Editor Brian Harrod Provides Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, with aggregated news from sources all over the world from the Roundup Newswires Network
Ruling that ex-Sinn Féin leader was unlawfully detained in 1970s prompts call for other Troubles-era cases to be scrutinised
The legality of every internment during the Troubles will have to be scrutinised, the former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has urged, after his convictions for escaping from the Maze prison were quashed by the supreme court.
The unanimous decision of the UK’s highest court is likely to affect scores of claims from republicans and loyalists who are challenging their detention without trial during the 1970s.
Supreme court says UK broke law because it did not get assurance that men would not face death penalty
The government’s decision to cooperate with US authorities over the prosecution of two alleged Islamic State executioners without assurances that they would not face the death penalty was unlawful, the supreme court has ruled.
In a unanimous judgment that will have repercussions for US-UK relations, the court’s seven justices said the home secretary’s agreement to provide evidence about El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey breached data protection rules.
The ‘Beyoncé of the law’, who put a stop to Boris Johnson’s parliamentary suspension, talks equality, ego and spider brooches
In a year not short on drama, it was one of the great moments of 2019. After the Queen agreed to prorogue parliament for five weeks at Boris Johnson’s request, and after the English and Scottish courts could not agree whether the suspension was lawful, in September it was left to the supreme court to resolve the issue. And over the days of deliberation that followed, Brenda Hale came into her own. On 24 September, she announced the court’s blistering judgment: “The prime minister’s advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect… The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued.” Her tone was emphatic, delivered in an austere black dress with a huge silver spider brooch crawling up her right shoulder. The ruling delivered the ultimate slap down for Johnson; there was even talk that the prime minister might have to resign. MPs returned to work the following day.
For many outside the law, it was the first we had seen of Brenda Marjorie Hale, but already she had decades of experience as a glass-ceiling smasher. In 2004, she was made Britain’s first female law lord. In 2009, she became the first woman to serve on the UK’s new supreme court; in 2017, she became its first woman president. Already dubbed “the Beyoncé of the legal world”, after the prorogation ruling Baroness Hale of Richmond became a household name – a septuagenarian rock star. There were calls for the spider brooch to be given its own Twitter account, and fans could buy spider-brooch T-shirts and an illustrated children’s book celebrating Hale’s journey from Yorkshire schoolgirl to head of the UK’s highest court.
Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including the final day of the supreme court hearing to determine if Boris Johnson’s five-week suspension of parliament was lawful
From Joshua Rozenberg, the legal commentator
It looks as if Lady Hale hopes to produce a reasonably complete judgment over the weekend representing the view of the court — or of a majority if they are split. Individual sections could be written by different justices. Much better than a bald decision with reasons to follow.
Joanna Cherry says she would like the court to be as clear as possible about what should happen next if it finds against the government. She said parliament should sit again as soon as possible.
At the moment parliament is not due to reconvene until three weeks on Monday, 14 October.
Scottish lawyer at prorogation hearing says Johnson government has proved itself unworthy of trust
Boris Johnson’s government is unworthy of trust because it conspired to ensure that “the mother of parliaments” was closed down by “the father of lies”, the supreme court was told in an impassioned speech by a Scottish advocate.
In combative closing comments, Aidan O’Neill QC called on the 11 justices hearing the prorogation case to reject legal arguments advanced by the government that the courts do not have the power to intervene in the decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks.
Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including day two of the supreme court hearing to decide if Boris Johnson’s five-week suspension of parliament was lawful
Eadie says even Lord Pannick, who represents Gina Miller, accepts that it can be legitimate for the executive to obtain political advantage from prorogation.
If this is the case, how can a court decide what level of political advantage is acceptable, and what level is not.
Prorogation has been used by the government to gain a legislative and so political advantage. One of the most notable examples of that was its use to facilitate the speedy passage of what became the Parliament Act 1949. Under section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 a non-money bill could only be enacted without the consent of the House of Lords if it was passed in three successive sessions by the House of Commons. In order to procure the speedy enactment of the 1949 Act the government arranged for a session of minimal length in 1948. Parliament was prorogued on 13 September 1948 to the following day. Following the passage of the parliament bill by the House of Commons, it was then prorogued again on 25 October 1948. Accordingly, even if the prorogation under consideration in the present case was, as the claimant and the interveners contend, designed to advance the government’s political agenda regarding withdrawal from the European Union rather than preparations for the Queen’s speech, that is not territory in which a court can enter with judicial review.
This is from the FT’s legal commentator, David Allen Green.
Interesting that there is now not even any lip-service at the Supreme Court that the prorogation was for a new Queen's Speech
Government submissions seem to be that the prorogation power stands, whatever its purpose and effect
Villagers say mine run by subsidiary of UK-based firm has caused illness and deaths
Two thousand Zambian villagers who say their lives have been ruined by toxic runoff from the world’s second-largest opencast mine have won the right to pursue a claim through the English courts.
In a landmark judgment, the supreme court ruled that the mining conglomerate Vedanta Resources, which is based in London, and its Zambian subsidiary Konkola Copper Mines (KCM) can be held to account by English judges, despite the companies’ arguments that they should defend themselves in Zambia.