This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49959172

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Court asked to consider Brexit delay letter to EU Scottish court hears arguments about Brexit delay letter to EU
(about 2 hours later)
Judges are to consider whether a court can sign a Brexit extension request letter on behalf of the government. Scottish judges are considering whether a court can sign a Brexit extension letter on behalf of the government.
The Inner House of the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, is being asked to act directly if Boris Johnson refuses to request a delay.The Inner House of the Court of Session, Scotland's highest court, is being asked to act directly if Boris Johnson refuses to request a delay.
The letter is a key provision of what is known as the Benn Act, by which MPs hope to prevent a no-deal Brexit.The letter is a key provision of what is known as the Benn Act, by which MPs hope to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
The court will also hear an appeal against a ruling that Mr Johnson can be trusted to apply the law. The court also heard an appeal against a ruling that Mr Johnson can be trusted to apply the law.
Lord Pentland said following an earlier hearing that there could be "no doubt" that the prime minister had agreed to abide by the law.Lord Pentland said following an earlier hearing that there could be "no doubt" that the prime minister had agreed to abide by the law.
As a result, he said there was no need for "coercive orders" against the UK government or against the prime minister.As a result, he said there was no need for "coercive orders" against the UK government or against the prime minister.
And he said it would be "destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the Crown" if Mr Johnson reneged on his assurances to the court.And he said it would be "destructive of one of the core principles of constitutional propriety and of the mutual trust that is the bedrock of the relationship between the court and the Crown" if Mr Johnson reneged on his assurances to the court.
The parallel case requesting that the court communicates directly with the European Union involves the exercise of the nobile officium power. But speaking for the petitioners - businessman Dale Vince, QC Jolyon Maugham and SNP MP Joanna Cherry - Aidan O'Neill QC said it appeared Mr Johnson might still intend to get around the intention of the Benn Act and take the UK out of the EU without a deal.
This is described by the Judiciary of Scotland website as a mechanism by which "the court may, within limits, mitigate the strictness of the law and provide a legal remedy where none exists". During the hearing on Tuesday, he cited recent articles quoting Number 10 sources which predicted that talks with the EU could break down this week. He said it was clear the government's policy was to "undermine" and "frustrate" the legislation - which requires Mr Johnson to request a Brexit extension if no deal is struck by 19 October.
The case has been brought by businessman Dale Vince, Jolyon Maugham QC and Joanna Cherry QC, who is an SNP MP. The petitioners want the court to use its "nobile officium" power to effectively sign a letter to European leaders on behalf of Mr Johnson, if the prime minister refuses to do so himself.
They argue that the court should step in to request a Brexit extension if the prime minister illegally refuses to do so. Mr O'Neill said this could be necessary to "enforce" an act of the Westminster parliament, rather than be a case of the court delving into foreign affairs.
In such circumstances, a letter could be signed by an official of the court. However, Andrew Webster QC, for the UK government, argued that in the current "delicate times", international relations should be left to ministers rather than the courts.
He said the government was entitled to promote its own policies - provided it does so "lawfully" and without "frustrating" the legislation passed by opposition MPs.
The case will be decided by a panel of three senior judges - although one, Lord Carloway, discussed whether the court could delay a decision on the "nobile officium" until after the 19 October deadline, when the political position would be clearer.
A judgement will be issued on Wednesday.
What is the nobile officium?What is the nobile officium?
The procedure of petitioning the nobile officium is unique to Scots law, but is far from being a forgotten backwater of the legal system.The procedure of petitioning the nobile officium is unique to Scots law, but is far from being a forgotten backwater of the legal system.
Its name is a Latin term meaning the "noble office".Its name is a Latin term meaning the "noble office".
The procedure offers the opportunity to provide a remedy in a legal dispute where none exists.The procedure offers the opportunity to provide a remedy in a legal dispute where none exists.
In other words, it can plug any gap in the law or offer mitigation if the law, when applied, would be seen to be too strict.In other words, it can plug any gap in the law or offer mitigation if the law, when applied, would be seen to be too strict.
In this case, it would see an official of the court sign a letter to the EU requesting a Brexit extension, as set out in the Benn Act, should the prime minister refuse to.
What is the 'Benn Act'?What is the 'Benn Act'?
Last month, MPs passed a law - the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 which was introduced by Labour's Hilary Benn - designed to stop Boris Johnson pushing through a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.Last month, MPs passed a law - the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 which was introduced by Labour's Hilary Benn - designed to stop Boris Johnson pushing through a no-deal Brexit on 31 October.
Under the law, MPs Mr Johnson is required to request a three-month Brexit delay by 19 October.Under the law, MPs Mr Johnson is required to request a three-month Brexit delay by 19 October.
There are two scenarios in which Mr Johnson would not have to request an extension:There are two scenarios in which Mr Johnson would not have to request an extension:
In either of these scenarios, Mr Benn's law would not force any Brexit extension to be requested.In either of these scenarios, Mr Benn's law would not force any Brexit extension to be requested.