Development of Equity in the Hale (Baroness) judgment
The Supreme Court expressed its ancient judgment resulting from that Johnson Boris was against the law, encouraging the Queen to suspend the National Assembly as an “unusual object.” The case goes past Brexit and primary principles at the heart of the constitution of Britain, involving the power of the prime minister. All judges of the supreme unanimously instituted that they had all the permissible rights to judge the prorogation reasons and that it was against the Law, invalid and of no influence (Grace, Jamie). Lady Hale, UK’s highest court president, uttered: “The decision to encourage the Queen to do away with the national assembly was against the law due to the consequences of preventing and frustrating the aptitude of the national assembly to conduct its constitutional duties with no reasonable justifications.” Whispers could now be heard in the courtroom as Lady Hale continued to read the judgment, with Miller embracing her legal group. Both side protesters of the Brexit debate waited outside in the rain for the judgment, with signposts reading “safeguard democracy” and “don’t outdo the parliament” broke out in happiness as the news came out. The court of Supreme discarded Mr. Johnson’s arguments that Parliament’s suspension was a strategy to permit the preparation of the new rules ahead of the Majesty’s speech on October 14th.
“No explanations for carrying out such action with such extreme consequences have ever been brought before the court.” Lady Hale also said that Parliament meant judgment had not legally been silenced, and the suspending order was just but a “blank sheet of paper.” “National Assembly has not been suspended,” she said. “It is for the legislature, and specifically the Lord Speaker and the Speaker, to decide on what to perform next.” Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
We have two appeals before us, one from Wales and England High Court and Scotland Court Session of the Inner House. It is essential calling attention to the cases ahead of us is not about what terms and when the UK is to make off the Union of Europe. They are specifically about whether the advice offered to the Queen by the Prime Minister on 28th or 27th August, which National Assembly should be suspended from a date in between 9th and 12th September waiting October 14th, was following the law and legal effects if it was not. The question comes out in conditions that have never come out before and unlikely to come out again. It is a “rarity”. Briefly, the case from Scotland was presented by a party team of 75 members of the National Assembly and a QC on July 30th due to their concern that the Legislature might be suspended to circumvent additional debate. On August 1’5th, Legislative affairs’ director, Nikki da Costa sent the Prime Minister a memorandum that was also derivative to seven people with a call for the suspension to commence between September 9th to 12th and fro Majesty’s speech on October 14th. It was ticked yes by the Prime Minister to those recommendations.
On August 27th or 28th, through a mobile call, he officially advised the Queen to suspend the national Assembly on those said dates. On August 28th, Leader of the Commons’ House, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Mr. Rees-Mogg, Lord President of Privy Council, and House of Lord Leader is present at a meeting of Council of Privy held by the Majesty at the castle of Balmoral. The council made an order that the Legislature be suspended between the said dates and that the Lord Chancellor issue and prepare a commission for suspending the National Assembly accordingly. A meeting of the Cabinet was held shortly by the conference to bring the rest of the Cabinet on the passed decisions. The same day, the decision was announced to the public, and a letter was sent to members of the National Assembly with detailed explanations. As soon as announcement of decision was declared, Mrs. Miller commences the English proceeding demanding its lawfulness. On September 3rd, the National Assembly came back from summer recess. The commons’ House voted to decide for them the type of business they would carry out. On September 11th, both the courts of Wales and England claimed that Miller’s judgment was not justiciable in a court of law. On the same day, the Inner House of Scotland declared the matter justiciable and any suspension which occurred after it was against the law, thus no effect and void.
Throughout the case, several questions came up; the first question was if it was according to the law or justiciable for the Prime Minister to advise the Queen? Long ago, as 1611, the court declared the Government had powers only that are allowed by the land. Therefore, it was lawful to advise, according to the court. Conversely, in a jurisdiction, it was to be distinguished by two different questions, whether the power exists and if so its extent and whether the exercise of power is open to legal confrontation. Unfortunately, the court can decide on the limits and existence of prerogative power. On the second question that concerns the power limit, it was declared that two vital principals of the constitution were relevant upon deciding the matter. The sovereignty of the National Assembly, the court states that the parliamentary sovereignty would not be demoralized as long as the executive is capable of controlling the Legislature from practicing its authority as it is pleased. This is favorable. The court, however, recognizes also that the executive cannot prorogue the National Assembly as it wishes. It is because there must be a mutual convene between the executive and the National Assembly to both raise funds for public expenditure and standing army maintenance.
Correspondingly, the court knows huge legislation pieces that compel legal constrictions on the power of the executive to result in suspension. It also acknowledges that, in 2011, the National Assembly, in particular, opted to maintain that jurisdiction. However, instead of having this as proof the court left the issue to be dealt and considered by the Legislature, the court continues to say that such statues only confirms the requirement of legal limitation on the prorogue power. What kind of reasoning is that?
Power limit
It was declared that for the sake of future, the relevant power limit of proroguing is that a decision to prorogue or the authority to prorogue will be against the law; if the act has consequences of preventing and frustrating with no reasonable explanations. The aptitude of the National Assembly to conduct its constitutional duties as the department responsible for executive supervision. In any justification’s judgment, which might be forwarded, the court must be sensitive to the experience and responsibilities of the Prime Minister and continue with appropriate vigilance. If the prorogation results in consequences, without reasonable explanations, there is no need for the consideration of the court whether the purpose or the motives of the Prime Minister was lawful. The third question is whether the suspension did have the consequences of preventing and frustrating the Parliament’s ability to perform its constitutional duties with no reasonable explanations. This prorogation was not ordinary in the run-up to the speech of the Queen. It restricted the National Assembly in performing its constitutional duties for several weeks approximately five weeks out of the two months between the recess done in summer and October 31st. Proroguing the National Assembly is quite diverse from the Legislature going into the break. While the National Assembly is prorogued, neither House can gather, passes legislation, or debate. No House can debate the policies of the Government. Nor large numbers of groups ask oral or written questions of Prime Minister or come together and acquire proof in committee. Generally, incomplete bills are lost at their stages and begin again after the speech of the Queen from scratch.
On the other hand, during a recess, the House is not dormant but Legislature business transactions continue as usual. These prolonged prorogations of the National Assembly democracy occur in quite exceptional conditions: The first amendment that was to happen in the United Kingdom’s Constitution on October 31st. The Legislature and specifically the Commons’ House as the people’s appointed representative have a voice right about how the changes happened. The consequences upon the primaries of our democracy were tremendous.
No justification in the case
`It is said that there is no explanation for taking such action with tremendous consequences has ever been put before the court. The only proof as to why it was upheld is the Nikki da Costa’s memorandum of August 15th. This justifies why the Queen’s speech was held to open a new parliamentary session on October 14th. It does not give clear clarifications and explanations as to why it was essential to bring the business of the National Assembly to a halt for a period of five weeks before that when the ordinary period required preparing the speech of the Queen is four to six days. The case does not talk about the difference between recess and prorogation. It does not speak about the impact of the suspension on the unique processes for analyzing the entrusted legislation required to accomplish a formal withdrawal from the European Union, with or with no agreement, on October 31st. It also does not talk about what specific time the National Assembly is needed to secure approval of the Parliament for any fresh withdrawal compliance, as a necessity by section 13 of the European Union Act 2018 (Withdrawal).
The court is a vault to wind up. Therefore, the step made in advising the Queen to suspend the Parliament was against the law due to the consequences it resulted to i.e., preventing or frustrating the parliament aptitude to conduct its constitutional duties with no reasonable validations. The last question, therefore, what are the legal consequences of that verdict is and what remedies should be granted by the court. The court can, therefore, declare that the advice was against the law. The Inner House continued and insisted that any prorogation arising from it was void and null. The government squabbles that the Inner House could not perform that because suspension was a “proceeding in National Assembly” under the Bill of Rights of 1688 can’t be questioned or impugned in any court. But it is reasonably apparent that suspension is not a proceeding in the National Assembly. It occurs in the House of Lords while all members of the House are present, yet is not their decision. It is something obligatory on Parliament from outside; it is not something the team can vote or speak. It is not vital or core business of the National Assembly, which is protected by the Bill of Rights.
Illegal, of no effect, void, and null
The court has concluded that the advice of the Prime Minister to his Queen was void, unlawful and of no effect. It means that the Council Order to which it led was also invalid, illegal, and of no force and should be nullified. It also indicates that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the Lords’ House was the same as hiking with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also of no effect, void, and null. The National Assembly has not been suspended. This is the collective judgment of all the eleven judges. It is for the National Assembly, specifically the Lord Speaker and the Speaker, to decide on what to do next. Unless there are several rules of the parliament w are unaware, they ought to take instant procedures to enable every House to gather immediately and sooner rather than later. It is not indicated to us that any plan is required from the P.M that will cover all essential steps to abide by the conditions of any made declaration by the court.
Conclusion
This case was the court’s first crucial judgment; several lawyers had viewed that the court had no right whatsoever to decide whether the advice of the Prime Minister to the Queen concerning the suspension or prorogation of the National Assembly- was lawful or unlawful. Hale said that she and her colleagues do have the right. She continues to say that the court has been exercising this kind of freedom since 1611 when “the government” was King James 1. She says that it was the second judgment of the court and that several legal limits constrict the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend the National Assembly. When the prime minister decided to perform this action, he had considered what the prorogation means for MPs’ rights to conduct their business. The third court judgment and the most significant, Hale is saying that particularly this suspension did aggravate the role of the National Assembly. Therefore, it was not only against the law to prorogate the Commons’ House at such an essential time in the Brexit procedure. The court also put more emphasis that the National Assembly has a “right to voice” in deciding on the Brexit course. This is an essential rejoinder to those arguing that Members of Parliament are irritating “the will of the people” articulated in the referendum 2016.
The case is also as damning ruling due to lack of diligence by the team of Mr. Johnson – specifically Ms da Costa, adviser of the Prime Minister on legislative affairs – in such a case of prorogation. Amber Rudd, resigned secretary for Pension and Work, said she had consistently asked to be allowed to see the formal advice underpinning the decision of suspension. She says she was denied several times. The judgments of the court clearly indicate that number 10 contained nothing to show on the issue. The most atrocious of all statements, suspension, like many ceremonies of the Parliament, is a severe occasion of which officials get into the House of Lords and read affirmation requesting the National Assembly to break up immediately. Hale says that as far as the court and she are concerned, those paper sheets might too not have subsisted. But it is by use of the phrase ‘unlawful, no effect and void’ – and using it several times – that the Supreme Court abscond not even the smallest amount of doubt that Mr. Johnson acted unlawfully. This does not indicate or show that the prime minister will be sent to prison as the act he did was not against the law. But later on the judgment carried on Tuesday, number 10 expected a more qualified and nuanced ruling. The prime minister was declared wrong by Hale and her fellow workers.
This case has contributed significantly to the development of equity in that it tries to bring about the balance between the people/commons and the Government. The prime minister wants to suspend the National Assembly, which is the House that comprises the citizens’ representatives, but Hale declares the decision is against the law. The case also assisted in discovering several rules of equity that were never known to the public.
Word Count: 2501
Works cited
Civil Procedure, The White Book, Volumes 1 & 2, 2002, Sweet & Maxwell
Cockburn, T & Shirley, M Equity, in a Nutshell, 2005, Lawbook Co
Cockburn, T, Harris, W, & Shirley, M, Equity & Trusts, 2005,Butterworths
Harris, P, An introduction to law, 4th Ed, 1995, Butterworths
Hayton, D J, The Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies, 11th Ed, 2001, Sweet & Maxwell
Holdsworth, W, History of English Law, 7th Ed, 1956, Mathuen & Co Ltd
Pearce, R and Stevens, J, The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations, 2nd Ed, 1998,
Slapper, G & Kelly, D, The English Legal System, 4th Ed, 1999, Cavendish Publishing Ltd
Thomas, M, Statutes on Property Law, 8th Ed, 2001, Blackstone’s
Zander, M, The Law-Making Process, 3rd Ed, 1988, Weidenfield & Nicolson
Grace, Jamie. “A Judgment on the Unlawful Prorogation of Parliament.” Available at SSRN 3481673 (2019).
Fishleigh, Jackie. “Notes from the UK: London Calling.” Can. L. Libr. Rev. 44 (2019): 29.
https://www.ft.com/content/33441584-dec5-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59
Virgo, G. The Principles of Equity and Trusts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018.
Glister, J and Lee, J. Hanbury & Martin, Modern Equity, 21st Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018
Davies, P. and Virgo G. Equity & Trusts: Text, Cases, and Materials, Oxford University Press
Edwards, R. and Stockwell, N. Trusts and Equity, Pearson
Hudson, A. Equity and Trusts, Routledge
McGhee, J, Snell’s Equity, Sweet and Maxwell
Oakley, A. Parker, and Mellows: The Modern Law of Trusts, Sweet and Maxwell
Pearce, R & Stevens, J. The Law of Trusts and Equitable Obligations, Oxford University Press
Pettit, PH. Equity and the Law of Trusts, Oxford University Press
McFarlane B, Hayton and Mitchell on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies, Sweet and Maxwell
Watt, G. Cases & Materials on Equity & Trusts, Oxford University Press
Watt, G. Equity Stirring – The Story of Justice Beyond the Law. Hart Publishing