{"id":2105,"date":"2018-12-04T12:27:25","date_gmt":"2018-12-04T12:27:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/box5782.temp.domains\/~progrgc9\/staging\/?p=2105"},"modified":"2019-06-10T16:42:02","modified_gmt":"2019-06-10T16:42:02","slug":"brexit-legal-advice-analysis-are-tory-ministers-acting-in-contempt-of-parliament","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/progressiveeconomyforum.com\/development\/blog\/brexit-legal-advice-analysis-are-tory-ministers-acting-in-contempt-of-parliament\/","title":{"rendered":"Brexit legal advice analysis: Are Tory ministers acting in contempt of Parliament?"},"content":{"rendered":"

PRIME Economics’ Co-Director writes on the accusation that ministers are holding Parliament in contempt for refusing to publish the full Brexit legal advice – is the Attorney General’s client the Government, or the public?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Today (I write on Monday evening) Speaker Bercow has agreed to accept a motion from Labour, the Democratic Unionist party and other opposition parties, to debate a motion charging the government with contempt of Parliament, prior to the upcoming 5 days\u2019 debate on the Prime Minister\u2019s Brexit deal.\u00a0 This potentially generates yet another mini constitutional crisis, between government and Parliament.<\/p>\n

The House of Commons had passed a motion on 13\u00a0November requiring the government to publish in full the legal advice on the Withdrawal Agreement provided to it by the Attorney-General, Geoffrey Cox, a Brexiteer barrister of colourful legal and Parliamentary career, whose summary on Wikipedia<\/a> merits a quick visit by those not easily offended.\u00a0 This motion had passed with the abstention of Conservative MPs, given the government Whips\u2019 fear that they would be defeated with the DUP \u2018defecting\u2019.\u00a0 This may be seen, with hindsight, as an error of judgment.<\/p>\n

The traditional view of the role of the Attorney-General as legal adviser to government is that his or her advice is covered by lawyer-client privilege, which means that government may keep it confidential, and Parliament generally cannot require it to be published.\u00a0 The client (but not the lawyer) may waive this privilege.<\/p>\n

In other contexts, the British courts have given a broad remit to legal privilege \u2013 it includes, said the House of Lords in Three Rivers District Council and others (Respondents) v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England (Appellants)<\/a> (2004) advice on how the client might best present their evidence, as well as strictly advising on the legal issues concerned.<\/p>\n

So assuming that Geoffrey Cox, as Attorney-General, was discussing with Cabinet colleagues the presentation of the government\u2019s Brexit \u201ccase\u201d to Parliament and the public, as well as advising on any purely legal implications, was this covered by legal privilege?<\/p>\n

I see that former Labour Lord Chancellor Charlie Falconer is tweeting<\/a> that the Attorney-General should indeed yield to the House of Commons:<\/p>\n

\n

Attorney General is fundamentally misstating the Constitution. The Commons and not the AG is the ultimate arbiter of whether the full advice should be disclosed. If the Commons thinks it should AG cannot override that by his belief it\u2019s not in the public interest to do so.<\/p>\n

\u2014 Charlie Falconer (@LordCFalconer) 3 December 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n