Matt Berkley

I finished reading now. Lots of sleights of hand in the judgment, most notably recasting the case as an entirely normal exercise of judicial functions - a question of law as to the scope of the prerogative; a question of fact as to the effect of the prorogation.

I would also love to know why a 3 week prorogation doesn't impinge upon Parliamentary sovereignty or scrutiny, but a 5 week prorogation does. The Court said it's not looking into motive, but it's implicit throughout the judgment that it is, particularly with da Costa quoted.

I agree (and tried to say so).

Where in the judgment or elsewhere are you basing that argument?

I think the question of justification necessarily blurs the effect/motive distinction.

But examining the *reasons* as part of examining the effects isn't the same as examining the motive. The former approach doesn't seek to establish "why he really did it", only whether the reasons offered amount to a reasonable justification.

That's true. But it's more than simply a question of fact.

It is a fact - and foreseeable - that Parl is prevented from scrutinising whatever may arise during the period. Perhaps the judgement's not requiring "reasonableness" to include the unpredictability of politics is a significant defect. https://twitter.com/mattberkley/status/1176416640432574464 … @adamwagner1