The High Court ruled today that the UK government did not have the power to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval.
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas; the Master of the Rolls, Sir Terence Etherton; and Lord Justice Sales gave the decision at 10am this morning.
“We have reached this conclusion by examining and rejecting the submission advanced by the Secretary of State,” the judges said in their ruling. Sterling rallied in the minutes following the judgment, showing a prominent spike at around 10.05am.
The case is one which government lawyer James Eadie QC told them had “profound” constitutional and political implications. However, before giving judgment today, Lord Thomas made it clear that the judges “were not being swayed by political arguments”.
“This is a pure question of law,” he said. “The court is not concerned with and does not express any views about the merits of leaving the European Union. That is a political issue.”
Today’s decision will not be the end of the matter. A government spokesman has already said the government plans to appeal the ruling. Unusually, the case will leapfrog the Court of Appeal and go directly to the Supreme Court, where it will be heard between 5-8 December.
The case, which was partially crowdfunded, was brought by fund manager Gina Miller and other claimants, including a Spanish hairdresser and a group of concerned expatriates. The lead lawyer for the claimants is Lord David Pannick QC.
Grahame Pigney, one of the crowdfunded claimants, was among the first to comment following the ruling.
“We started this challenge in order to protect parliamentary sovereignty and the rights of millions of UK citizens,” he said in a statement. “The court’s decision has justified our action.”
At last month’s hearing Lord Pannick argued that the government cannot use the Royal Prerogative to notify the other member states of the European Union that the UK intended to leave. This, he said, was because notifying them would set in motion a process that would destroy laws passed by parliament.
However, the attorney general denied that parliamentary sovereignty would be pre-empted by the government’s “proper and well-established use of the royal prerogative” to trigger Article 50, and that beginning the process of Brexit would not in and of itself change any common law or statutory right enjoyed by UK citizens.
In today’s ruling, the judges clearly backed Pannick’s argument.
“In our judgment,” the ruling said, “Parliament intended EU rights to have effect in domestic law and this effect should not be capable of being undone or overridden by action taken by the Crown in exercise of its prerogative powers.”
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure by which a member state that has decided to withdraw from the EU achieves that result. The government intends to give notification under Article 50 and to conduct the subsequent negotiations, in exercise of prerogative powers to conclude and withdraw from international treaties.
Guy Lougher, partner and head of the Pinsent Masons’ Brexit advisory team, said: “For business, the High Court’s judgment doesn’t alleviate the uncertainty that has been prevailing since June 24. The best course of action for business is to keep calm and carry on. “
The Queen on the application of Santos v Secretary Of State For Exiting The European Union; The Queen on the application of Miller v Secretary Of State For Exiting The European Union High Court (Thomas LCJ, Etherton MR, Sales LJ)
