I’m taking the PM to court

It is Tuesday evening, and less than 72 hours before the UK leaves the EU, unless Article 50 notice is withdrawn, or the Council grants a further extension to the Article 50 period.  I wrote yesterday, i.e. on Monday, from Bucharest, to a comrade, saying,

I never in my life, before today, expected one day to find myself taking a Prime Minister to court, seeking an injunction to stop him or her from doing something or other that he or she was reported on the BBC news to have threatened to do, which I thought was probably illegal, but which the PM apparently thought he or she was perfectly entitled to do, just because he or she was PM.  Yet that is exactly what I am expecting to be doing later this week, when I get back from Romania.

Tonight, I am staying a short walk from the Royal Courts of Justice. I hope to get a hearing in the morning, in Court 37.  The applicati0n and my witness statement are here.

 

POSTSCRIPT added 29th April 2019

I intend to post the transcript I have ordered of the hearing of Wednesday 9th April, which should be available any day soon.

The next episode of this overall story is recounted in this subsequent post: Schrödinger’s Brexit.

Advertisements

10 Comments

Filed under #Brexit, Law

10 responses to “I’m taking the PM to court

  1. ashleydickenson

    Dear Mr Allman, wishing you well at this Court hearing.

    Yours sincerely,

    Ashley Dickenson

    > WordPress.com

  2. Shirley Britton

    There is a case already lodged at High Court in London by Robin Tillsbrook about the same thing.

    • Hi Shirley. The “comrade” I mentioned that I had emailed on Monday also sent me a draft on Monday of a judicial review claim by English Democrats that sounded the same (to him, as to you) as the application I am making today, but, on closer inspection, it was substantially different from my application.

      If I may put it this way, English Democrats (i.e. Robin Tilbrook, for present purposes) seem to me to be arguing that the horse must still be in the stable, despite all appearances that the horse left the stable on 29th March, because a door everybody supposes was left open, was in fact, technically, still closed. It criticises the statutory instrument used to amend the definition of exit day in section 20 of the main withdrawal Act.

      In contrast, I am conceding that the door was opened on 29th March, and seeking to prevent the opening too of a gate to the yard containing the stable, enabling the Brexit “horse” to gallop off into the far distance, perhaps never to be recaptured.

      Robin’s case, if it is the one I’m thinking of, isn’t about revocation of Article 50 notice. It’s about changing exit day. The Act that defined exit day as 29th March also enabled this to be changed, by statutory instrument, which it was, to (in effect) 12th April. I cannot see what’s wrong with that, legally. The same Act empowered the PM to give Article 50 notice. It did not empower her to revoke that Article 50 notice tomorrow, as she will want to, if one of the council members today block the extension for which she is applying. I am therefore seeking an emergency injunction to prevent Mrs May from purporting to cancel Brexit without statutory authority.

      • Shirley Britton

        Thank you for your reply. I believe Robin was arguing the case that Mrs May didn’t have a statutory instrument to take away the 2017 SI so we actually left on 29th of March, Sir Bill Cash also says similar in Parliament but no one is listening. It’s a very sad state of affairs thank for all you are doing Shirley

  3. Hi John,

    I read your previous missive about praying for very inclement weather on the day of the Referendum and – despite some dismissive scoffing that was posted on your Blog in response – I wholeheartedly support you in your conviction that prayer is not only efficacious, but that the Lord does indeed intervene in the affairs of Man, whenever, wherever, and howsoever He pleases, in accordance with His Holy, upright, and often inscrutable will…

    Indeed, not that long ago, I remember reading an article that highlighted how weather forecasters on the day of the referendum had pointed out how very unusual the national rainfall pattern had been on that day and that later, those who took an interest in such matters, had observed that the rainfall had been at its most prolific in specific areas that turned out to be solid “Remainer” territory… Given the narrowness of the “Brexit” majority vote, I believe it highly possible – even likely – that this could have made a difference, and whether it did or not, I am utterly convinced that our Holy and Righteous God regards the EU as a despicably nefarious and corrupt organisation that has a very wicked and underhand agenda, and that therefore He desires that we, as a once proudly Christian nation, should separate ourselves from it – having been unexpectedly afforded the referendum lifeline opportunity to do so.

    I also believe that – since this is God’s will – we SHALL be exiting the EU, no matter how much traitorous gerrymandering and clandestine attempts are made by both the EU and many of our quisling MP’s and others, to frustrate the will of the majority electorate and to thereby cheat us of our lawful and democratic rights.

    On that score, I applaud your brave attempt to take the Prime Minister to court, albeit it will be nothing short of a minor miracle if you get anywhere with your noble efforts. I need hardly remind you, of all people, that the UK establishment (and the legal framework that empowers and upholds them) are as slippery as eels and as disdainful of the common man as it is possible to be. Even if your case has legal validity behind it, they will find a way to circumvent or obfuscate your petition, and I also very much doubt that any judge would be brave enough to draw the gaze and ire of so much of the nation, by being the instrument by which a mere commoner named John Allman was able to embarrass the Prime Minister upon the world stage and to stick a spanner in the well oiled Brexit wrecking machine that has been gathering speed and hurtling downhill for many a month now…

    I’m not saying this to discourage or dissuade you from your action… Merely to inject a note of realism into the likely outcome of your very laudable efforts. You are dealing with snakes and weasels and neither are easily caught or painlessly bested. They fight dirty and don’t play by any fair and upright rules. Stealth and cunning are second nature to them and “fair play” is just a cheap and worthless bauble that they flick away with disdain.

    We are, at any rate, a long way off any attempted “revocation” of Article 50, since the current tactic favoured by many of the weasels (within the EU and the U.K.) is clearly to create delay after delay and sufficient uncertainty, alarm and frustration amongst the whole population, that there will be a change of government and a call for a second referendum (um.. I mean a “People’s Vote” – sorry…) which it is hoped will bring out every remainer who didn’t vote the first time, and result in some insipid and war weary Brexiteers changing sides, so as to ensure that the outcome goes according to the carefully scripted result that was anticipated the first time around, when David Cameron badly miscalculated by offering us plebs a referendum in the first place. 🤨

    I do wish you well in your brave action and shall certainly be praying for you and for your success. Do please continue to keep me posted on your progress. You will become a true “Working Class Hero” if you pull this off! ✊🙂

    God Bless You Brother, 🙏

    Yours in Christ, Louis 🙋🏻‍♂️

    Sent from my iPad

    >

  4. Marie

    Hi John, Yes, Theresa May, strangely, always looks content. I do wonder what is up her sleeve.
    Prayers for you. Wish there were more like you.

  5. Ruth

    I take it you lost then?

    • No, I didn’t “lose”. What on earth gives you that idea?

      What do you think of the legal point I am making? The Supreme Court ruled in Miller that the government couldn’t (as it hitherto wrongly supposed it could) give Article 50 notice that satisfied the British constitutional requirements, without statutory authority permitting this, My point was that for all the reasons the Supreme Court gave for its decision in Miller, nor can the government lawfully yet revoke the present Article 50 notice either, because nor does it as yet have the necessary statutory authority to do that. And yet, reportedly, it was the government’s intention to purport to revoke Article notice, before 23:00 Friday, without statutory authority, absent an extension, or else for the UK to crash out of the EU without a deal.

      Thanks to the EU’s gracious extension of the UK’s Article 50 notice period to 31 October, which extension was granted overnight on Wednesday/Thursday, it’s going to take a few more months before, if push comes to shove, I need to try to extract a ruling on that point from HM’s courts.

      But, meanwhile, please tell me, what is your own opinion, as to whether the Miller doctrine cuts both ways (as I plead), is equally sauce for the gander as for the goose, when the shoe is on the other foot? For that question surely remains the proper core topic of this page, on which you have interjected.

  6. Pingback: Schrödinger’s Brexit | JohnAllman.UK

  7. Pingback: Saving Brexit | JohnAllman.UK

Likes, follows and comments cheer me up!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s