Brexit legality to be challenged for the first time in the courts

The dispute could pit the judiciary against the power of the prime minister in a manner never seen before in British history

Patrick Gower
Tuesday 19 July 2016 10:22 BST
Comments
The judicial review will decide whether or no the Prime Minister can carry out Brexit without first consulting Parliament
The judicial review will decide whether or no the Prime Minister can carry out Brexit without first consulting Parliament (Reuters)

British voters, it turns out, can’t actually remove their country from the European Union. Only MPs can do so.

Since the June 23 referendum, the debate has turned to whether new prime minister, Theresa May, can initiate Brexit without first seeking permission from Parliament.

The question has sparked what could turn into a wave of legal judicial reviews. The first one begins Tuesday.

1. What’s a judicial review?

It’s a court proceeding to weigh the legality of how a government decision has been reached.

Judicial reviews provide one of the few mechanisms available for members of the public to hold the state’s most powerful officials to account. Only those with “sufficient interest” are able to bring a suit, and they must first obtain permission for their case to be heard.

2. Who brought this case?

Deir Dos Santos, a UK hairdresser described by his lawyer as “just an ordinary guy,” filed the first lawsuit seeking to slow Brexit by challenging the prime minister’s right to start the exit without Parliament.

“If his rights are going to be taken away, he wants it done in a proper and lawful manner,” Dominic Chambers, Dos Santos’s lawyer, said.

Crowdfunding campaign raises over £27,000 to prosecute 'dishonest Brexit politicians'

3. What’s at stake?

Either the prime minister or Parliament must invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in order to trigger the UK’s exit from the EU. Oliver Letwin, the minister overseeing the task force preparing for the exit negotiations before May appointed David Davis to head a new Brexit department, said it’s the prime minister’s responsibility.

Other legal experts disagree, saying a matter of this importance must go through Parliament. One of London’s biggest law firms, Mishcon de Reya, has threatened a legal challenge if Parliament doesn’t get a say.

The dispute could pit the judiciary against the power of the prime minister in a manner never seen before in British history.

4. Won’t Brexit happen no matter what?

May has pledged to respect the will of the people and carry out Brexit (though she’s in no rush).

So has Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Party. But before the June 23 vote, May and most members of Parliament advocated remaining in the EU.

If the UK continues to feel economic repercussions from its June 23 vote, who knows what could happen?

Should MPs vote against their constituents if they believe it’s ultimately in the national interest? At some point it could become relevant whether the prime minister or Parliament is in charge of pulling the trigger.

5. What’s likely to happen?

In recent years, people challenging state actions via judicial reviews have prevailed just 1 or 2 per cent of the time. In one successful challenge, the Supreme Court overruled a decision by the attorney general and permitted the Guardian newspaper to obtain and publish letters written to lawmakers by Prince Charles.

But that case was small potatoes compared to the question of whether citizens will be able to use the courts to steer, delay and possibly derail the U.K.’s departure from the EU.

© Bloomberg

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in