Skip to main content

The Queen (on the application of Wheeler) v the PM and For Sec and Speaker Intervening

I was interested in the above judgment which was a judicial review of the failure to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. (see link for detailed judgment).

If you are interested in these things it is worth reading the judgment. However, it can be summarised as:
  1. The decision not to have a referendum was made by parliament and cannot be touched by the courts. (which was my original expectation and why I was surprised that permission for JR was given)
  2. The Lisbon Treaty and Constitutional Treaty are different things.
  3. Even if it has been the constitutional treaty the courts cannot prevent the government changing its mind (manifestos are not judiciable).
  4. Anything that requires parliamentary proceedings cannot be touched by the courts.
I cannot see how he has any hope on appeal. I cannot see him even getting permission to appeal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Six months for recording a court hearing - Norman Scarth

The link is in Russian about the imprisonment of Norman Scarth who is actually 85. He has a complex history including a court hearing which found that he used a chainsaw to fight off bailiffs when he was 75. [a court judgment which is disputed see comments] However, that does not justify imprisoning him for 6 months for recording a court hearing (see the link and ask google to translate it if your Russian is not up to it). It has got into the Argyll News Because he has been held such that people cannot get to him to sign paperwork an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made today. This has been adjourned until next week. The English judicial system is really not good at responding to major abuses of human rights by the judicial system.
57 comments
Read more