacks’ on the judiciary.
On her behalf, the Ministry of Justice issued a statement saying: ‘The independence of the judiciary is the foundation upon which our rule of law is built and our judiciary is rightly respected the world over for its independence and impartiality.’
Former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge told the BBC’s Newsnight programme the statement was ‘too little and not a lot’. Labour’s former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer called on Truss to resign and Justice Committee chair, Bob Neill condemned the attacks on the judiciary.
Sixteen Silks from One Crown Office Row – including former Bar leaders Guy Mansfield QC and Robert Seabrook QC – wrote an open letter to Truss saying they were ‘dismayed’ by her ‘inadequate defence’ of the judges. Other sets may do likewise.
In a speech at the Law Society the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, who represented the government, backed judicial independence and press freedom.
Contrary to reports that Number 10 had briefed against him following the judgment, he insisted he had the Prime Minister’s support and that he would represent the government in the Supreme Court.
He dismissed suggestions that the government had been advised that it will lose its appeal, but said if it did, the government would ‘respect’ the judgment. ‘The rule of law matters more than however big and important an issue may be,’ he said.
The appeal has been listed for four days from 5-8 December. The judgment will be reserved, most likely until the new year.
It’s been a particularly hectic period in both the political sphere and our working lives
Casey Randall explores the benefits of prenatal paternity testing and explains how the test is performed
Philip N Bristow explains how to unlock your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step
Kate West discusses how best to interpret a drug test report, and the common misconceptions about what can be learnt from a drug test
Ashley Hodgkinson looks at drug testing methods and some of the most common ways people try to cheat a drug test
Clerksroom Chambers has recruited Matthew Wildish from 3 Paper Buildings (3PB) to a newly created position of Director of Clerking. Matthew joined the team at Clerksroom on 1 June
How did the international DJ and BBC Radio 1Xtra presenter find his transition to the Criminal Bar? Mark Robinsons secrets of a successful career change and his perception-breaking projects
Barrister, historian, legal biographer it was pure serendipity that the whirlwind silk went into the law and found his niche as a bestselling author, finds David Rhodes
A reminder of whats at stake. By Stephen Akinsanya
Surely diversity of thought at the Bar is a good thing? Why are chambers shoehorning all applicants for pupillage into the same mould? Roxy Lackschewitz-Martin looks at the diagnostic gap and neurodiversity in pupillage applications
Should counsel be allowed to express a personal opinion about their cases in public, when they cannot do so in court? asks Patrick O'Connor QC
