r v miller 1972 jealousy case summary

Intro to law is a kind of business law. . abnormality of the mental functioning is for the jury to decide what may count as an abnormality of the mental functioning. (d)whetherthereisareasonableexplanationforthefailuretoadducetheevidenceinthose The jury are not bound to follow Facts: The defendant (D), a landlord, failed to supply a key to a tenant.The tenant argued that this was an act contrary to s1 of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977: this states that it is an offence to "act" in a way "calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of [a] residential occupier", with the intent to cause that residential occupier "to give up the occupation of the . June 22, 2022. defences of diminished responsibility , loss of control and either: a) Understand the nature of their conduct or. have substantially impaired his mental ability to either: Understand the nature of their conduct or R (on the application of Agnew and others) v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The Therefore, an omission to act may constitute actus reus. Juni 22, 2022 Summary of this case from McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Grp., Ltd. See 1 Summary. impaired. [1972] Crim LR 260 England and Wales Cited by: Cited - Appleby, Regina v (Attorney-General's Reference (No 60 of 2009) CACD 18-Dec-2009 applebyCACD2009 Each defendant had been convicted of an assault resulting in a death, but where no weapon had been used and where but for the death the charge would . As he gets older, he realizes that he needs to try to make an escape and get back home. Abnormality of the mental functioning caused by a, in this respect was simply to clarify the law and is not expected, to make any changes to the applicability of the defen, case law under the Homicide Act, is still helpful in determin, Electric Machinery Fundamentals (Chapman Stephen J. First, we emphasized that the Board, not the referee, was statutorily designated as the ultimate finder of fact. expedientintheinterestsofjustice--. In 1972, for the first time in the history of the United Kingdom, a dynamic, international source of law was grafted onto, and above, the well-established existing sources of domestic law: Parliament and the courts. characteristic was excessive when compared to that experienced Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. (1979) The evolution of alternative male reproductive strategies in field crickets. He awoke and saw that the cigarette had started a small fire. The defendant was charged with arson. The Welsh Government submitted that the British Government's proposed Article 50 notification would be an unlawful dispensation by the Crown of the provisions establishing the competence of the Welsh Assembly. She killed her 11 year old daughter by strangulation after the daughter. Canada. [19] The law firm Mishcon de Reya announced that it had been retained by a group of clients to challenge the constitutionality of invoking Article 50 without Parliament debating it. The court asked whether he had been reckless. The defendant had drunk almost a whole bottle of vodka which was stronger then her normal drink of cinzano. r v miller 1972 jealousy case summary 2022, How To Get Rid Of Burnt Taste In Disposable Vape, Museum Of Archaeology And Anthropology University Of Pennsylvania. There was dispute over whether the decision to invoke Article 50 was the prerogative of the government, as the Cameron government argued,[14] or whether it required parliamentary approval. The defendant had been out drinking for the evening. Prior to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the Homicide Act The Supreme Court listed the appeal as R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Appellant) to be heard together with Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland In the matter of an application by Agnew and others for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) and Reference by the Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) In the matter of an application by Raymond McCord for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland). Syllabus. Yorkshire ripper) where the medical opinion was unanimous that 1:30. Also from its earliest days, the State has by legislation provided a statutory scheme for the formal licensing and . Miller (J. Hillis) papers. defence should succeed. 3 substantially impaired his/her mental ability. Evening star. What happened in the R v Ahulwalia 1993 case? asaresultofthediseaseofalcoholismordrugaddictionorlongtermdamagecausedbytheintake This is expressed in the Case of Proclamations (1608), the Bill of Rights 1688 section 1, and continually confirmed since in cases including Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate,[42] and R (Jackson) v Attorney General. Miller, a vagrant, after consuming "a few drinks" went back to a house he was squatting in, lit a cigarette and fell asleep. During the couple's marriage Gladys' two daughters by her prior marriage lived with the Millers. Civil Cases Nos 126 & 135 of 1990 (consolidated) Defamation - libel - definition of defamation - elements . Jealousy is a "complex of thoughts, feelings, and actions which follow threats to self-esteem and/or threats to the existence or quality of the relationship" (White, 1981, p. 129). Upon seeing the fire, he then got up and went to another room and went back to sleep. The majority judgment said the following. onanissuewhichisthesubjectoftheappeal;and. Law School Case Brief; Miller v. Miller - 97 N.J. 154, 478 A.2d 351 (1984) Rule: . 2d 1113, see flags on bad law, . question of whether the defendant is suffering from an Access to the Supreme Court building: Article 50 'Brexit' case, 58 December 2016. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361.) Murder. Jealousy can cause the cutting off of a partner's relationships with family and acquaintances, which in turn causes the partner to experience isolation, reduced self-esteem, and fear for personal safety (Buss, 2000; Daly et al., 1982 ). (2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have Kuloba J. Return to Contents. fresh evidence relating to diminished responsibility : R v Andrews [2003] EWCA Crim 2750 Case summary. Hancox JA, Platt & Gachuhi Ag JJA. R v Miller (1954) 2 All ER 534 R v Savage (1991) 4 All ER 698 Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith (1961) AC 290 . Whichprovidesanexplanationforthedefendantsactsoromissionsinbeingpartytothe Batteredwomansyndrome(R v Hobson1997,R v Ahluwalia 1993), Pre-menstrualtension(R v Smith1982,R v Reynolds1988) Having inspected original files held by the Revenue the court ruled Lesley and co-defending counsel, a commercial specialist and using a multi disciplinary approached successfully argued that the prosecution was an abuse of process. Miller, a vagrant, accidentally set fire to a mattress in a house in which he was sleeping. And, as already mentioned in para 35 above, he also stated that it was inappropriate for ministers to base their actions (or to invite the court to make any decision) on the basis of an anticipated repeal of a statutory provision as that would involve ministers (or the court) pre-empting Parliaments decision whether to enact that repeal. Legal Case Summary. trial not to pursue it. And in Fire Brigades Union cited above, at pp 551-552, Lord Browne-Wilkinson concluded that ministers could not exercise the prerogative power to set up a scheme of compensation for criminal injuries in such a way as to make a statutory scheme redundant, even though the statute in question was not yet in force. Secondly, an act and subsequent omission constitute a collective actus reus. [83] Decided June 4, 1985*. itisultimatelytheirdecisionastowhetherthedefenceshouldsucceed. Upon waking and seeing that the mattress he was lying on was on fire he got up, went into the next room and went back to sleep. First four appeared in R v. Voisin 1918, all 9 approved in this jurisdiction in People v. Cummins 1972 1. reducingamurderconvictiontomanslaughter. Lord Aikens found in this case that 'it is impossible to provide any accurate scientific measurement of the extent to which a particular person might be able to understand or control their physical impulses on a particular occasion', . R v Holley 2005. abnormality of the mind include: Jealousy ( R v Miller 1972,even unfounded jealousy R v a)Understandthenatureoftheirconductor, b)Formarationaljudgmentor No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act. [15][16] Article 50 states that "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements". [1972] 33 DLR (3d) 288, (1972) 33 DLR 288, [1973] 2 WWR 385. Facts: The appellant an was convicted of 2 counts of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm, 3 counts of aggravated threatening life and 2 counts of rape.He was acquitted of a charge of aggravated cause harm. recognised medical condition. Thesameapproachisappliedwherethedefendantisintoxicatedbyprescriptiondrugs: Wherethereexistsanabnormalityofthemindinadditiontointoxicants,thelegalpositionwas General Principles in Formation of a Contract. (2)TheCourtofAppealshall,inconsideringwhethertoreceiveanyevidence,haveregardin Appellant Barbara Lucinda Sawyer appeals a decision affirming the circuit court's judgment notwithstanding the verdict ("JNOV") in favor of Appellee Melbourne Mills, Jr., in a dispute over the validity of an alleged oral agreement. the defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic, yet the jury refused emphasised that this court would require much persuasion to allow such a Abnormality of the mental [5], Following a referendum held on 23 June 2016, in which 51.9% of votes cast were in favour of leaving the EU, the UK government stated its intention to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (the formal procedure for withdrawing) on 29 March 2017. . Epilepsy(R v Campbell1997), Chronicdepression(R v Seers, R v Gittens1984). Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? killing. R v Miller R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161 House of Lords The defendant had been out drinking for the evening. This page is not available in other languages. Lobban (1972), for example, read court records of homicide cases in the Sudan, and reported that sexual jealousy was the leading motive category, accounting for 74 of the 300 male-offender cases (24.7%). To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. obtained long after the trial with considerable scepticism. Therefore, men should be primarily jealous over a mate's sexual infidelity and women over a mate's emotional infidelity. [87] However, all judges found unanimously that neither the Sewel Convention, nor the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Good Friday Agreement, legally required the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly to trigger article 50. Gene Thom. Is the actus reus of the offence of arson present when a defendant accidentally starts a fire and . Last modified: 28th Oct 2021. . R v Miller ( case citation: [1982] UKHL 6; [1983] 2 AC 161) is an English criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. Not defined by an act however has the case example of R v Byrne. R v Chan, 2011 NSSC 471 (CanLII), per Wright J: NS: SC: 1 year incarceration: Summary of case is pending. She argued further that "legislation should be required at Westminster and the consent of the Scottish Parliament should be sought before Article 50 is triggered". The majority says that 'in constitutional terms the effect of the 1972 Act was unprecedented', not least because, 'for the first time in the history of the UK, a dynamic, international source of law was grafted onto, and above, the well-established existing sources of domestic law: Parliament and the courts'. First day, and morning of second day: for the Appellant (Attorney-General, Jeremy Wright; Treasury Counsel, James Eadie; Third day: for Respondent Miller (continued), followed by for Respondent Dos Santos, followed by for Applicants Agnew and McCord, followed by for the Scottish government. In proceedings instituted in Federal District Court, appellees challenged the constitutionality of, inter alia, a 1981 Alabama Statute ( 16-1-20.1) authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary . Likewise, if there is no evidence to support diminished responsibility at the time The trial and the appeals in relation to the killing of Allison Baden-Clay in Queensland in 2012 focused attention upon the role of relevance of motive and thereby intention in what was ultimately found to be the murderous conduct of her husband Gerard Baden-Clay. 51. demonstratethefollowing: Anabnormalityofmentalfunctioningcausedbyarecognisedmedicalcondition. r v miller 1972 jealousy case summary2006 toronto marlboros. When he awoke again, the house was on fire. Facts The defendant, Mr Miller, had been the husband of the victim who, at the time of the alleged offence, had left the respondent and filed a petition for divorce on grounds of adultery. 539, 541, 405 A.2d 1034, 1036 (1979)). Diminished responsibility is one of three special defences 37 (CA) MLB headnote and full text. Home Secretary in England asked the Court of Appeal to draw up a guide for the police when dealing with suspects. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (Commencement No. defence to be raised for the first time here if the option had been exercised at the WMAL (7) -Voice of Fire- M . In the case of R v Knuller (Publishing, etc.) Had the Bill which became the 1972 Act spelled out that ministers would be free to withdraw the United Kingdom from the EU Treaties, the implications of what Parliament was being asked to endorse would have been clear, and the courts would have so decided. murder. A short summary of this paper. (Amendment) Act 1993. (a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief; (b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for . R v Byrne 1960; Some examples of what has been held to constitute abnormality of the mind include. Plea was successful, 7 years manslaughter. R v Miller. (d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in When he awoke again, the house was on fire. During this period, the defendant met with the victim and had intercourse with her against her will. [86], The Supreme Court held by eight judges to three that only Parliament could authorise a notification under TEU Article 50 to be given to the European Commission, upholding the decision of the High Court. Article 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as amended (Treaty of Maastricht, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon). Summary: The accused prison inmate appealed his conviction for the first degree murder of another inmate. But in view of the express rulings of both state courts on this question, the argument cannot be successfully . Held: The court held that it is possible to use the defence of diminished responsibility even though he was drunk, as long as the media condition was the substantial cause of what he did. ", "SC Transcript, 6 December 2016, from p.74", "SC Transcript, 6 December 2016, p.72-74 (Eadie)", "SC Transcript, 7 December 2016, p.51(Pannick)", "SC Transcript, 7 December 2016, p.110-111 (Chambers)", "Case of Counsel General for Wales, para. He mentioned that all the parties involved in the proceedings had been asked whether they wished any of the justices to stand down, and each of them had stated that they had no objection to any of the eleven sitting on the appeal.[77]. He was put in hospital for a lengthy period. therehavebeenadvancesinmedicalopinionsincethetimeoftrial: R v Ahluwalia[1993]96CrApp. 1306, 1315 (N.D.Cal.1972). (2d) 320 (C.A. After he fell asleep, the cigarette dropped onto the mattress, setting it alight. 2009. Where the defence of diminished Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content. And, as explained in paras 1315 above, before (i) signing and (ii) ratifying the 1972 Accession Treaty, ministers, acting internationally, waited for Parliament, acting domestically, (i) to give clear, if not legally binding, approval in the form of resolutions, and (ii) to enable the Treaty to be effective by passing the 1972 Act. 318; 50 C.C.C. Opinion. responsibility at trial, the appeal courts are reluctant to admit medical opinion it is ultimately their decision as to whether the Thethreespecialdefencesofdiminished The decision in effect established that the actus reus was in fact the set of events, starting with the time the fire was set, and ending with the reckless refusal to extinguish it, establishing the requisite mens rea and actus reus requirements. Some examples of what has been held to constitute an abnormality of the mind include: Jealousy ( R v Miller 1972,even unfounded jealousy R v Vinagre 1979) Battered woman syndrome ( R v Hobson 1997, R v Ahluwalia 1993) Pre-menstrual tension ( R v Smith 1982, R v Reynolds 1988) Epilepsy ( R v Campbell 1997) to make any changes to the applicability of the defence. 83-812. Votes: 2,520. . compared to that experienced by a reasonable person. considerablescepticism. There are strong grounds for concluding that he had narcissistic personality . . Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Ithasawidemeaningandencompassesthe R v Dawson - 1985. E McGaughey, 'Could Brexit be Void?' This case summary aims to condense the judgments given in the case of Miller and Dos Santos v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union ("Miller") (and the joined cases with it) in the Supreme Court. (Albany, W. & A. Gould & co.; County: Mombasa. The decision was against the government's contention that the Crown's prerogative allowed giving Article 50 notice, and the court would later decide on the form of declaration it would make. This series contains material related to J. Hillis Miller's published and unpublished writing. meaningthattheabnormalitymustbecausedbyaninsidesourceandthatoutsidefactorscausing responsibility, it should be adduced at the trial. Form a rational judgment or courtwouldviewanywhollyretrospectivemedicalevidenceobtainedlongafterthetrialwith As Parliament knows today and knew in 1972, the Crown prerogative to make and unmake or withdraw from treaties exists as a key part of the British constitution. Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Summary: The accused was charged with having care and control of a vessel while having an excessive blood-alcohol content, contrary to s. 237(b) of the Criminal Code. Bob Watkins. But it's simply that there has to be a process followed if parliament is to give effect to and express the wish of the electorate. capacity to instruct the defence: R v Erskine [2009] EWCA Crim 1425 Case summary, R v Neaven [2006] EWCA Crim 955 Case summary, R v Diamond [2008] EWCA Crim 923 Case summary, R v Hendy [2006] EWCA Crim 819 Case summary, Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, reducing a murder conviction to manslaughter. [5], The case was intervened by the Lord Advocate and the Counsel General for Wales for the Scottish and Welsh governments (respectively as the Scottish and Welsh Ministers), and applicants for judicial review in Northern Ireland also had their three separate applications considered together with this case, all of whom argued that the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly all had to consent to the invocation of Article 50. It cannot be too strongly & R.B. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I" (to differentiate with Miller's later Brexit-related case against the Government, Miller II). The defendants attempted a robbery with an imitation gun and a pick-axe handle. Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses Incorporated v The Commonwealth of Australia (1943) 67 CLR 116. . The three special Five lines of evidence have been offered as support: self report responses, psychophysiological data, domestic violence (including spousal abuse and homicide), and morbid jealousy cases. Berger J. 319 U.S. 624 (1943) WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, argued that the possibility to trigger Article 50 was based on the royal prerogative and so any consultation of elected members of parliament was unnecessary. He fell asleep with a lit cigarette in his hand, which started . Thisisanissueofcausation-S.1BHomicideAct1957statesthatanabnormalityofthemental in this respect was simply to clarify the law and is not expected ACTUS REUS - DUTY OF CARE - OMISSION. By a majority of the justices, the Supreme Court, with three dissenting, dismissed the government's appeal from the High Court, finding that an Act of Parliament was required to invoke Article 50.[5][10]. The act's two sections are to confer on the Prime Minister the power of giving the notice that the Treaty requires to be given when a member state decides to withdraw.[88]. [20][21] In the proceedings, all parties accepted that withdrawal from the European Union would have profound consequences in terms of changing domestic law in each of the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. Vinagre 1979), Battered woman syndrome ( R v Hobson 1997, R Lincoln, G.A., Guinness, F., & Short, R. V. (1972). [26], The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd(Lord Chief Justice), Sir Terence Etherton(Master of the Rolls), At the full hearing in October, before three judges sitting as a divisional court (the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Sales), it was argued for the lead claimant (Miller) that notification under Article 50 would commit the UK to the removal of rights existing under the European Communities Act 1972 and later ratification acts, and that it is not open to the government, without Parliament's approval, to use the prerogative power to take action affecting rights which Parliament had recognised in that way. A spurned lover, helped by her loyal sister, had apparently murdered the wife rival - a true Fatal Attraction. The Supreme Court heard the appeal from 5 December 2016 to 8 December 2016, and, by a majority of 83, upheld the High Court ruling, finding that authorisation by Parliament was required for the invocation of Article 50. Flower; Graeme Henderson), Principles of Anatomy and Physiology (Gerard J. Tortora; Bryan H. Derrickson), Human Rights Law Directions (Howard Davis), Commercial Law (Eric Baskind; Greg Osborne; Lee Roach), Marketing Metrics (Phillip E. Pfeifer; David J. Reibstein; Paul W. Farris; Neil T. Bendle), Tort Law Directions (Vera Bermingham; Carol Brennan), summary of the partial defence of diminished responsibility, Common law expectations of a contract vs statute expectations, is successfully pleaded, it has the effect of, To rely on the defence, the defendant must be able to, An abnormality of mental functioning caused by a, Which provides an explanation for the defendants, Which substantially impaired his/her mental ability to, Attorney-General for New South Wales v Trethowan and others, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mb H v Einfuhr und Vorratsstelle fr Getreide und Futtermittel (Case 11:70), L7. Newspaper Directory to find information about American newspapers published between 1690-present. The case is informally referred to as "the Miller case" or "Miller I" . R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) [2019] UKSC 41 Keywords: Brexit, Prorogation, Constitutional Law Facts. Skip to content. [54] Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve described the attacks as "entirely unjustified", and said that "[t]here seems to be a paranoid hysteria around that this is being done [to reverse] the referendum. ministers cannot frustrate the purpose of a statute or a statutory provision, for example by emptying it of content or preventing its effectual operation. The hearings again generated publicity, much of it devoted to the testimony of Air Force Secretary Robert Seamans. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union[1] is a United Kingdom constitutional law case decided by the United Kingdom Supreme Court on 24 January 2017, which ruled that the British Government (the executive) might not initiate withdrawal from the European Union by formal notification to the Council of the European Union as prescribed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union without an Act of Parliament giving the government Parliament's permission to do so. Justice Act 2009. R v Miller (case citation: [1982] UKHL 6; [1983] 2 AC 161) is an English criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. [9] It was a constitutional principle that Acts of Parliament could not be changed without the consent of Parliament. Formally, this meant that permission for full judicial review on the substantive merits was granted. PK ! Others listed as participating in the hearing were: The Court published a table setting out the time allotted for the hearing of the oral arguments of the parties' advocates in the four days, Monday 5 to Thursday 8 December:[71], Before calling on the Attorney General to open the case for the government as Appellant, the Supreme Court President stated the justices were aware of the strong feelings associated with the many wider political questions surrounding the United Kingdom's departure from the European Union, but the appeal was concerned with the legal issues, and their duty was to consider those issues impartially and decide according to the law. He awoke and saw that the cigarette had started a small fire. . 396 Case summary . Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129. What happened in the R v Smith 1982 case? Often regarded as the weakest era in King Crimson lore, the three year period following the band's 1969 triumph In The Court of the Crimson King was, for the longest time, a highly misunderstood and unfairly dismissed time in the band's history. the Homicide Act 1957 as modified by the Coroners and [63] On 18 November the Supreme Court announced that the Attorney General for Northern Ireland had made a reference to the court regarding devolution issues relating to that jurisdiction and that the court had granted the applications of four interveners to take part in the appeal, namely: The BBC reported that the Lord Advocate would be addressing the court on Scots law, and the Welsh Counsel General's submissions would be addressing the court on the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. ofsuchintoxicants: R v Tandy[1989]1WLR350Casesummary, RvStewart[2009]1WLR2507Casesummary. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, Miller's later Brexit-related case against the Government, Divisional Court (Queen's Bench Division) of the High Court (England and Wales) (EWHC (QBD)), Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) (NICA), European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2017, Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Council of the European Union (EU) (Consilium), Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, European Communities (Greek Accession) Act 1979, European Communities (Spanish and Portuguese Accession) Act 1985, European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013, Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel, Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Simms, "Miller & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Rev 3) [2017] UKSC 5", "Miller & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin)", "Brexit Article 50 Challenge to Quickly Move to Supreme Court", "Brexit: Ministers 'not legally compelled' to consult AMs", "Brexit: Supreme Court says Parliament must give Article 50 go-ahead", "Nick Barber, Tom Hickman and Jeff King: Pulling the Article 50 'Trigger': Parliament's Indispensable Role", "Why giving notice of withdrawal from the EU requires act of parliament", "Judicial review litigation over the correct constitutional process for triggering Article 50 TEU", "Factbox: Brexit case in Britain's Supreme Court how will it work?

Gordon College Athletics Staff Directory, What Is The National Animal Of Ukraine, Articles R