The Supreme Court Hearing
Donny Darko's … 19 Sep 19 07:30
Reply |

My sense is they are very tempted indeed to rule against the government but that in the end, they will not. I suspect the judgment will be clear that there are cases where the courts could intervene (e.g. prorogation for a period of months for political gain, prorogation for reasons of bribery or corruption etc) but that this just the other side of the line.



I think they will find for the government but give BJ a good schooing in the process.

Justiciable but not excessive (this time).

Enough to let him get away with this one, but also enough to stop him proroguing over the rest of Oct.

It's a difficult one but I think they want to find in favour of the rebels and will find a way of doing so as the consequences of finding in favour of the government could be huge. 

if he prorogued again in October, would the wheels of justice turn fast enough to stop it?...assuming that the supreme court were minded to stop it

Delta, if he gets away with it this time there will be no stopping him.  This govt (Johnson and Cummings) are not people of subtlety or empathy and will take a mile if given an inch.  

Yeah, what Kimmy said.

The judges seem very exercised about the fact that the government haven't provided a witness statement. 

Did no-one see Lavery QC being fucking savaged by the judges earlier?


Yep. Got told off for being a time waster and sent to sit in the naughty corner.

He had his arse handed to him 3 times in 10 minutes.

The judges have just asked Pannick what remedy he'd like.

They have spent a long time talking about remedies.

Bad luck Boris.

Hopefully Pannick asked for "Parliament to be reinstated by teatime Monday, A50 to be withdrawn and a packet of Haribo" so Lady Hale can offer him 2 out of 3 as a compromise.


My prediction is that the SC will rule that prorogation was unlawful but it is for parliament to decide what to do next. Bodge Job doesn't recall parliament so Bercow does it instead.

is there a transcript available on line anywhere?

Basically even though it’s clearly a lie about why they prorogued for so long it’s just about plausible and impossible to prove otherwise so not enough to upset the apple cart over.

God I should write this judgment. 

Can't wait for the ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE headlines in the mail

Basically even though it’s clearly a lie about why they prorogued for so long


it’s just about plausible


Yeah I don’t see the government losing this unfortunately.  The intent v effect argument just feels like he was trying to find ways to help them make the right decision with limited application of actual law.  

Not that I know anything of course and I do think they want to be able to affirm the Scottish decision but I just don’t see how they can.  Hopefully I’m completely clueless and wrong.

It's clearly a stonking win for the Rebels.


Whether it's 7-4 or 8-3 is question.

If they're not handing down judgment until next week then they can't be in any hurry to undo the prorogation

No wellers, as they can declare it was unlawful advice, not illegal...

pannick basically said - just declare it unlawful, don't get involved in the solution, which would be the political.  the speakers can deal with the political.


I think they will find the issue is justiciable - as a shot across the bows to BJ not to push his luck - but find that the law wasn't broken on this occasion.  But I want to see the constitutional clusterf*** LP describes, with Bercow recalling parliament, or an alternative parliament forming in some pub across the road from the HoP or something.

There didn't seem to be much discussion about intent, given its importance to the case

There didn't seem to be much discussion about intent, given its importance to the case

I think that's because Boris Johnson's intent is completely fucking obvious to everyone.

That intent being to have a nice long think about the queens speech, like he said.

You aren’t suggesting he lied are you, because that would be a pretty bad thing if he did surely?

"There are no press here", he says, gesticulating at the press cameras.

were the tv cameras from some newspaper?....

and we all know that bloke was a wannabe labour activist being opportunistic


wannabe labour politician

he is a self described labour man on his twitter

'To have a nice long think about the queen's speech'.

Sounds very sensible.

Any evidence to the contrary?

Probably in all those WhatsApp messages they refused to disclose.

Clubbers, I agree I liked Pannicks soloution on this point, saves the justices from having to think too much.

Regretably I think the government will win, but as I said above BJ will get hammered. Yesterday severeal justices repeatedly expressed concern about BJ being able to suspend parliament at will, for how ever long he chooses, they will be keen to close that avenue off.  They were also very taken by the lack of a witness statement from BJ, something Eadie could not counter to their satisfaction.

They cannot and will not let his actions get him off scott free. Perhaps they will just find a way to say it is unlawful, now over to you . Here is hoping







The lack of evidence should not be troubling at all because the whole point of judicial review is remedy an error in law, not to establish facts.

The lack of Legal Knowledge on these threads is scary. 

Basically - What Nexis said. 

and if a poster is, say, an employment lawyer who knows very little about constitutional law/this case ...perhaps it has only touched the periphery of their news consumption.....why is that at all scary?

Agree @donnydarko. No in this case but leaving door ajar in case a proper fascist trickster grabs the wheel 

Heh @ diceman on the hospital publicity stunt, i quite agree. 

what c**ts they are, these types who gatecrash a perfectly innocent publicity stunt by a Conservative PM in a hospital to raise impertinent points on a trivial matter like seriously ill children and the absolute dog’s breakfast the govt has made of the NHS. Have they no shame?




Re. Guy Crouchback: 19 Sep 19 15:39, 'Is there a transcript available on line anywhere?'

There aren't transcripts, per se, but (a) you can view both the written submissions and the recorded video feed here:; (b) David Allen Green helpfully created a Twitter 'List' of key commentators, many of whom provided a frequently-updated text feed, here:; and (c) Lewis Goodall, Sky News' political correspondent, did a near-verbatim feed, too: The last of those is a form of transcript - like Opus 2, but free.

For example, if you want to find Lord Wilson's criticism of Ronan Lavery QC, you can read the Lewis Goodall's Scroll down to where it says, 'Oh my. Lord Wilson: “Don’t abuse our politeness. And don’t abuse Lady Hale’s patience.” This is getting quite brutal. They’re essentially saying if you don’t have any further legal arguments germane to the case then you should stop.' When you hover over the text saying (at the time of me writing this), '22 hours ago', a floating box appears saying 11:31, Sep 19 2019. The hearings started each day at about 10:30, so you know that's about an hour into the morning session. You can then go to the Supreme Court TV site, and review the footage from the morning of 19 September, approximately one hour in:, where you will find the Lord Wilson/Ronan Lavery QC exchange at 58:04.

As the great Lord Denning once said 

"You let them have their say"