Transcripts (perhaps draft) of the Article 50 ‘Brexit’ Appeal hearings at the Supreme Court

No, it was a specific power to deal with the tariffs that were applicable, and your Lordship will see it at 35/480.

My Lords, my Lord, Lord Carnwath referred to the Canadian case of Turp and my friend Mr Eadie took the court to it this morning. Can I ask your Lordships to go back to it at volume 26, tab 308 and it is MS page 8950, volume 26. Tab 308, MS 8950. And I take the court to it just for this reason. If the court would go, please, to MS page 8953, the court will see paragraph 8 of the judgment, this was a judgment at first instance of the federal court.

At page 8953, paragraph 8, the judge, Mr Justice Simon Noel, referred to an earlier judgment on the relevant Act, the KPIA, and at the end of paragraph 42 of that earlier Act, which the judge refers to, we see the final sentence:

"If Parliament had intended to impose a justiciable duty upon the Government to comply with Canada's Kyoto commitments, it could easily have said so in clear and simple language."

That judgment, see paragraph 9, was upheld by the federal court of appeal and the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.

So the Act which was being displaced by the prerogative, was an act which imposed no justiciable duty upon the Government. So it was not an act that created any obligations at all in domestic law, and therefore it doesn't assist my friends to show that it is open to the appellant by the exercise of a prerogative power to displace legislation which does, 1972 Act --

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech