Jolyon Maugham fails in legal challenge to prevent vote on Boris Johnson’s deal
- Credit: PA
A legal bid arguing Boris Johnson's Brexit deal is unlawful, and attempting to prevent it being voted on by MPs, has been rejected in Scotland's highest civil court.
Campaigner Jolyon Maugham QC is behind the legal challenge which was heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, where the judge said the case was of "very doubtful competency".
On hearing the decision, Maugham suggested that the short time frame of events had affected the viability of his case since the deal was agreed.
He said in a tweet: "As I said yesterday morning, we had to make a decision to issue proceedings for interim remedies quickly or not at all; once the Withdrawal Agreement reaches parliament it becomes impossible to challenge.
"It is difficult to move quickly and accurately and, the court has found, I got that decision wrong".
You may also want to watch:
Lord Pentland rejected Maugham's argument that the agreement was unlawful, saying: "The orders sought would unquestionably interfere to a major extent to the proposed proceedings in parliament.
"I cannot see that it would be right for parliament to be invited to consider a draft treaty which the court had suspended on the basis that it was unlawful.
- 1 Leave EU website suspended after EU registry blocks move to Ireland
- 2 Comedian wins praise after shaming No 10 during Dancing on Ice appearance
- 3 Television drama to focus on Boris Johnson's first year in Downing Street
- 4 Boris Johnson blames seafood companies for post-Brexit sales slump
- 5 Progressive alliance could see Labour win 351 seats at next election, new analysis reveals
- 6 Boris Johnson claims Labour supporters using Universal Credit vote to incite hatred
- 7 Michael Gove among 14 Tory MPs revealed to have joined banned Parler app
- 8 Priti Patel fails to appear in Commons to answer questions on missing police records
- 9 UK has highest Covid-19 death rate in world
- 10 Dominic Raab 'not convinced' collapse of fishing businesses would be result of Brexit deal
"It is a cardinal principle of constitutional law that the courts should not intrude on the legitimate affairs and processes of parliament."
The case had argued that the new deal contravenes a current law stipulating it is "unlawful for Her Majesty's government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain".
MORE: Court case could rule Boris Johnson's Brexit deal 'unlawful'This rule, as part of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, Section 55, was put forward by the pro-Brexit ERG.
Maugham argued that it is "simply not open, as a matter of law", for Boris Johnson to have entered into the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU without repealing this section of the Act.
He tweeted at the time: "We do not understand how the government might have come to negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement in terms that breach amendments tabled by its own European Research Group.
He sought a court order to prevent the agreement being put to a vote on the upcoming "Super Saturday" of parliamentary action.
Maugham has now said that his organisation, the Good Law Project, will release a full account of expenditure.
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.