The suspension of parliament on Wednesday 28 August, at time of political crisis, is now the subject of intense legal scrutiny across the United Kingdom. Lawyers for Gina Miller have lodged an application for judicial review, and are expected to argue that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen is an improper use of power, designed to curtail the legislature, resulting in infringement of the constitutional bedrock of parliamentary sovereignty. A hearing in the Scottish courts is taking place today and it has also been reported that the Northern Irish courts will consider tomorrow an application for an urgent injunction to compel Boris Johnson to reverse his advice to the Queen.
These cases will all be hard fought and will present difficult challenges for the judiciary: judges will be hesitant to interfere in the political maelstrom but will also be conscious of the need to ensure parliamentary sovereignty is preserved.
In the short term, whilst judicial caution may prevail in these cases, legal scrutiny of Brexit is here to stay. With “Exit Day” looming, there have been repeated calls from both industry and campaign groups for a public inquiry into Brexit. Yesterday’s suspension of Parliament will no doubt lead to a strengthening of their resolve. Meanwhile, the consistent position of the government – that no Inquiry should be established – is likely to remain resolute.
Interestingly, the decision not to undertake a public inquiry into concerns about alleged improper influencing of the referendum outcome, is already the subject of a legal challenge by the “Fair Vote” group. And, hot on the heels of the Miller case, a hearing on that is reported to be scheduled for early October, just a matter of weeks before Exit Day.
Here, we glance at a few of the legal issues which are likely to arise, surveying recent legal challenges to decisions not to hold public inquires, as well as the ministerial power to hold a public inquiry, and the all-important terms of reference.
Challenges to decisions not to hold public inquiries
Successful challenges to decisions not to hold public inquiries have been relatively rare in recent times. Those cases have tended to involve, at least to some extent, Convention Rights and the State’s discharge of the State’s investigatory obligations under Articles 2 and 3. See, for example, the Supreme Court’s judgment of earlier this year in Finucane brought by the widow of murdered solicitor Patrick Finucane. The court there held that despite having created a legitimate expectation that an inquiry would be held, it was open to the state to depart from that expectation. It was however held that the state had failed to comply with its investigatory obligations under Article 2.
Litvinenko, brought by the widow of Alexander Litvinenko, who was also found to have been murdered was another such challenge. The reasons given by the Secretary of State for refusing a public inquiry were carefully examined by the Divisional Court in its judgment. There the court concluded that there had been compliance with the Article 2 investigatory obligation on the facts but that the other reasons given by the Secretary of State were insufficient to justify a refusal to undertake a public inquiry. The decision was quashed.
Following this it would have (legally) remained open to the Secretary of State to make the same decision again but to give better reasons for doing so. But arguably because of the strong views expressed by the court, and the prevailing political wing, the Secretary of State subsequently decided to hold a public inquiry which reported in early 2016.
The context is however very different for the Fair Vote campaigners, making their legal challenge more difficult.
The discretion to hold a public inquiry
Even if the Fair Vote legal challenge is successful, a public inquiry is not guaranteed. This is due to the discretion given to Ministers as to whether to hold an Inquiry and as to what form it should take. Political, rather than purely legal, considerations are more likely to lead to a public inquiry being established.
The government will be most acutely alert to promises made by the opposition to hold an inquiry once elected. These have led to the establishment of inquiries in the past, with the post-legislative scrutiny of the Inquiries Act 2005, providing some interesting examples.
In the context of Brexit, the opposition’s intention is not yet clear, but it is worth noting, Sir Keir Starmer’s reported recent letter to the Cabinet Secretary about the relevance of spending decisions being properly documented “in the event of any future public inquiry or investigation into this matter.”
Terms of reference of a public inquiry
Even if a decision were reached that an inquiry should be set up, there will be a number of very important issues to decide before it is set up. Most important, are the “terms of reference” under which a public inquiry is established, which are widely recognised as being a crucial factor in determining an inquiry’s length, complexity, cost and success. But in order to draft those effectively, it will be necessary to have a clear view as to what the purpose (or, more likely, purposes) of the Inquiry are to be.
At the moment a large number of possibilities exist, including the referendum campaigning process, no-deal preparations (or lack of), and now the prorogation of parliament and its constitutional impact; it is equally possible to come up with good reasons to justify investigating all of them fully. As seen in the Saville Inquiry (Arms to Iraq) and the Chilcot Inquiry (the Iraq Inquiry), political decisions of national significance are very much open to the scrutiny of a public inquiry.
In conclusion, a number of challenges await, but perhaps the greatest will be for any future Inquiry Chair, who will the unenviable task of balancing political expectation with decisions about how to manage the process efficiently and effectively within the legal framework of the Inquiries Act 2005 (and related rules). Such a process may very well lead to there being a greater focus on making forward-looking recommendations than establishing responsibilities for each perceived failing which occurred throughout such a complex and multi-faceted process.
About the author
Latest blogs & news
Long awaited reforms to judicial review were revealed yesterday by Robert Buckland in his Judicial Review and Courts Bill. Thankfully the proposals to suspend quashing orders and limit their retrospective effect retain all-important judicial discretion and, at face value, are milder than feared. However, the decision to exclude the review of Upper Tribunal permission-to-appeal decisions (so called “Cart JRs”) is more troubling, marking the return of ouster clauses and possibly setting the groundwork for the removal of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court in future legislation.
Over the past few weeks there has been a steady stream of disturbing stories alleging sexual harassment and sexual abuse of children attending a variety of schools across the country, not just incidents involving children and adults but in many cases peer-on-peer abuse.
Perhaps the first practical negative consequence for the UK to emerge “Beyond Brexit” from an extradition perspective relates to Article 83 of the TCA which allows EU Member States to refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK. Germany, Austria and Slovenia had already exercised the Nationality bar during the transition period, which ended on 31 December 2020.
The SRA introduced a new assessment and early resolution process focusing on upfront engagement and delivering, where possible, earlier outcomes on concerns reported to it. Additionally, in February 2019, the SRA introduced a revised Enforcement Strategy, setting out its approach to enforcement and the factors it will take into account when considering whether regulatory action is needed.
On 18 March 2021 the government published the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) and began a public consultation on reforms to judicial review. This blog provides some initial thoughts on these important developments. For background on the IRAL see our introductory blog here.
Coaching, Teaching and Support Work in Lockdown: Safeguarding and Data Protection considerations when working with children online
The COVID-19 crisis has forced sports clubs, schools, universities and charities to rapidly change their approaches to coaching, teaching and support work. The regulations on social distancing have forced organisations to innovate; services which had previously been offered mostly or wholly in person were rapidly shifted online during “lockdown 1” and will return online at least for the duration of “lockdown 3”. If the vaccine rollout has the desired effect there will no doubt be some return to “traditional” methods, but it seems very unlikely that the changes brought about by the pandemic will be completely reversed. In this blog, Claire Parry from Kingsley Napley’s Regulatory team and Fred Allen from the Public Law team look at the challenges organisations face engaging with children online.
Supreme Court rules that Nigerian communities can have their case against Shell heard in the English courts
This morning (12 February 2021) the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Okpabi & others v Royal Dutch Shell (“Okpabi”), a case concerning mass oil pollution in the Niger Delta. Judgment is in favour of the claimants, communities representing over 40,000 affected citizens of Nigeria, whose claim against oil conglomerate Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary can now be heard in the English courts.
The potential fallout from Brexit for extradition and cross-border criminal justice security had been forewarned even before the first vote was cast in the Referendum. The risks to the UK of losing access to SIS II and complicating a relatively simple (albeit not perfect) EAW process were highlighted by many practitioners, law enforcement agencies and politicians.
Business and Human Rights Legislation and the Enforcement Question - A report by Kingsley Napley and Dr Rachel Chambers
Globally, a trend is taking shape towards legislation that asks more from businesses than the reporting obligations of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, in the area of business and human rights.
Deal or no deal, when the UK’s transition agreement expires at 11pm on 31 December 2020 the country will no longer participate in EU sanctions arrangements or otherwise give effect to EU sanctions regimes. Instead, it will operate a two tier system, devising its own sanctions policies and measures which will be supplemented by sanctions measures imposed as a result of United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
The government has now approved the supply of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The reason they have been able to do this so quickly is because they have taken advantage of the temporary authorisation regime laid out by the Human Medicine Regulations of 2012 and 2020. The 2012 Regulations were updated in 2020 specifically to facilitate the smooth rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. In the public consultation preceding the introduction of these updated regulations, several respondents raised concerns regarding unlicensed vaccines and immunity from civil liability. In practice, very little is known about these regulations and their application. This article seeks to shed some light on the temporary authorisation regime and suggest a means of alleviating concerns in the context of “vaccine hesitancy”.
Would the Constitution survive a No-Deal Brexit? The Internal Market Bill and its legal controversies
The Internal Market Bill (the “Bill”) has caused a dramatic fallout at home and abroad. It has faced massive defeats in the House of Lords over the month on November. It was the reported reason behind the UK’s most senior legal civil servant announcing his departure from the Government Legal Service.
As the end of the Brexit transition period draws near, complexities associated with navigating cross-border regulatory regimes have been increasingly brought to the fore. The Law Society of Ireland’s announcement last week, confirming a ‘physical presence’ requirement for solicitors intending to practise in Ireland, has highlighted wider post-Brexit issues surrounding residency requirements and recognition of qualifications for regulated professionals on the British/Irish border.
It is now more than two years since the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR came into force, significantly increasing the enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). With the passing of the Act, the ICO gained the power to issue fines amounting to millions of pounds and increased powers to bring criminal prosecutions against organisations who fail to comply with the data protection regime.
Striking a balance or tipping the scales? The Independent Review of Administrative Law and the possible reform of Judicial Review
On 31 July 2020 the Government launched an Independent Review of Administrative Law (‘the Review’). The panel of lawyers and academics, chaired by former Minister of State for Civil Justice Lord Edward Faulks QC (‘the Panel’), has been tasked with examining the potential need for reform of Judicial Review and to ‘consider whether the right balance is being struck between the rights of citizens to challenge executive decisions and the need for effective and efficient government.’
Office for Students refusal to register higher education provider unlawful due to failure to delegate and ‘secret policy’
The Bloomsbury Institute was fighting to survive financially after the Office for Students refused its application for registration. It brought a judicial review challenge which revealed that an unpublished policy had been followed. The policy had been formulated by an official who did not have the power to make the relevant decisions.
International Court of Justice and UN General Assembly do not alter the outcome of the Chagos Islands challenge
In a February 2019 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice stated that, under international law, the decolonisation of Mauritius by the UK has never been lawfully completed and the UK must therefore “end its administration” of the Chagos islands.
Claiming for maintenance in England when divorcing elsewhere in the EU: Will Brexit close the Villiers loophole?
The Supreme Court recently made clear in Villiers v Villiers  UKSC 30 that divorcing in one EU country does not prevent a party from making a separate claim for maintenance from their spouse in England and Wales. The case therefore demonstrates the possibility of ‘forum shopping’, where a party seeks to bring a financial claim in a jurisdiction (country) that is more convenient or provides a more generous maintenance provision than the jurisdiction in which the divorce is taking place. However, the loophole relies on an application of the EU Maintenance Regulation which will cease to be in force in the UK on 31 December 2020. This blog considers the case of Villiers and how Brexit will affect the current position.
Interpreting legislation is both an art and a science. This recent Court of Appeal case illustrates how judges do it in the context of the statutory scheme used to introduce controversial voter ID pilot schemes.