Dr Rob Palmer Profile picture
Aug 29, 2018 14 tweets 4 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
[Ref illegality & corruption THREAD 👇👇]

Been asked to summarise the Susan Wilson (@Suewilson91) v Prime Minister case. This thread gives the basics of the pleadings and relief sought. /1


#VoteLeaveBrokeTheLaw #FBPE #WATON #FBR @abcpoppins #StopBrexit
There is a principal issue underlying the case that poses a simple question: is a lawful, free and fair vote one of the constitutional requirements of the UK? It's asked after 2 Electoral Commission (EC) Reports found that illegality & corruption dogged the ref campaign. /2
Let me make this clear. The EC findings were to the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) & serious offences were committed by the designated campaign for leaving the EU (& others), in breach of the statutory framework established by Parliament for the ref. /3
It is submitted that the PM's decision & notification to leave the EU was premised on a 'fundamental error of fact' and was not made in accordance with
the UK’s constitutional requirements as required by A50(1) & (2) TEU and/or 'are vitiated' by the corruption & illegality. /4
Although the ref was advisory, the common law principles of legality & constitutionality still apply. So, when considering how & when to exercise her statutory power under s.1(1) the EU(NoW)A 2017 the PM had to act lawfully (in line with public law & constitutional principles)./5
Sue Wilson et al seek declarations that both the Decision and Notification 'were unlawful on established electoral and public law principles and/or not in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the UK'. Thus, shouldn't be treated as, lawful and/or constitutional. /6
The PM's decision and (dependent) notification were vitiated by conduct that fell within the definition of ‘corrupt and illegal practices’ in the Representation of the People Act 1983 (& similar legislation) which the EC has found to have taken place (beyond reasonable doubt). /7
Those 'corrupt and illegal practices' were in breach of the statutory requirements established by and under the EU Referendum Act 2015, as well as other conduct (such that was identified by the Information Commissioner, regarding personal data etc.). /8
The ref was advisory/consultative (not binding) therefore the legal validity of the Decision and Notification have been impaired (vitiated) for two main reasons; first, by depending solely upon the flawed consultation. /9
The 2nd reason that the legal validity of the PM's decison and notification have been impaired is because, despite the advisory nature of the ref, both were founded upon promises to honour & implement the result. The findings of the EC further vitiate honouring that result. /10
The case submits that it is irrational for the PM to treat the ref result as binding which, had it been binding, would be void following the EC findings (clearly the result of the ref would have been affected by illegalities and corruption). /11
Irrationality aside, it is unlawful. As counsel submits that when Parliament gave the PM power to notify it should not be taken to have disapplied principles of legality and constitutionality. In addition it is in breach of s.6 HRA and Art.3 of the First Protocol (A3P1). /12
In line with constitutionality the PM is not permitted to ignore the findings of the EC or 'to take no material steps' or not 'to give anxious scrutiny to their import or otherwise in response to them'. It must be remembered that the investigations began BEFORE notification. /13
That is the case in a nutshell. The Claimants are asking the court to declare that the legal validity of the Decision & Notification are impaired (vitiated) owing to corruption & illegality; they are also asked to quash both the Decision and Notification for those reasons. /14

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Dr Rob Palmer

Dr Rob Palmer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RobertCPalmer13

Sep 10, 2018
[Thread Pt2]

Official summary of Govt's response to Wilson v PM JR claim (@UKEUchallenge) 👇👇

This thread continues with counsel’s response to the govt's Summary Grounds of Resistance (SGR) and picks up with why the @UKEUchallenge is both arguable and justiciable. /25
The findings of the EC Reports comprised findings of misconduct by Vote Leave & Leave.EU serious enough to amount to ‘illegal or corrupt practices and/or fraud’. This conduct is covered by the RPA as a species of conduct rendering the result of an election void./26
In this species, the one the Claimant relies upon, illegal practice is defined as when a candidate is guilty, or guilty by his agents, of any corrupt or illegal practice. Erlam v Rahman [2015] EWHC 1215 held that proof of its effect is irrelevant and not required. /27
Read 13 tweets
Sep 10, 2018
[Thread Pt1] Official summary of Govt's response to Wilson v PM JR claim (@UKEUchallenge) 👇👇

The govt response is preposterous. It misinterprets & distorts the grounds in what can only be described as an attempt to pervert the facts & side step the essence of the claim. /1
The Summary Grounds of Resistance (SGR) tries usual tricks to prevent a claim from getting permission.
1. Time
2. Unarguable
3. Non-justiciable
Each resistance can be strongly refuted by the Claimant; I'll deal with them briefly... /2
Time: @theresa_may first asserts the claim is out of time because it needed to be brought within times ranging from 21 days to 6 weeks. These timing claims originate from Sch 3 of EURA 2015 & the Representation of the People Act 1983. Both can be heavily contested. /3
Read 25 tweets
Sep 2, 2018
This thread is to arm fellow European British with essential info about our POSSIBLE future relationship with the WTO and what it would mean for the UK in a no deal situation. Use it to rebut Brexiteer disengenuity and nonsense on the matter - facts matter. /1
WTO RULES state that you can’t treat other nations more favourably in trade deals. So, the EU be in breach of their own international Treaties to accept the Chequers Accord. This is highly unlikely; they’d have to make these same allowances for more than 50 other countries. /2
Central to WTO rules is, to trade favourably, then a country must have a hard border to control good entering & leaving the country (as ratified by all 164 WTO members). S.10 of the EUWA18 makes this impossible: the UK can’t create a hard border in Ireland (protecting the GFA)./3
Read 6 tweets
Aug 7, 2018
2. A fundamental principle of the common law is that votes can be declared void for substantial irregularity. If irregularity affects the result of an election it is by itself enough to compel the tribunal to declare the election void.
3. The result doesn't need to be affected. Only a ‘substantial departure’ from the rules, or the election being ‘conducted so badly that it was not substantially in accordance with the law’ is needed to void the ballot.
Read 9 tweets
Jul 16, 2018
1/ The Chequers Accord was dead before it was written. There are important factors that verify that statement and it is important for both Remainers and Leavers to come to terms with that reality. This thread explains what I mean.

#FBPE #WATON @theresa_may @jeremycorbyn
2/ The 4 pillars of the EU are indivisible. The EU and other States can't cherry pick those pillars (people, goods, services and capital). IF the EU decided to allow the UK to split the freedoms it would also have to make the same allowances for 50 plus other countries.
3/ In order for the EU to accept the Chequers Accord they'd be in breach of their own international Treaties. This is extremly impropable. Not just that, WTO RULES state that you cannot provide a better deal for one nation over others.
Read 8 tweets
Apr 26, 2018
1.#A50Challenge disputes the govt's claims that a 'decision' to leave the EU has been made 'in accordance with [our] constitutional requirements'. The underlying assumptions of that decision haven't been tested in court. THREAD explaining why the ref result isn't a decision #FBPE
2. In 2011 the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act was legislated during the 1st Cameroon govt. It was unique as it was a 'madatory' referendum. The same administration legislated for the Referendum Act 2015 as an 'advisory' ref; 2011 bound parliament 2015 didn't.
3. The 1975 ref process was different. It was, what's termed as, a post-legislative ref. In other words, Parliament voted for EC membership, then legislated for the Referendum Act 1975. The assent of the people (67% to 33%) then made that result binding; theoretically.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!