Good Law Project Limited

Before i get into the rest of your post, what you are claiming i disagree with? I've asked you for evidence to support your point - you've supplied none.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Before i get into the rest of your post, what you are claiming i disagree with? I've asked you for evidence to support your point - you've supplied none.

Around and around and around you continually go.....

I take back my last paragraph from my previous post - you've clearly learned absolutely nothing.

For the fifth time, i've made no comment on how the system works. So spell it out for me - what are you claiming i disagree with?

I think it's pretty obvious from that statement you don't understand the point being spelt out to you (from numerous impartial experts).

T.R.O.Y. wrote:For the fifth time, i've made no comment on how the system works. So spell it out for me - what are you claiming i disagree with?

I think it's pretty obvious from that statement you don't understand the point being spelt out to you (from numerous impartial experts).

And for the fifth time -

1 - You asked for quotes from bodies equally or more influential than the Law Society's views (as represented by its Chairs comment) that JR's are being abused to conduct politics by another means.

2 - I told you that the Law Society represents solicitors but it is barristers and judges are the ones who are involved with the actual JR's

3 - I further told you that they (barristers and judges) don't speak to the press to air their views, they do that through the system - so there aren't any impartial experts comments from the barristers or the judges in the wider public domain to refute the comment by one woman, speaking on behalf of solicitors who all aren't directly involved at JR's in any case!

4 - You found (or more likely have been pointed in the direction of) two links emanating from due process from withing the system, one from the Bar Council in response to IRAL and one from Lord Reed to the House of Lords Constitutional Committee

5 - In respect of the Bar Council the quote you attributed to them was taken completely out of the context is was given.  The reply they actually gave in respect of the perceived view of the abuse of JR's to conduct politics by another means was a non- answer in that they didn't (seemingly knowingly and deliberately) give a directly reply to it.

6 - Lord Reed's view on the matter were refuted universally in the comments section of the article.  As the article was contained in the Law Gazette it is reasonable to assume that most if not all of the those responding have direct involvement with JR.

All the above and the discussion leading up to this point are easy to grasp and understand and your continued failure to do so means that you are either stupid or deliberately wanting to argue ad nauseum (which after all is your modus operandi) just for the sake of it.

I don't consider you to be stupid - ignorant in many respects - but not stupid.

You know full well what you are doing - and so do I.

Actually all three links I posted were taken from an article published on parliament's website: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/judicial-review-time-for-change/ positioned in answer to the question - "What has been the reaction to the Government’s plans?".

You still undermine the evidence I've given you as 'one woman' - this is a lie. 

The Law Soceity produced a consultative response, the Bar Council's official response rejected any conflict (you incomprenesibly claim this has been your view all along  ) and Lord Reed (a judge and president of the Supreme Court) is clearly not 'one woman'.

I think your dismissal of Lord Reed is my favourite Sluffy response of all time though. 

While completely disregarding his comments, you instead give credence to the anonymous comments section - who must all be part of the judiciary (?!) - next time Evatt's in the Bolton News Ill skim straight through to the comments where the first team post anonymously - absolutely fantastic stuff  .

Right, I'm off out for the day, look forward to catching up on your next installment this evening though - by the way, I've heard the US Supreme Court justices frequent your local papers comments section every Saturday, might be worth checking in with them for some advice.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Actually all three links I posted were taken from an article published on parliament's website: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/judicial-review-time-for-change/ positioned in answer to the question - "What has been the reaction to the Government’s plans?".

You still undermine the evidence I've given you as 'one woman' - this is a lie. 

The Law Soceity produced a consultative response, the Bar Council's official response rejected any conflict (you incomprenesibly claim this has been your view all along  ) and Lord Reed (a judge and president of the Supreme Court) is clearly not 'one woman'.

I think your dismissal of Lord Reed is my favourite Sluffy response of all time though. 

While completely disregarding his comments, you instead give credence to the anonymous comments section - who must all be part of the judiciary (?!) - next time Evatt's in the Bolton News Ill skim straight through to the comments where the first team post anonymously - absolutely fantastic stuff  .

Right, I'm off out for the day, look forward to catching up on your next installment this evening though - by the way, I've heard the US Supreme Court justices frequent your local papers comments section every Saturday, might be worth checking in with them for some advice.

Hahaha - you are so funny!!!

As if you knew all about the House of Lords Library - of course you did!!!

You haven't a clue how the system works as clearly evidenced by what you've said over the last year or two on Nuts!

Take note thought that I've edited your post above to remove the name of the local paper.  I've asked you once before not to identify any personal details about me.  There really is no need to do so and strictly against the sites rules - what few we have.

I refer you to the comments (Note NOT evidence) of Stephanie Boyce, president of the Law Society in the BBC article of the 21st July.

These are NOT the same as was said in the Law Society's reply to IRAL on the 26th October 2020 which you since linked to (from the Hose of Lords Library).

Her comments (not evidence as you claim) seem to be expressed as her own personal opinion and not those of the Law Society - hence why I've expressed it as 'one woman's opinion' - and thus I am telling no lie - as you claim I did.

I'm happy to cede that what she states IS the official position of the Law Society if you would kindly show evidence to that effect but I don't believe the Law Society has made such a declaration.

The Bar Council DID NOT reject the question as to JR's being "abused to conduct politics by another means..." but merely considered that this should not effect the totality of what JR's about in the part quote you gave.

Let me try to be a bit more clearer.

The part bit you quoted was taken from paragraph 7 of their reply.

I quoted the full reply to show you what they were actually in support of, which is how JR's run prior to the perceived abuse to conduct politics by another means.

They gave their reply to that in the following two paragraphs in which they basically say (in my words) don't lose the good of JR's (as listed in their paragraph 7 - and fwiw I've always agreed with and have said so on here in the past) by overreacting to the perceived abuse of it by some to "conduct politics by other means".

9. The Bar Council regards this criticism as misplaced. Miller 2 was a highly
unusual case. The Bar Council does not consider that the controversy the decision
created should have any implications for the more routine, but constitutionally vital,
exercise of judicial review with which the bulk of this response is concerned.

As for Lord Reed and the Law Society Gazette article, I can't disprove there wasn't idiots disagreeing with his views but I sincerely doubt that they were of the moronic nature as you find in the Bolton News or my local rag and that as the Gazette is subscription only that it is reasonable to assume the contributors really are part of the legal profession.

I didn't comment on Lord Reed's opinion because who am I to say that he is wrong.

I'll leave that for Parliament to decide what the future law will be - which is how the system works.

By the way I never referred to him as 'one woman' - I don't know why you think I did???

Enjoy your day out and stay safe.

My daughter has left London early for Christmas because Omnicom is running rampant in the Borough where she lives.

Hopefully the worst of it in London will be over by the time she returns.

Sluffy wrote:I didn't comment on Lord Reed's opinion because who am I to say that he is wrong.

Ok, got there in the end. Lets look again at what Lord Reed said:

'Judges are very well aware of the risk of challenges being brought in what are political rather than legal grounds. They are repelling them and are careful to avoid straying into what are genuine political matters.'

Essentially: the system is already setup to protect against abuse and Reed feels judges are already doing their job in 'repelling cases' which are not on solid legal ground.

On the Bar Council, see sections 41/42 - 41 sets out the figures of JR's: how many have been raised and how many were given permission to proceed - section 42 gives the BC's conclusions based on those figures:

In the view of the Bar Council, the figures set out above in relation to cases in
the Administrative Court and in the UT suggest that the system is functioning as would be hoped:

a. It is clear that only cases that are properly arguable are reaching a
substantive hearing;
b. It does not appear that cases which lack merit are being permitted to
proceed; such cases are appropriately caught by the filter mechanism;
c. The proportion of cases which are granted permission at the oral
renewal stage, both in the Administrative Court and in the UT, clearly
demonstrates that this stage is a necessary safeguard;
d. These figures do not suggest any pattern of abuse. Insofar as abusive
conduct is found to exist, the Bar Council’s position (addressed
elsewhere in this response) is that this can be, and is, addressed robustly by the court and UT, and that existing powers are sufficient in this
regard (see paragraphs 56 and 57 below).

Now, Law Society:

We do not believe that there is a need for fundamental reform of judicial review. The evidence shows that it is working well and achieving its purpose.

You claim the system is being abused, and have provided the government and the Law Gazette's comments section to support for that claim. Had any other poster given such a flimsy response you'd be the first to shut it down. It's time to stop clutching at straws now.



Finally, this comment -

Sluffy wrote:As if you knew all about the House of Lords Library - of course you did!!!

I've never claimed to be a regular on the House of Lords Library, I research topics i have a view on and it came up. I'm not really sure what you're getting at to be honest.

Ok we got there in the end - hahaha - you're quickly becoming my favourite comedian on here!

Look, you say you research topics that interest you - fair play to you for that - certainly much more than many people do.

The more pertinent matter in research though is do you fully understand what you've found?

Let us start at the point when was it generally considered the 'abuse' of the JR system (abuse in terms of using JR's to conduct politics by other means) first started - I would suggest it is generally accepted to have commenced from the prorogation of Parliament decision made by non other than Lord Reed and his Supreme Court colleagues on 24th September 2019 - yes?

Ok, well let us then turn to the matter of the Bar Council's stats on JR's which gives details from the 3rd Quarter of 2013/14 to the end of the financial year 2019/20 - and their comments that flow from them.

See where I'm going with this - no?

The end of the governments financial year is the beginning of April - the first perceived 'abuse' happened in September 2019 - September 19 to the beginning of April 20 is only six months.

Simply put the perceived abuse of the system hadn't really even begun to take place in the period that the Bar Councils stats covered!

What they (the Bar Coucil) are in fact talking of 'abuse' is not abuse in terms of conducting politics by other means - but abuse in another sense entirely.

Did you read paragraphs 56 and 57 that you went to the trouble of even highlighting in your post above?

I did.

If you had read those paragraphs you will see the abuse the Bar Council is referring to are such things as conduct, representatives who behave improperly, unreasonably or negligently, the prevalence of abusive last minute judicial review claims and the disruption they cause.

Yes the Bar Council does have powers that are sufficient in those regards - but we aren't talking about those regards - we are talking about 'abuse' in terms of 'conducting politics by other means'

About the Independent Review of Administrative Law

The IRAL was established following the Government’s manifesto commitment to guarantee that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.

To put it bluntly my friend you are on the wrong horse entirely!

What the Bar Council talked about is NOT what WE are talking about.

And to rub salt into your wounds, I've previously told you where exactly the Bar Council DID reply to the question of abuse by politics by another means - paragraphs 8 and 9!!!

Ok lets go back to Lord Reed.

His meeting with the House of Lords Constitution Committee took place at the start of March 2020 - or in other words just 5 months from the prorogue ruling.

The 'abuse' of the JR system of 'politics by another means' had not really started by then - so you have to take his comments in the context of how he saw things at that time.

Nearly two years on he may now hold a different view?

As for the Law Society, I note you have moved away from their Chairs personal comments and instead to their reply to IRAL - at least you are on sounder ground here!

However two things, the first is just like the Bar Council's response, they are basing their views on JR's on what was the norm at the time - ie before the growth of the perceived abuse of politics by other means, and secondly what they say in their very next paragraph after the one you highlighted namely -

"Apart from in one practice area, statistics show that the number of judicial reviews is declining".

I suspect that isn't the case over the last two years - certain Maughan's seems to be claiming to launch a new JR review daily!!!

Anyway, again fair play to you doing research - just a pity you didn't understand what it all meant!

Sluffy wrote:

The end of the governments financial year is the beginning of April - the first perceived 'abuse' happened in September 2019 - September 19 to the beginning of April 20 is only six months.

Let me get this straight, having specifically named this bill as being in response to abusing the system, you're now saying this bill doesn't cover the abuse you meant?

Don't forget, the entire premise of your argument is that the systems being abused and the proof of that (according to you) is the gov pushing through amendments to address this.

If not this bill, then what are you talking about?

Sluffy wrote:What they are in fact talking of 'abuse' is not abuse in terms of conducting politics by other means - but abuse in another sense.

Did you read paragraphs 56 and 57 that you went to the trouble of even highlighting in your post above?

I did.

If you had read those paragraphs you will see the abuse the Bar Council is referring to are such things as conduct, representatives who behave improperly, unreasonably or negligently, the prevalence of abusive last minute judicial review claims and the disruption they cause.

Yes the Bar Council does have powers that are sufficient in those regards - but we aren't talking about those regards - we are talking about 'abuse' in terms of 'conducting politics by other means'

You're conflating two separate points (deliberately i suspect). I did read sections 56 and 57, they merely distinguish between unmeritous and abusive - you are the one that claims time is being wasted with 'abusive' claims - BC would term these as unmeritous.

So your definitions seem to be incorrect, fortunately for you i understood what you meant.

Anyway, section 58 summarises:

58. In short, it is the view of the Bar Council that the mechanisms which exist, from preventing unmeritorious claims from proceeding past the permission stage, at one end of the spectrum, to dealing firmly and proactively with abusive claims at the other, are fit for purpose.


Whether unmeritous or abusive the view remains that the existing mechanisms are sufficient.

Law Society, i gave you this view back in post 59 - you clearly ignored it and carried on with the lie it was one woman's view.

I'd suggest dropping attempts to patronise and focus on really understanding the detail before posting again - or even better find an impartial expert supporting your view.

Oh dear...!

You're embarrassing yourself now, you really are.

You simply don't understand what is going on, nor even my simplified explanations to you to help you to understand what is going on!

I'll try and simplify even further Janet and John style.

The government perceives JR's are being 'abused' in TWO ways - the first and longer standing way is, for example, where cases are deliberately brought before JR's such as at the last possible minute in order to prevent and deliberately create a temporary 'stay' and delay in people being expelled from the country and the second and more recently, abuse by politics by another means.

Look at what IRAL actual says...

About the Independent Review of Administrative Law

The IRAL was established following the Government’s manifesto commitment to guarantee that judicial review is available to protect the rights of the individuals against an overbearing state, while ensuring that it is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.

The Bar Council and Law Society fed into IRAL and stated how the system was working to prevent such abuse BUT abuse by 'politics by another means' simply hadn't taken off by then.

Yes there was the prorogue case but few if any other applications for JR in terms of 'politics by another means' had progressed through the system by that time - there simply wasn't the time to have done so.

The Bar Council stated their views at the time that the JR system was sufficient to deal with the ACTUAL abuse it was facing - as outlined in paragraph's 56 and 57 of their submission and which stated in paragraph 58 that there was no problem or need to reform on THAT basis.

Similarly Lord Reed and also the Law Society stated the same.

What none of them could possibly take into account was the second element being asked of them namely 'conducting politics by another means' because there had only been one case up to that time and clearly Lord Reed believed he had dealt with it correctly - as he was one who gave the ruling.

The Bar Council addressed this issue NOT in paragraphs 56,57 or 58 but in paragraphs 8 and 9.

Let us take a step back for the moment.

There was NO perception of JR's being abused by 'conducting politics by another means' UNTIL the prorogue verdict.  There were no other JR's up to the question asked by IRAL that had even reached a JR determination, so why had it become an issue in the executives mind?

Well all this flows from the Conservative manifesto of 2019.

Conservative Party manifesto 2019: 13 key policies explained

13. Launch a democracy commission

It will look into the constitutional power balance.



The Supreme Court's ruling in September - that Boris Johnson's advice to the Queen to prorogue (suspend) Parliament was unlawful - was the latest and most dramatic example of judicial review. There is now almost no area of government decision-making that cannot be subject to scrutiny by judges.

Some feel it has pulled the judiciary too far into areas of political decision-making. The Conservatives' proposed "constitution, democracy and rights" commission is intended to look afresh at the constitutional power balance between the three great institutions of state, the executive (government and crown), Parliament and the judiciary.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50524262

So moving forwards again the ACTUAL quote you keep trying to wave in my face from the Bar Council to IRAL is in response to the part of the question to the perceived 'abuse' from needless delays and that they really couldn't give any answer to the 'perceived' abuse from 'government by another means' other than what they stated separately in their paragraphs 8 and 9 where they said more or less that the Supreme Court verdict tread a fine line but got it right - what else could they (or anyone else) say based on just the one case?

As far as I can determine from the Law Society submission they only responded in respect of the 'needless delays' 'abuse' aspect of the question.

I'm not criticising anything the Bar Council or Law Society have said in respect of JR's being able to deal with abuse from 'needless delays' (these I remind you again are the quotes you keep clinging too) but neither of them could possibly answer how JR's deal with 'abuse' from 'conducting politics by another means' because up to that time apart from the prorogue ruling it hadn't been 'perceived' that it had ever happened before!

I suggest you look again at the BBC's analysis I posted above and note (irrespective of what views you hold) that this is all about the constitution and this would now (and does) effect whichever party forms the government from the prorogue ruling onwards and thus it is in the interests of Labour (and any other political party hoping to form a government, or be part of one) to get the balance right as well - it's not just as simple as Boris trying to get his own back.

Again -

The entire premise of your argument is that the systems being abused and the proof of that (according to you) is the gov pushing through amendments to address this.

If not this bill, then which one are you talking about?

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Again -

The entire premise of your argument is that the systems being abused and the proof of that (according to you) is the gov pushing through amendments to address this.

If not this bill, then which one are you talking about?

You haven't understood a single thing...

We are talking about this Bill.

The fact that you can't even understand that shows how pathetically weak to nonexistent is your understanding of what all this is about.

The issue was that the prorogue verdict was seen to have been overreach by the judiciary and and directly effected the constitutional balance between the executive (the government) and Parliament with the judiciary.

The decision has now opened the door for anyone and everyone to challenge the government through use of JR on every single political decision they don't like - see Maughan.

The government simply want to reset to how the balance was before the prorogue ruling.

The balance WAS that the executive and parliament 'conducts' politics which results in legislation being formed and the judiciary makes judgements on those in accordance with those laws.

The prorogue judgement is seen to be the judiciary crossing that threshold and entering into the arena between the executive and Parliament - or in other words taking on the mantle to be able to judge, regulate and "conduct politics by another means".

Some definitions -

Politics
noun

1. The activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power.

Conduct
noun

2. The manner in which an organisation or activity is managed or directed.


It was never seen that the judiciary had the right to judge on the politics behind the formulation on the law voted on by Parliament - or at least it wasn't before prorogue which set a precedent.

Fwiw the High Court actually ruled that the judiciary COULD NOT rule whether or not the prorogue was legal on the basis that...

In the first place, alongside the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the
separation of powers, reflecting the different constitutional areas of
responsibility of the courts, the Executive and Parliament, is also a fundamental
principle of our unwritten constitution. As we have said earlier, the line of
separation is set by the courts in the present context by reference to whether the
issue is one of “high policy” or “political” or both. In the circumstances and on
the facts of the present case the decision was political for the reasons we have
given.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Miller-No-FINAL-1.pdf

The Supreme Court in which Lord Reed was a part of overruled the High Court and said the judiciary could - and did.

These are what the experts considered the rights and wrongs of this change in the constitutional balance -

The judgment is significant for its treatment of the principle of justiciability, its interpretation of elements of the British constitution, and its potential implications for the separation of powers. In a Financial Times article published the day after the judgment, Catherine Barnard, a professor of European law at the University of Cambridge, called it "a judgment of huge importance with major implications for our system of government" in which the court set down a ruling to stop constitutional players "who don't play by the rules". Constitutional historian Vernon Bogdanor, professor at King's College, London said that the judgment reaffirmed parliamentary sovereignty.[33] Cambridge professor Mark Elliott, former legal adviser to the House of Lords' Constitution Committee, described the judgment as both "an orthodox application of constitutional principle" and a legal landmark for transforming the principle of parliamentary sovereignty into "hard and novel limits on executive authority".[34] By contrast, Richard Ekins, an associate professor of law at the University of Oxford, called it "a startling judgment" that was "badly mistaken" and that the court showed "a clear loss of faith in the political process" when it ruled in an area that he and many other lawyers previously thought it did not have jurisdiction to do so.[33] In the same vein, John Finnis, professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy at the University of Oxford, considered that the Supreme Court had "forayed" into politics, calling the judgment "a historic mistake" and "a misuse of judicial power". According to Finnis, prorogation is ruled by conventions, not by justiciable law, therefore the matters of prorogation have to be dealt with by Parliament itself and the court has no say in them.[35]

Richard Ekins, the Head of Policy Exchange's Judicial Power Project and a Professor of Law in the University of Oxford, without commenting on whether the procedure of prorogation should be reformed, argued that the ruling constituted lasting constitutional damage and violated Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689: "The Court's intervention is likely to do lasting damage to the political constitution and was neither justified nor permitted by the law that it was the Court's duty to uphold."[36]

The speakers of both the House of Lords and House of Commons stated the ruling had quashed royal assent of the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019—which had royal assent signified during the prorogation ceremony—and therefore royal assent had to be re-signified.[37] Yuan Yi Zhu, a Stipendiary Lecturer in Politics at Pembroke College, Oxford, argued that this was a misunderstanding by parliamentary authorities due to ambiguity in the judgment, ironically implicating the sovereignty of Parliament contrary to Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the enrolled bill rule; Zhu suggested a short bill should be passed to "reassert Parliamentary sovereignty and minimise the risk of its erosion" by the judiciary.[38]

In evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Junade Ali—editor of A Federal Constitution for a Federal Britain, in which former Labour MP Graham Allen and high-profile republican campaigner Stephen Haseler argued for codification of prerogative powers—argued that as a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the executive was unable to dissolve Parliament and thus resorted to prorogation. He noted there was an apparent misconception about the composition of Parliament: "It is fundamental within the precepts of the principles of Parliamentary Sovereignty that a chamber of the legislature is not sovereign, it is instead the Queen-in-Parliament which is sovereign."[39] Ali reiterated an argument he made before the judgment in the Oxford University Political Blog that in lieu of dissolution and prorogation, future prime ministers may ask the sovereign to refuse royal assent to any bill until the House of Commons agreed to call an early general election, which he argued would likely cause far greater public outrage than prorogation. Ali invoked an A. V. Dicey argument that—where Parliament is sovereign—dissolution is necessary both for security and harmony between the government and Parliament, and concluded that: "Paradoxically, in its quest to control its own destiny, the House of Commons might achieve the opposite."[40]

Robert Blackburn, a Professor of Constitutional Law, King’s College London, argued in a different submission to the same committee that repeal or reform of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 would potentially provide a convenient opportunity for prorogation to become subject to a vote in both Houses of Parliament on a motion moved by the government – but did not consider the potential impact on the prerogative power of royal assent.[41] Robert Craig of the University of Bristol also argued that powers in the British constitution are fused, and that "the FtPA has upset this delicate balance". Craig argued the Act should accordingly be repealed and replaced, and argued against legislation to make norms in the parliamentary system more rigid by comparing such attempts to "trying to pop a balloon half way."[42]

The Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019 received royal assent on 31 October 2019 in order to sidestep the need for a two-thirds majority for an early parliamentary general election. In the 2019 United Kingdom general election, the Conservative party won an overall majority. The Conservative election manifesto contained a pledge to reform judicial review such that it "is not abused to conduct politics by another means". The Queen's Speech after the election also announced the government's intention to uphold their manifesto commitment to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.[43]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland


Putting to one side the rights or wrongs of the Supreme Courts ruling it has now set a legal precedence that has changed the balance of constitutional powers between the executive, Parliament and the judiciary.

This precedent has opened the door from then on for anyone of any political persuasion to challenge through the judiciary's Judicial Reviews any political decisions made by the government of the day.

This is a big, big thing and as the phrase says leads to 'conduct politics by other means' - or in other words the ultimate power has now moved away from the executive and Parliament constitutional right to do so to the judiciary.

That's what all this is about.

Exactly, it comes back to precedent - the government claim prorogation showed the 2 abuses you mention and i'm giving you examples of impartial legal experts who are saying otherwise.

The government might want to reset the balance, but so far you've found no experts who support their view this has happened - that's the point im trying to get across to you.



Here's Reeds view on the government's manifesto:

At the last General Election, the Conservative manifesto stated that “judicial review is not, and should not be regarded as, politics by another means”. I entirely agree. The statement in the manifesto was a direct quotation from judgments given in 2019 by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal, in which they dismissed challenges which were considered to be political rather than legal.

Judges are well aware of this risk, and avoid straying into matters that are political and not legal.

And paragraphs 8 and 9 from BC which explicitly reject the suggestion the judiciary overstepped the mark.

8. Paragraph 2 of the Terms of Reference asks whether the legal principle of nonjusticiability requires clarification. This question is no doubt related to the view expressed in political circles that the judges have been guilty of judicial over-reach in the exercise of this jurisdiction; that is to say that they have been guilty of trespassing into policy matters which should be the sole preserve of politicians.

9. The Bar Council regards this criticism as misplaced. Miller 2 was a highly unusual case. The Bar Council does not consider that the controversy the decision created should have any implications for the more routine, but constitutionally vital, exercise of judicial review with which the bulk of this response is concerned. Moreover, and fundamentally, examination of the judgment shows that the members of a unanimous Supreme Court were acutely aware that they were exercising a judicial, not political role and the judgment is a compelling example of a piece of close legal reasoning. Precise demarcation of the limits of the role of the court is impossible in our unwritten constitution; the exercise of the jurisdiction in the particular circumstances of the prorogation does not evidence judicial over-reach.

Wouldn't you guys like to try a bit of table tennis for a change?

Exactly the point - hahaha - you're so funny.

It's been ME telling YOU all along that this matter was about the constitution not the other way around!!!!

As for Lord Reed's opinion to IRAL what did you expect his opinion to be other than what his views were when he was one of the judiciary who ruled that the prorogue was illegal and thus created this whole constitutional issue in the first place???

And you've got one hell of a nerve telling ME about the  Bar Council's response considering YOU have been constantly and repeatedly telling me it was contained in paragraphs 56,57 and 58 DESPITE ME TELLING you that you were WRONG and their reply was contained in paragraphs 8 and 9!!!

Sluffy wrote:The Bar Council addressed this issue NOT in paragraphs 56,57 or 58 but in paragraphs 8 and 9.

...and also having preempted your post above on it

Sluffy wrote:So moving forwards again the ACTUAL quote you keep trying to wave in my face from the Bar Council to IRAL is in response to the part of the question to the perceived 'abuse' from needless delays and that they really couldn't give any answer to the 'perceived' abuse from 'government by another means' other than what they stated separately in their paragraphs 8 and 9 where they said more or less that the Supreme Court verdict tread a fine line but got it right - what else could they (or anyone else) say based on just the one case?

Mate I enjoy a good argument but I'm afraid I've lost all respect for you now - not that I expect you to care a toss - as you clearly have consistently not understood what all this was about from the very beginning, totally misunderstood and misconstrued the facts and details of what you've found in your research and now have the balls to make out that you knew all along what you were talking about.

If you really want independent experts on this matter - and you've been banging on about it all this time - and even in your latest post! - then you should be looking at constitutional experts - for after all this is about the constitutional balance between the relationship of the executive and Parliament with the judiciary.

Again it shows your complete lack of grasp and understanding that members and bodies of the judiciary can't be independent per se, simply because they are part of and directly involved themselves in the constitutional questions arising from their judgement.

The quotes and references I posted above previously flowing from the constitutional issues arising from Miller2 are the basis of independent expert debate and clearly NOT from the judiciary itself particularly from judge who made the ruling in the first place...!

I mean how the fuck do you consider that independent of the issue???

Yet you clearly do!!!

I mean it is so laughably naive and stupid of you to even think it is!

I've had enough my patience has finally run out with you.

If the Bill progress through Parliament it will be voted on and made Law.

That's how the constitution works and even Lord Reed, the Bar Council and the rest of the judiciary will happily accept the outcome even if you may not.

Toodle-oo

Sluffy, the experts you've quoted have been - the government (?!) and the comments section of the Law Gazette. There's not a soul on earth who think their views are of more value than the President of the Supreme Court, the Law Society and the Bar Council.

The fact you're resorting to insults and having a strop only show you've ran out of road on this one. Next time give it some thought and research before jumping in with both feet.

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Sluffy, the experts you've quoted have been - the government (?!) and the comments section of the Law Gazette. There's not a soul on earth who think their views are of more value than the President of the Supreme Court, the Law Society and the Bar Council.

The fact you're resorting to insults and having a strop only show you've ran out of road on this one. Next time give it some thought and research before jumping in with both feet.

Yawn!

The issue is constitutional - I don't think even YOU are so stupid as to say otherwise.

The constitution consists of the executive, Parliament and the judiciary.

The judiciary can't be viewed as being independent per se if they have a say the matter as such, can they?

The matter will be discussed and determined by Parliament during the progress of the Bill through it (no doubt Lord Reed may have his say during its passage through the Lords).

IF the bill makes it to a vote in Parliament and the vote is carried it will turn into legislation and Lord Reed, the Bar Council and the rest of the judiciary will happily abide by it.

If the Bill falls at any stage the status quo as it is now will remain.

I've known all this from the outset.

It is clear you haven't - and I'm not even sure you've fully 'got it' even now?

I've repeatedly tried to explain that this is all about the constitution and you've repeatedly failed to grasp that probably because you seem to view such things from your personal political standpoint point (Tory party gagging the courts or some such) rather than the constitutional issue that it is - and which effects ALL political parties following from Miller 2.

As the saying goes, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink.

I've happily passed away my time trying to better inform you as to this issue being far wider than party politic games or vendettas or whatever you may have believed it was all about.

I can't make you believe or understand what I've been informing you of though.

You can believe you've been right all along, or that it's all been a big game to you in pulling my chain, or you can simply reject all I've said as the ranting of a mad man - it really doesn't matter to me - honestly it doesn't.

What your beliefs or motives are, are up to you, I've simply had a bit of fun using up some of my considerable free time imparting what I know on here.

The fun has ended when it became quite clear to me that you were becoming somewhat duplicitous and lacking sincerity in your latter replies.

Fine, if you want to be like that but I don't see any point in continuing to indulge you any more on that basis.

For that reason I'm out.

If you want to see that as me having a strop and/or you winning an argument or debate with me then go ahead, I just see it as simply no longer wishing to partake and favour you anymore in whatever game (or whatever it is) that you have been doing.

I'll happily waste my considerable free time somewhere else instead.

You’ve written extensively about the system and how the process works. At no point have i questioned those things in any way. You also continually try to claimi don’t understand elements of this yet can’t actually point to anything I’ve said which shows that. It’s a clear attempt to get the conversation off topic, and really it’s a reply simply for the sake of doing so.

You can dismiss all the views I’ve presented to you as irrelevant, but you have no grounds to. They were in response to IRAL’s call for evidence and were taken into consideration by them. You have singularly failed to present any equivalent, having grown increasingly desperate (law gazette comments section) you’ve now resorted to insults and a tantrum. 

Naively following the government’s word without thinking for yourself shows a lack of critical thinking. Approach these questions with an open mind and build an opinion based on what you can learn.

Yawn...

Look I'm not playing your silly game anymore and I'll explain why your post 73 above was the final straw for me.

The post of yours is composed of three elements the first being this -

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Exactly, it comes back to precedent - the government claim prorogation showed the 2 abuses you mention and i'm giving you examples of impartial legal experts who are saying otherwise.

The government might want to reset the balance, but so far you've found no experts who support their view this has happened - that's the point im trying to get across to you.

Now apart from it being factually wrong (the element of abuse by delay did not spring from prorogue) it is the first time you've mentioned either 'prorogue' or that prorogue judgement caused the concern of there being possible judicial constitutional overreach.

I explained clearly right from the start of our 'discussion' as far back as the 6th December that this was purely and simply a constitutional issue.

Sluffy wrote:

T.R.O.Y. wrote:Gov wanting to water down human rights laws and allow ministers to overturn legal rulings (front page of today’s Times). 

No wonder they wanted to get out of the EU, much easier to tear up our democracy now.

Nothing of the sort

What the article talks about is Judicial Reviews only - and may I say I did voice my fears on here about the use by Maughan and others, to abuse (my word) the use of Judicial Reviews for political purposes and not the intended one of seeing that the administration of a law has been enacted correctly.

I did warn that such a blatant and deliberate course of action by Maughan et al, in my opinion would ultimately require a response from a government to put an end to it.

It seemed an obvious consequence to me flowing from the clear abuse of JR's in this way to attempt to change ministerial decisions by the judiciary.

"The proper constitutional relationship of the executive with the courts is that the courts will respect all acts of the executive within its lawful province, and that the executive will respect all decisions of the courts as to what its lawful province is".

I've explained the Separation of Powers in this country before and again provide a link to how it works -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_in_the_United_Kingdom

It's taken you two whole weeks to realise that - and then you make out you knew it all along!!!

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23411p30-how-is-the-tory-government-doing#433386

What an utter fake you are.


The second element is Lord Reed.

T.R.O.Y. wrote: Here's Reeds view on the government's manifesto:

At the last General Election, the Conservative manifesto stated that “judicial review is not, and should not be regarded as, politics by another means”. I entirely agree. The statement in the manifesto was a direct quotation from judgments given in 2019 by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal, in which they dismissed challenges which were considered to be political rather than legal.

Judges are well aware of this risk, and avoid straying into matters that are political and not legal.

My reply to you says it all...

Sluffy wrote:As for Lord Reed's opinion to IRAL what did you expect his opinion to be other than what his views were when he was one of the judiciary who ruled that the prorogue was illegal and thus created this whole constitutional issue in the first place???

Even a moron would realise that Lord Reed has a huge vested interest in stating what he said as he was a massive part of causing the constitutional debate in the first place!!!

And to take the biscuit the third element was the Bar Council paragraph 8 comments -

T.R.O.Y. wrote:8. Paragraph 2 of the Terms of Reference asks whether the legal principle of nonjusticiability requires clarification. This question is no doubt related to the view expressed in political circles that the judges have been guilty of judicial over-reach in the exercise of this jurisdiction; that is to say that they have been guilty of trespassing into policy matters which should be the sole preserve of politicians.

9. The Bar Council regards this criticism as misplaced. Miller 2 was a highly unusual case. The Bar Council does not consider that the controversy the decision created should have any implications for the more routine, but constitutionally vital, exercise of judicial review with which the bulk of this response is concerned. Moreover, and fundamentally, examination of the judgment shows that the members of a unanimous Supreme Court were acutely aware that they were exercising a judicial, not political role and the judgment is a compelling example of a piece of close legal reasoning. Precise demarcation of the limits of the role of the court is impossible in our unwritten constitution; the exercise of the jurisdiction in the particular circumstances of the prorogation does not evidence judicial over-reach.

I couldn't believe it when you posted that as you've been on my case for the last several days telling me that their reply was actually contained in paragraphs 41 and 42 despite me pointing out to you they were NOT and you would find their reply in paras 8 and 9!!!

Sluffy wrote:What the quote DOES NOT ADDRESS is if JR's are now being "abused to conduct politics by another means..." which is part of the question being asked by IRAL

The nearest the Bar Council got to addressing that matter was by deliberately NOT ANSWERING IT - see Paragraphs 8 and 9 in your link above.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p30-good-law-project-limited#433987

Sluffy wrote:5 - In respect of the Bar Council the quote you attributed to them was taken completely out of the context is was given.  The reply they actually gave in respect of the perceived view of the abuse of JR's to conduct politics by another means was a non- answer in that they didn't (seemingly knowingly and deliberately) give a directly reply to it.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p60-good-law-project-limited#433997

Sluffy wrote:The Bar Council DID NOT reject the question as to JR's being "abused to conduct politics by another means..." but merely considered that this should not effect the totality of what JR's about in the part quote you gave.

Let me try to be a bit more clearer.

The part bit you quoted was taken from paragraph 7 of their reply.

I quoted the full reply to show you what they were actually in support of, which is how JR's run prior to the perceived abuse to conduct politics by another means.

They gave their reply to that in the following two paragraphs in which they basically say (in my words) don't lose the good of JR's (as listed in their paragraph 7 - and fwiw I've always agreed with and have said so on here in the past) by overreacting to the perceived abuse of it by some to "conduct politics by other means".

9. The Bar Council regards this criticism as misplaced. Miller 2 was a highly
unusual case. The Bar Council does not consider that the controversy the decision
created should have any implications for the more routine, but constitutionally vital,
exercise of judicial review with which the bulk of this response is concerned.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p60-good-law-project-limited#434002

You were still banging on about the Bar Council's reply being paragraphs 41 and 42 even at this late stage despite me pointing out where their actual reply was contained ffs!!!

T.R.O.Y. wrote:On the Bar Council, see sections 41/42 - 41 sets out the figures of JR's: how many have been raised and how many were given permission to proceed - section 42 gives the BC's conclusions based on those figures:

In the view of the Bar Council, the figures set out above in relation to cases in
the Administrative Court and in the UT suggest that the system is functioning as would be hoped:

a. It is clear that only cases that are properly arguable are reaching a
substantive hearing;
b. It does not appear that cases which lack merit are being permitted to
proceed; such cases are appropriately caught by the filter mechanism;
c. The proportion of cases which are granted permission at the oral
renewal stage, both in the Administrative Court and in the UT, clearly
demonstrates that this stage is a necessary safeguard;
d. These figures do not suggest any pattern of abuse. Insofar as abusive
conduct is found to exist, the Bar Council’s position (addressed
elsewhere in this response) is that this can be, and is, addressed robustly by the court and UT, and that existing powers are sufficient in this
regard (see paragraphs 56 and 57 below).

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p60-good-law-project-limited#434006

Sluffy wrote:What they (the Bar Council) are in fact talking of 'abuse' is not abuse in terms of conducting politics by other means - but abuse in another sense entirely.

Did you read paragraphs 56 and 57 that you went to the trouble of even highlighting in your post above?

I did.

If you had read those paragraphs you will see the abuse the Bar Council is referring to are such things as conduct, representatives who behave improperly, unreasonably or negligently, the prevalence of abusive last minute judicial review claims and the disruption they cause.

Yes the Bar Council does have powers that are sufficient in those regards - but we aren't talking about those regards - we are talking about 'abuse' in terms of 'conducting politics by other means'

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p60-good-law-project-limited#434011

In your reply back to me you still couldn't get it - and this was as recent as 48 hours ago you goon

T.R.O.Y. wrote:You're conflating two separate points (deliberately i suspect). I did read sections 56 and 57, they merely distinguish between unmeritous and abusive - you are the one that claims time is being wasted with 'abusive' claims - BC would term these as unmeritous.

So your definitions seem to be incorrect, fortunately for you i understood what you meant.

Anyway, section 58 summarises:

58. In short, it is the view of the Bar Council that the mechanisms which exist, from preventing unmeritorious claims from proceeding past the permission stage, at one end of the spectrum, to dealing firmly and proactively with abusive claims at the other, are fit for purpose.

Whether unmeritous or abusive the view remains that the existing mechanisms are sufficient.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p60-good-law-project-limited#434015

Fortunately for me you understood what I meant - you say??? - hahaha - really???

Seeing it's panto season I think my response should be...

...everybody join in now...

Oh no you DIDN'T!!!

I had to spell it out to you Janet and John style before you finally got it!!!

Sluffy wrote:You're embarrassing yourself now, you really are.

You simply don't understand what is going on, nor even my simplified explanations to you to help you to understand what is going on!

I'll try and simplify even further Janet and John style.

The government perceives JR's are being 'abused' in TWO ways - the first and longer standing way is, for example, where cases are deliberately brought before JR's such as at the last possible minute in order to prevent and deliberately create a temporary 'stay' and delay in people being expelled from the country and the second and more recently, abuse by politics by another means.

The Bar Council stated their views at the time that the JR system was sufficient to deal with the ACTUAL abuse it was facing - as outlined in paragraph's 56 and 57 of their submission and which stated in paragraph 58 that there was no problem or need to reform on THAT basis.

The Bar Council addressed this issue NOT in paragraphs 56,57 or 58 but in paragraphs 8 and 9.

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p60-good-law-project-limited#434019


I was gobsmacked by this three part reply of yours - no integrity to it at all, no acknowledgement that you hadn't understood stuff such as this is all about a constitutional issue (which you clearly hadn't) right from the beginning, no comprehension that someone who played a huge part in determining the prorogue outcome would clearly not say any other than everything was fine and rosy in the garden to him, and the utter balls you have to tell ME about the Bar Council's comments in paras 8 and 9 when it had taken constant telling from ME to YOU  about those paragraphs as you were continually bleating on about the wrong ones EVEN AFTER I spelt it out to you in this posts...

Sluffy wrote:What the Bar Council talked about is NOT what WE are talking about.

And to rub salt into your wounds, I've previously told you where exactly the Bar Council DID reply to the question of abuse by politics by another means - paragraphs 8 and 9!!!

To put it bluntly my friend you are on the wrong horse entirely!

https://forum.boltonnuts.co.uk/t23405p60-good-law-project-limited#434011



I really don't know what your game is?  

It's like trying to reason with an imbecile but I don't believe you are, or maybe you are just a wum but I've always thought you had some belief in what you were attempting to say.

I wish you well in whatever that world is that you reside in but it's certainly not one connected to the real world that I live in.

You believe whatever you want but I won't be bothering with you again, you lack the basic honesty and integrity to genuinely and seriously converse with any further as far as I'm concerned.

Merry Christmas and good day to you!

Ho ho ho!

On the above - you go on about paragraphs 8/9 in BC’s reply but the entire document is relevant - and this is where you often fall down, picking and choosing qelements you can then reverse engineer around your point. The document also rejects your view that JR’s are being abused, yet having failed to find any responses to IRAL supporting your view your stuck ‘clutching at straws’.

As for taking a while to pick up on a point, how long were you pushing the ‘it’s one woman’s opinion’ lie after I’d given you Law Soc’s consultative response (plus responses from Reed and the BC)? 

Your Lord Reed swivel amuses me, from ‘who are you to argue with him’ to he has a vested interest only a moron would listen to   . Wonder if IRAL took the view you did?? Wonder if they consulted the Law Gazette comment section though?   

Also bizarre you would now say Reed is an irrelevant opinion when you began by quoting the totally impartial player in this the government! The fact your views on what is and isn’t an acceptable source on this have jumped around everyday only show your desperation to find an angle. Now you haven’t it’s resort to calling me a moron.

Your reaction here is ugly. It’s a football forum on the internet, if you can’t handle a debate log off.