Judgment in the Article 50 Brexit Appeal Due Tuesday 24 January

Decision time: judgment in the Article 50 Brexit

Appeal due Tuesday 24 January 2017

The UK Supreme Court has announced that its decision in the appeal of R (on the application of Miller & Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) – otherwise more commonly known as “the Article 50 Brexit appeal” – is due on Tuesday 24 January 2017, at 9:30am (UK time).

What are the implications for Scotland?

A number of interested parties intervened in the proceedings, including the Lord Advocate (James Wolffe QC), the Scottish Government’s principal legal adviser and the senior Scottish Law Officer.

The Lord Advocate sought permission to intervene because of the significance of the constitutional issues engaged in the case, and in particular, their importance for Scotland. We can therefore expect that part of the judgment will deal specifically with the Scottish position and comment upon the constitutional principles surrounding its settlement.

What was the Scottish Government’s position during the hearing?

During the hearing, the Scottish Government’s position was that the UK Government does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative alone to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. It argued, aligning itself with the position of Ms Miller and the other respondents, that the decision to withdraw from the EU requires an Act of Parliament and that the UK Government cannot act alone, without parliamentary approval.

It went further and also argued that withdrawal from the EU would result in changes of law that fall within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers under the Scotland Act 1998. Accordingly, it was argued that any Bill brought before the UK Parliament would also engage the constitutional “Sewel Convention”, which provides that the UK Parliament does not normally legislate in devolved matters, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

As the term suggests, the “Sewel Convention”, as a constitutional convention, takes the form of a political as opposed to a legally binding undertaking. However, Section 2 of the Scotland Act 2016 inserted a new subsection (8) into Section 28 Scotland Act 1998. This gave statutory recognition to the Convention by stating: “ But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament .”

Where politics meets law

With 62% of voters in Scotland voting to remain in the EU in the June 2016 referendum, the Scottish Parliament could be expected to refuse that consent. Although the UK Parliament could nonetheless still pass the legislation required in the face of that refusal, to ignore a refusal of consent from the Scottish Parliament could have significant constitutional and political consequences for the future of the Union.

While the inclusion of the word “normally” allows an obvious way for the UK Government to ignore the Convention without necessarily breaching the Scotland Act, given that the circumstances of Brexit may be considered exceptional, it is clear nevertheless that this would give rise to political and constitutional issues which may be hard for the UK Government to ignore, particularly if it seen to undermine the Scottish devolution settlement and becomes an additional pretext for a further Independence Referendum.

While the focus of next week’s decision will be whether the Supreme Court supports the earlier court decision that provided that the UK Government could not use the Royal Prerogative and required the approval of Parliament to trigger Article 50, there are wider constitutional issues that will also be covered.

One big question next week for watchers of the UK constitutional settlement will therefore be to what extent the UK Government requires to interact with the Scottish Parliament in the context of triggering or implementing its Brexit proposals. The decision is also likely to provide a broader analysis of the nature of the constitutional arrangements for Scottish devolution which is undoubtedly likely to influence the debate on a further referendum on the question of Scottish independence. Whatever the result, the decision promises to be one of the most significant constitutional landmarks for Scotland’s devolution settlement of our time.

Follow the decision on Tuesday

As the UK Supreme Court hands down its decision on Tuesday, there will be many opportunities to engage with the proceedings.

The UK Supreme Court is streaming proceedings live here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

During the appeal hearing, lawyers from CMS, Olswang and Nabarro ran a live blog on the proceedings, in conjunction with Matrix Chambers. They will also be reporting on the decision hand-down next week. Please follow and subscribe to the blog here: http://ukscblog.com/

Contact

Caryn Penley Kenneth Rose Partner (UK) Partner (UK) +44 131 200 7338 +44 (0)131 200 7348 [email protected] [email protected]

Stephen Phillips Emma Boffey Partner (UK) Lawyer (UK) +44 (0)131 200 7313 +44 (0)131 200 7551 [email protected] [email protected]

20 January 2017

217113548

This report is for general purposes and guidance only and does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied on or treated as a substitute for specific advice relevant to particular circumstances. For legal advice, please contact your main contact partner at the relevant CMS member firm. If you are not a client of a CMS member firm, or if you have general queries about Law-Now or RegZone, please send an email to: [email protected] so that your enquiry can be passed on to the right person(s).

All Law-Now and RegZone information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

CMS Legal Services EEIG (CMS EEIG), has its head office at: Barckhausstraße 12-16, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany. The contact email address for CMS EEIG is [email protected], its Ust-ID is: DE 257 695 176 and it is registered on Handelsregister A in Frankfurt am Main with the registration number: HRA 44853. CMS Legal Services EEIG (CMS EEIG) is a European Economic Interest Grouping that coordinates an organisation of independent law firms. CMS EEIG provides no client services. Such services are solely provided by CMS EEIG’s member firms in their respective jurisdictions. CMS EEIG and each of its member firms are separate and legally distinct entities, and no such entity has any authority to bind any other. CMS EEIG and each member firm are liable only for their own acts or omissions and not those of each other. The brand name “CMS” and the term “firm” are used to refer to some or all of the member firms or their offices.

CMS EEIG member firms are: CMS Adonnino Ascoli & Cavasola Scamoni, Associazione Professionale (Italy); CMS Albiñana & Suárez de Lezo S. L. P. (Spain); CMS Bureau Francis Lefebvre S. E. L. A. F. A. (France); CMS Cameron McKenna LLP (UK); CMS China (China); CMS DeBacker SCRL / CVBA (Belgium); CMS Derks Star Busmann N. V. (The Netherlands); CMS von Erlach Poncet Ltd (Switzerland); CMS Hasche Sigle Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten und Steuerberatern mbB (Germany); CMS Reich-Rohrwig Hainz Rechtsanwälte GmbH (Austria); CMS Russia and CMS Rui Pena, Arnaut & Associados RL (Portugal).