|
Post by tyrednexited on Sept 13, 2019 6:16:40 GMT
I find that quite an odd way if looking at it.
He would simply be being found guilty of breaking one (set of) law, whilst not breaking another.
They might be separate laws and jurisdictions, but he is subject to both, and that's been the case since the UK was founded.
Not much to do with confounding democracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2019 11:54:29 GMT
But Scottish laws only apply in Scotland. I am not subject to Scottish laws unless I do business in or visit Scotland. The Scottish high court cannot rule over me over a matter which in not exclusively Scottish.
|
|
Alanović
Full Member
Posts: 8,186
Member is Online
|
Post by Alanović on Sept 13, 2019 12:03:04 GMT
Scottish law very much applies to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, even when he's in Uxbridge.
|
|
|
Post by commerdriver on Sept 13, 2019 12:33:53 GMT
Scottish law very much applies to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, even when he's in Uxbridge. Do you have any basis for that Al? My understanding is that the supreme court is still the final level of UK civil courts and that is where the matter lies at the moment. If they agree with the Scottish courts BJ will have to fall in line, but I will be surprised if they do.
|
|
Alanović
Full Member
Posts: 8,186
Member is Online
|
Post by Alanović on Sept 13, 2019 13:13:16 GMT
Well yes, that's why we've got the Supreme Court. If BJ wasn't appealing to the Supreme Court, he'd have acted unlawfully according to Scottish law.
Of course, he was at Balmoral when he lied to the Queen in any case...
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
|
Post by Rob on Sept 13, 2019 13:44:36 GMT
>> Of course, he was at Balmoral when he lied to the Queen in any case...
He sent Reese-Mogg to see the Queen to request the prorogation of Parliament. He might have since lied to the Queen again during his visit.
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Sept 13, 2019 15:00:14 GMT
[quote author=" commerdriver" source="/post/20085/thread" timestamp="1568378033" My understanding is that the supreme court is still the final level of UK civil courts [/quote] ....and the criminal courts in certain circumstances. The fact that the Supreme Court is located in England does not, however, dictate that appeals from the Scottish courts are thus determined using English (and Welsh) law; they are determined according to Scottish law (and the outcome could thus be different). There are clearly documented and separate guidelines as to how the Supreme Court should deal with final appeals from both Scotland and N Ireland, both of which have significantly different laws and legal systems to England and Wales.
|
|
|
Post by tyrednexited on Sept 13, 2019 15:06:25 GMT
But Scottish laws only apply in Scotland. I am not subject to Scottish laws unless I do business in or visit Scotland. The Scottish high court cannot rule over me over a matter which in not exclusively Scottish. The matter would not have to be exclusively Scottish, it would simply have to have impact and legal implications in Scotland. The Lockerbie incident was tried in Scottish courts, though the alleged miscreant met none of your criteria above. I think the core of the matter is that the prorogation prevents Scottish MPs from carrying out their role of scrutinising Government.
|
|
Avant
Full Member
Posts: 691
|
Post by Avant on Sept 13, 2019 16:34:54 GMT
Some law is purely Scottish and distinct from English law, and some, the Companies Act 2006 for example, applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. I presume that the law being applied in this case is pan-UK, otherwise surely the Scottish court wouldn't have heard it in the first place.
I believe that it was only heard in Scotland because the English courts don't sit in August.
|
|
Rob
Full Member
Posts: 2,723
|
Post by Rob on Sept 13, 2019 17:24:29 GMT
The other case being brought in Scotland is reliant on Scottish law. If Boris refuses to request an extension to Article 50 the judges can write and sign the letter on his behalf.
|
|
|
Post by bromptonaut on Sept 14, 2019 8:28:28 GMT
I believe that it was only heard in Scotland because the English courts don't sit in August. Where did that story come from? It's true that historically the English court system shut up shop during August and September and didn't resume until the Michaelmas term started with the Lord Chancellor's Breakfast etc. There were always Judges nominated to hear urgent cases and there'd be one or two page cause list displayed every day in the Royal Courts of Justice. It was so quiet that some staff were allowed to take gardening leave. These days the 'long vacation' is much less of a thing and although August is still quiet there's much more going on than when I joined the then Lord Chancellor's Department in 1978. The English challenge was heard during vacation and the Supreme Court will sit next week to hear the consolidated appeals. Joanna Cherry and Jolyon Maugham who lead the challenge in Scotland are both very smart lawyers. The chose Scotland because they knew that was where their prospects of success were greatest.
|
|
|
Post by bromptonaut on Sept 14, 2019 8:38:17 GMT
But Scottish laws only apply in Scotland. I am not subject to Scottish laws unless I do business in or visit Scotland. The Scottish high court cannot rule over me over a matter which in not exclusively Scottish. That's true of you and your business. I don't see how an allegation of, say, negligent surveying in Manchester could end up in a Scottish court*. If however it was alleged your negligent act was committed in Dumfries then Scotland it would be. The London Parliament covers the whole of the UK. Boris and co comprise government of whole of UK and are subject to Scottish Law in doing so. Anecdote: In the past Scottish plaintiffs faced hurdles to sue in the English County Court - they could only commence proceedings if they gave security for costs. I think that went some years ago.... EDIT * I suppose if the complainant were in Scotland, say dispute was with respect to land owned by a Scottish bank, you might find yourself summoned north of the border.
|
|