秘密研究所

NEW PODCAST SERIES: Inside the Case

Fourth episode:

The lawyer who led the landmark constitutional battles over Brexit says they confirmed the courts over politicians as the ultimate legal authority in the UK.

Speaking a decade since the June 2016 Brexit referendum, Lord Pannick KC says that the dramatic legal challenges reshaped the balance of power between government, Parliament and the judiciary.

Both challenges to the government over the Brexit process were upheld by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, affirming the importance of Parliament and constraining the power of ministers.

“The rule of law requires that somebody has the last word on what the law requires and what the law allows, and that those people are the courts - and they did their job in very difficult, highly charged political circumstances,” he says.

In the first legal challenge, Prime Minister Theresa May was forced to seek Parliamentary approval for the triggering of the Brexit process.

In the second, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was ruled to have acted unlawfully in suspending Parliament during the Brexit negotiations.

In the fourth episode of 秘密研究所’s podcast, , Lord (David) Pannick KC provides an unprecedented insight into the Supreme Court cases, brought by City businesswoman Gina Miller.

These landmark battles, known as Miller 1 and Miller 2, are the most constitutionally significant to come before the courts for decades.

Looking back on the courtroom dramas that put Downing Street in a direct line of fire over Brexit, Lord Pannick reflects on the extreme public hostility directed at the judges involved.

They were branded "enemies of the people", he says; condemning the "mealy mouthed" response from politicians meant to defend the judiciary.

He recounts the colourful legal argument - including an opposing counsel labelling Prime Minister Boris Johnson the "father of lies" - and the response to the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that stopped the suspension of Parliament.

The 11-0 decision prompted an "audible gasp" in the courtroom as it declared void the suspension, or prorogation, of Parliament - meaning it had not lawfully been prorogued at all.

Lord Pannick likened it to a famous television plot twist: "The only precedent I could think of was the television series Dallas, where it's revealed that the previous episodes had all been a terrible dream"

His timely reflections come amid political pressure for closer European integration and concerns about the necessity for upholding the global rule of law.

Cameras in courts

Lord Pannick, a leading KC and cross-bencher in the House of Lords, stresses that the live broadcasting of the hearings was critical for transparency.

“I think transparency is very important, and I think that it assists public understanding of the issues that come up in courts. Many of the issues are issues of public importance, and it's quite right that people should be allowed to see.”

He adds that people were able to appreciate “that this was an objective court that was not politically partisan and that the issue was an issue of constitutional law.”

“People could understand the nature of the issue, that this was a question of parliamentary sovereignty, which people believe in. And that the executive, the Prime Minister, doesn't have untrammelled power.”

He also recalls how he became something of a media legal star, with T-shirts produced with his face on them.

On the long-term impact of the rulings, Lord Pannick states that the highest courts "asserted constitutional principle" against the executive and successfully "upheld the role of parliament".

The full discussion is available on episode four of Inside the Case, brought to you by 秘密研究所 which you can view on