The UK Government has been defeated in the landmark Brexit High Court challenge over whether Article 50 can lawfully be triggered without a vote by Parliament.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas handed down the decision in the Royal Courts of Justice this morning.
His verdict read: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the Government. There is nothing in the text of the 1972 Act to support it.
“In the judgment of the court the argument is contrary both to the language used by Parliament in the 1972 Act and to the fundamental constitutional principles of the sovereignty of Parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the Crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers. The court expressly accepts the principal argument of the claimants.
“For the reasons set out in the judgment, we decide that the Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”
The Government will appeal the decision, with the appeal heading straight to the Supreme Court in early December. The case is understood to have been fast tracked following Prime Minister Theresa May’s pledge to trigger Britain’s exit from the EU next spring.
Successful claimants were represented by Mishcon de Reya, Bindmans and Edwin Coe. Leading the charge was Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick QC as well as Matrix Chambers’ Helen Mountfield QC and Rhodri Thompson QC.
Representing the UK Government, the Attorney General instructed Blackstone’s James Eadie QC and 11KBW’s Jason Coppel QC.
Bindmans partner Halford, who represented the People’s Challenge group in the claim, said in a statement: “The oversight, control and democratic accountability needed for decisions on Brexit have to match the consequences of those decisions for UK citizens. That is why our constitution empowers Parliament, not the government, to take these decisions.
“The People’s Challenge group and thousands of backers unhesitatingly committed to defending Parliament’s sovereignty. They have prevailed so far and will resist the anticipated government appeal in the Supreme Court.”
The Law Society has also been swift to respond to the groundbreaking verdict. President of the Law Society of England and Wales Robert Bourns said: “The question as to whether the decision to trigger Article 50 is one for the government, using the royal prerogative, or for Parliament through statute is central to this court case. Most commentators assumed that this case – whatever the outcome in the High Court – would be appealed to the Supreme Court so today’s ruling is a step along the road to a final decision.”
Meanwhile a Clifford Chance partner said today’s decision heralds further uncertainty for the business world. The firm’s co-chair of public policy Simon Gleeson said: “This is just round one. Whether this tussle continues solely in the courts or also Parliament, in the form of a bill, it will continue to extend uncertainty and make planning and investment tougher for businesses.”
The legal line-up
For the first claimant, Gina Miller
Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick QC and Tom Hickman, Matrix Chambers’ Rhodri Thompson QC, and Monckon Chambers’ Anneli Howard, instructed by Mishcon de Reya partner Rob Murray
For the second claimant, Deir Tozetti Dos Santos
Maitland Chambers’ Dominic Chambers QC and Benjamin John, and Matrix Chambers’ Jessica Simor QC, instructed by Edwin Coe
For the defendant, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Blackstone Chambers’ James Eadie QC, and 11KBW’s Jason Coppel QC, Tom Cross and Christopher Knight, instructed by the Attorney General
For the first interested party, the People’s Challenge
Matrix Chambers’ Helen Mountfield QC, Monckton Chambers’ Gerry Facenna QC and Jack Williams, and Brick Court Chambers’ Tim Johnson, instructed by Bindmans partner John Halford
For the second interested party, AB, KK, PR and Children
No 5 Chambers’ Manjit Gill QC and Ramby de Mello, and 43 Temple Row Chambers’ Tony Muman
For the interveners, George Birnie and ors
Henderson Chambers’ Patrick Green QC, Henry Warwick, Paul Skinner and Matthieu Gregoire
And on Twitter…
The politicians
To be clear – especially for all sending vile tweets to me just now – vote on #Article50 is about what kind of Brexit, not whether we Brexit
— Caroline Lucas (@CarolineLucas) November 3, 2016
Good news that MPs will get a vote on triggering Article 50. The British people must also get a vote on the final deal. #Article50
— Liberal Democrats (@LibDems) November 3, 2016
I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea level of public anger they will provoke.
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) November 3, 2016
In an intelligent political world the gov would have made this decision, not a court. We now need a coherent #Brexit plan that works for all
— Nick Clegg (@nick_clegg) November 3, 2016
The lawyers
https://twitter.com/Law_and_policy/status/794131208523354113
https://twitter.com/Law_and_policy/status/794132995670212608
Paragraph 60 of the article 50 judgment is interesting. How can HMG determine what rights we have in foreign legal systems?
— Carl Gardner (@carlgardner) November 3, 2016
The journalists
MPs won't vote down Art 50 but now have bargaining power with govt to scrutinise Brexit negotiating strategy
(If ruling not overturned)— Nick Robinson (@bbcnickrobinson) November 3, 2016
I bloody love lawyers #Article50
— Catrin Griffiths (@thelawyercatrin) November 3, 2016
An astonishing decision based on what appears to me to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Article 50. It is true (see The Parlement Belge) that domestic law cannot be altered by means of exercise of the Royal Prerogative. However, that was not the issue in this action. Rather it was the process of triggering withdrawal from an international treaty. A matter long considered to be solely within the province of the Royal Prerogative. Clearly any changes made would not be have been approved by Parliament because at THAT STAGE it would have implications for domestic law.
One looks forward to the Supreme Court decision with interest. If the High Court decision is followed, it will be a ‘legal revolution’ with regard to the separation of powers.
Who am I to argue, now, with the Supreme Court??? Examining the logic they employed they made the distinction between a contractual treaty and a law making treaty. In the latter it is clear that rights of Englishman are inevitably entwined. In fact, in the case of the Treaty of Rome, inextricably entwined. Hence, is the ‘marriage is to be dissolved’ Parliament needs to give its consent.
Good to see the sound application of the Rule of Law. Pity about the rather strange obiter from Baroness Hale.