Home / World / Boris Johnson could be held in legal contempt for Brexit's letter policy

Boris Johnson could be held in legal contempt for Brexit's letter policy



Boris Johnson may be despised by a Scottish court after calling on EU leaders to ignore a letter extending the Brexit deadline.

Lord Carloway, Scotland's oldest judge, and two other judges will hear allegations On Monday, when the Prime Minister broke a promise, he announced to the court that he would not try to sabotage the request for extra time.

UK Government attorneys have written and court-told this month that the Prime Minister will comply with the Benn Act's provisions, which seeks to expand to Article 50 if he fails to reach Brexit by 1

9 October has passed.

The EU Resignation Act (No. 2), often referred to as the Benn Act, is a law passed by MPs in an attempt to prevent Boris Johnson's government from leaving the EU without an agreement.

It states that until 19 October, the government must either get an agreement approved by parliament or explicit parliamentary approval to withdraw without agreement.

If none of these conditions are met – and Johnson can not pass his treaty as a "Super Saturday" – the Prime Minister of the EU must write to ask for a further extension of Brexit. The form of the letter which the prime minister has to send is completely set out in the law.

The law states that the extension should last until 31 January 2020 or longer if the EU so proposes.

Here is the full text of the European Union (Retraction) (No.2) Law 2019

Martin Belam

The court has to decide if these pledges contained the attempt to use this as a "retreat" designated act. (No. 2) Act, while at the same time requesting the neglect of the request for renewal.

Carloway postponed a verdict at the first hearing of this case on October 9, also because the government's attorneys had made "detailed and specific" statements to approve the law in Johnson's name.

If the three judges find Johnson despised, he could theoretically face a fine or even a jail, but the court could suspend a sanction decision to give the prime minister time to act on his decision.

After Losing a Knife Common When Johnson voted on Saturday to delay his deal, he sent an unsigned copy of the letter required by law, as well as another personal letter to Brussels urging EU leaders not yet agreeing to an extension.

Johnson is reported to have privately spoken to key EU figures on Saturday to say the same as he tries to gain extra time to force his deal through Westminster before the planned Brexit day on October 31 ,

Attorneys for three anti-Brexit activists are expected to argue on Monday that these actions are a clear violation of the government's promises to the court made by lawyers on behalf of Lord Keen, the Advocate General and the British Attorney Government were made for Scotland.

The government rejected an application from these activists – Dale Vince, a green energy entrepreneur, Jolyon Maugham QC and Joanna Cherry QC, an SNP MP – for a ban or injunction that would force the prime minister to turn himself in to obey Benn's PR.

The attorneys of the government told the court on behalf of Keen that it was not necessary to issue a ban because Johnson accepted that "he is subject to the public policy that he serves his purpose or the purpose of his provisions can not thwart ".

The statement repeatedly added that "the prime minister is subject to the law and, as one would expect from a minister of the crown, there is no question about it but will meet the requirements of the law. He has said it repeatedly. "


Keir Starmer suggests that Labor could support the Brexit deal if the second referendum were enclosed – video

Aidan O & # 39; s Neill QC, the advocate of anti-Brexit activists, is supposed to ask the judges to repeat sections of a BBC record of the first hearing on October 9, when the government's attorneys confirmed that Johnson was not would try to sabotage the Benn file

It is expected that the government on Monday argued that Johnson had respected his pledges to the court with the required sending of the letter, and that he was allowed to oppose an extension at the same time argue.

David Johnston QC Johnson, one of the government's two QCs, told the court this month that he faces legal sanctions if he violates the law. "I would have to accept that the court will be able to take care of it in one way or another," he said.

Maugham and his associates had originally asked the court to consider using his unique powers, known as ] nobile officium to write this letter in Johnson's name, if he had failed. This part of the case is now likely to be dropped.

Maugham said it was up to Carloway and his fellow judges to consider whether they thought the court had been misled by Johnson's plans to thwart the act, and if so, what sanctions should be imposed.

"The court's job is to uphold the law – not act as a parent for a sloppy child," he said. "The question of whether the prime minister is in disregard of the court, as many commentators have argued, is really one. However, we will provide the court with the appropriate footage from the hearing inside the house [of 9 October]. "


Source link