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'm not sure how that affects the argument. The justification could not, on my view, ignore the *risk* to the ability of Parliament to scrutinise any unexpected matters which may arise during the period. A discussion is here:https://twitter.com/mattberkley/status/1175362236795240449 …
-
-
How can the court be right that the extent to which Parliament was hindered is no more difficult to determine than in routine factual matters? Should the test not be more clearly stated as "significantly hindering the ability of Parliament for scrutiny of whatever may arise"?pic.twitter.com/ZH90faJ4WU
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.