find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (3-5 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Dynamic organisation ·
View details
Senior Government Lawyer
Category: Other | Location: Canberra ACT 2600
View details
Brexit ruling split shows complexity of constitutional analysis

Brexit ruling split shows complexity of constitutional analysis

This week’s UK Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of Brexit shows just how complex constitutional analysis can be, according to one global firm partner.

Commenting on the article 50 Brexit judgment delivered on Tuesday 24 January, London-based Ashurst partner Rob Aird said the 3-8 bench split reflects two things.

Mr Aird said the judgment, flowing from a High Court case in 2016, shows the complexity of the analysis required and also explains why the British government appealed the High Court decision.

“Only three of the 11 judges disagreed, reflecting the complexity of the constitutional analysis, and perhaps justifying the decision of the government to appeal,” Mr Aird said.

The government appeal argued that triggering article 50 without parliamentary consent was allowed because it fell within the executive’s prerogative power.

In essence, the government took the view that Brexit is about membership of the European Union, which it argued is a prerogative matter.

Writing for The Conversation, Birmingham Law School professor Fiona de Londras explained that prerogative powers are limited to ensure that the integrity of parliamentary sovereignty is persevered.

“[Prerogative power] also cannot usually be used to reduce the rights enjoyed by people in the UK – which withdrawal from the EU would almost certainly do. Even though triggering article 50 does not bring those changes about on its own, it puts in train a process the inevitable end of which is these fundamental constitutional and legal changes,” Professor de Londras said.

Mr Aird also highlighted the significance of the court’s position that Brexit could be legally enacted without the consent of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The decision clears the way for the British Parliament to proceed with its own exit timetable, he said.

“A decision in favour of the assemblies would likely have derailed Theresa May's proposed timetable for triggering article 50, and meant that the Brexit limbo in which we are currently living would have likely continued for some time yet,” Mr Aird said.  

“The judgment means that [the Prime Minister] has a fighting chance of keeping to that timing, provided that Parliament does not seek to make significant amendments to the authorising bill. The expectation is that the bill will be kept very short, to minimise the scope for troublesome amendments,” he added.

Another interesting aside in the judgment, Mr Aird observed, was Lord David Neuberger’s opening comment stating that the decision had nothing to do with the political question of whether the UK should exit the EU or when it should exit.

“The legal challenge concerned how it should exit,” Mr Aird said.

“The Supreme Court has issued a legal judgment and not a political or policy statement. 

“Far from being the 'enemies of the people', the power of the independent judiciary to ensure that our government acts in accordance with the law is one of the constitutional fundamentals of British democracy.”

The British government is now left to decide how to formulate the article 50 bill to ensure a smooth passage through Parliament.

Although it is unlikely that the Parliament will "perpetually refuse" the bill to be triggered, Professor de Londras said this week's decision ensures that Parliament is empowered to make the government accountable for how it gives effect to the Brexit outcome the people voted for. 

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

Brexit ruling split shows complexity of constitutional analysis
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Scales of Justice, Victorian County Court, retiring judges
Aug 21 2017
Replacements named for retired Vic judges
Two new judicial officers have been appointed in the Victorian County Court, following the retire...
Aug 21 2017
LCA applauds proposed Modern Slavery Act
The Law Council of Australia has welcomed new recommendations for the development of a Modern Slaver...
Aug 21 2017
Top-tier offers targeted mentoring for Indigenous law students
Students at Macquarie University will be the first to benefit from a new Indigenous mentoring progra...
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...