There is another legal challenge being launched into the prime minister's decision to leave the EU. A claimant named Susan Wilson, from the Bremain in Spain ex-pats group I believe, plus others not named, have submitted grounds for a judicial review to the High Court (HERE). Essentially, they are focusing on the corruption and illegality surrounding the referendum itself and whether the PM was right to proceed or not with Article 50. It's 52 pages altogether so not a light read.
The aim of the review:
"The Claimants seek declarations that both the Decision and Notification, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, were unlawful on established electoral and public law principles and/or not in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the United Kingdom (“UK”)".
The grounds for the review:
(1) The Prime Minister’s Decision and Notification under Section 1(1) of the 2017 Act were not, or should not be treated as, lawful and/or in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements.
(2) They are vitiated by conduct which would fall within the definition of ‘corrupt and illegal practices’ in the Representation of the People Act 1983 and similar legislation, which the Electoral Commission has found to have taken place, to the criminal standard of proof, in breach of the statutory requirements established by and under the Referendum Act 2015, as well as other conduct, including that identified by the Information Commissioner, regarding personal data.
A question of construction for this Court is whether Parliament intended to empower the Prime Minister to take the UK out of the EU on the basis (and only on the basis) of the result of a Referendum, which was vitiated by corrupt and illegal conduct which would have nullified any binding Referendum or election. It clearly did not.
The claimants conclusions:
For the reasons set out above, a notification under Article 50 of the TEU may only lawfully be made in accordance with the 2017 Act, the UK’s constitutional requirements and the rule of law.
By reason of the matters now known, the Referendum result is vitiated by corrupt and illegal practices, and the basis of the decision made by Prime Minister thereby fundamentally undermined. Neither the decision nor notification under Article 50 was in accordance with the UK’s constitutional requirements. The court is respectfully invited to grant the relief sought or such relief as it may think fit.
This is a serious attempt to get a legal ruling on whether the referendum represents "a lawful, free and fair vote" so it will be interesting to see how far it gets.
Of course, we've been here before with the Wolchover case - referred to as "see: R (on the application of Webster) v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2018]" in this grounds for judicial review - which didn't get anywhere, but I don't see any crowdfunding for this case so I assume the backers have money behind them and are prepared to take it as far as they can. No doubt they think they can win but then again this is how lawyers earn their money isn't it?
What would be wonderful is if the Supreme Court ruled it was all illegal - as defined by the law - but it was up to the PM what she did. Mrs May would certainly be put on the spot then. Carry on and risk a legal challenge to Brexit or call a second referendum and risk the ire of her own party and probably her own job.
