The judges hearing Stuart Wheeler’s judicial review into Liebour’s refusal to hold a referendum on the EU not-a-constitution have reserved judgement, promising to make their judgement “as soon as possible”.
They haven’t ruled that not holding a referendum is illegal but they also haven’t ruled that not holding one is legal. It is very unlikely that the courts will rule in Stuart Wheeler’s favour because that opens up a whole can of worms. But have they cleverly handed him a lifeline – a stronger case on which to challenge the ratification of the EU not-a-constitution?
By reserving judgement, surely the matter is still sub judice and both the Common and Lords banned from voting on it? Could the judges be handing Stuart Wheeler the ammunition he needs if the Lords vote in favour of the EU not-a-constitution without a referendum tomorrow? A legal challenge on the basis that the matter was sub judice when the Lords voted on it could drag on for a long time, maybe even past the deadline for ratification?
Technorati Tags: EU Constitution, Lisbon Treaty, Stuart Wheeler
i think both houses of parliment are exempt from sub judice isseues, they are also exempt from libel
Libel doesn’t apply because of parliamentary privilege. Sub judice literally means “under justice” – it’s not a type of case.