KopTalk.com Forums Who would you vote for in the next UK General Election?

Legal technicality but it was void not unlawful it would be unlawful if boris took exactly the same action again. The courts interpretated the law and came to a precendent decision which will impact interpretation of the law going forward. Boris did not break the law

Please offer a correction

Keep clutching at those straws.

# they aren't racists they're characters.

My question was aimed at Vish. There is no way in the world you could answer a question like that

Oh that is so hurtful.

Please offer an apology.

#they aren't racists they're characters

This is what I read was said by the supreme court, I didn't make it up, I won't dare.

"This court has … concluded that the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty [ to suspend parliament] was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect should be quashed"

Can I consider the correction offered?

They declared it void which means it has no legal effect it can only be unlawful if it was repeated as the interpretation of the law was created at that point. It's also constitutional law not criminal law happy to be proved wrong

Did they say it was unlawful as well or not? If it was criminal law Boris would have had to be bailed out, not sure what your point is.

Vish it was unlawful at and from that point the judges made a new law and interpretation.

Prior to the judges decision Johnson had the advice of the attorney general (this has been sufficient for generations) it also was upheld by the English court

So Johnson is hardly the master criminal although no doubt shaggy with the IQ of a bluebottle would claim it

They didn't create a new law, they just gave the interpretation of the law which also creates precedence. So the act was unlawful, whether Bojo did it in good faith or not is another matter.

Aspects of their judgement did change the structure of the law. The legal relationship between the queen and the prime minster is now changed. Johnson consulted the attorney general every other prime minister in history would have done no more. You are right the judges did make a new precendent that's why it could not be illegal prior to that point only after and at the point of their judgement