The fall out of the Supreme Courts’ decision of founding the Prime Minister’s suspension of Parliament unlawful has drawn more questions than answers. Any suggestion that the integrity of holders of judicial offices is unquestionable is to imply that they are above the law. Surely, every one is subject to public scrutiny and no one: including Justices of the Supreme Court should be exempted. This does not and shouldn’t affect the perspective that the finality of Supreme Court is Sacrosanct, or that the judiciary is independent. Indeed, it isn’t uncommon for Supreme Court Justices to change their mind when they realise a mistake in their decision, in the United States for instance, the Supreme Court has overturned more than 200 of its decisions. The political hemisphere in the United Kingdom at the moment is hardly not revolved around Brexit. The Supreme Court in giving its judgment did what no court in the country has ever done before, it ventured into political territory and by so doing also infringed on the principle of Separation of Powers. Parliament have its own inherent ways in resolving political juggernaut, if the Prime Minister does anything they deemed unlawful, they can call a vote of no confidence, they can hold him in contempt of Parliament, they can pass laws.
The Supreme Court declared that the Prime Minister acted unlawfully by Proroguing (suspending) Parliament, yet, there is no law around Prorogation, how can an action be unlawful if there isn’t a law that was breached. The fact remains that it is Conventions that gives the Prime Minister the power to suspend Parliament, the discretion is with the Prime Minister to determine how long this last. In centuries past, Prime Ministers used the power of Prorogation to suit their own purposes, both summoning Parliament so it could authorise taxes, and proroguing it to limit its activities and power, if the most recent Prorogation is unlawful, are the past ones unlawful too? It’s hypocrisy of the highest rank. The problem the Supreme Court Justices created when they delved into political territory is that it brings to the forefront their opinions on Brexit, are they Brexiteers or remainers, could their Brexit stance have affected their decision? This is the reason why they should not have stooped in political arena, now that they have, it is right that they face scrutiny, after all, the independence of the judiciary is only guaranteed if the Judiciary is not politicised.
