Abstract

The citicism of the United Kingdom's Supreme Court's decision on the prorogation of the Parliament is very unusual in its quality.

Article

The entire United Kingdom Supreme Court will be devastated to hear that Professor James Allan has condmned its unanimous (11 -0)) decision on the illegality of the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen as to the proroging the Parliament.  The Court will join the High Court of Australia in its shame on being criticised by Professor Allan for its errors on constitutional matters which conflict with his far right-wing views.

In support of his criticism, the Professor cites John Finnis, who coincidentally shares his leanings and even regards same-sex couples as guilty of the equivalent of beastiality. It is not surprising that Mr Finnis, a gentleman of high intellect much superior to that of Professor Allan but known to be controversial and tainted by the same prejudices, should protest at a result which was so far at odds with his political and social pesuasions. 

Their common response tends to show, if anything, that the far right cannot accept the umpire's decision, even when the umpire consists of the whole Court of Britain's most eminent lawyers and is unanimous.

The Courts' chagrin may be somewhat allayed by their knowledge that Professor Allan has little experience in legal practice, none in judging, and no grounds to claim to be an expert in Constitutiona; Law.  The station of Mr Finnis in this respect is unknown except that he does not appear to have academic or forensic prominence in that field.

Avoiding the difficulty of establishing his credentials, Professor Allan assumes the role of speaking for the 'impartial spectator.  Anyone who has heard him or read his words will know of his complete inability to pretend to that status. Perhaps, the standard of his commentary may be seen in his preliminary  suggestion that those judges of such eminence were guilty of thinking one thing and saying another, which is rather an intemperate suggestion, even outrageous.

Just as the Australian High Court hasthe power to adjudicate on the validity of the government's actions in terms of the written constitution, so too there is nothing untoward in the UK's Supreme Court's guardianship it their constitution.  It is plainly irrelevant that their constitution is not written but bound by convention.It must be one of the fundamental features of the convention that except to take the Parliament to an election or for some other legitimate reason, its sovereignty is not to be taken from it. A politically manipulative manoeuvre is far from justified for depriving the Parliament from performing its constitutional role. Accordingly, the Court had the jurisdiction to decide the issue.  That being so, the decision was not political, which is another outrageous insult to level atthe Court.