Supreme Court Justices who dissented from the majority decision that the Government could not trigge
Lord Hughes, one of the three Justices who sided with Theresa May, said he disagreed with the ruling because “the making and unmaking of treaties is a matter of foreign relations within the competence of the Government”.
He was joined by fellow dissenter Lord Carnwath, who said the Article 50 process was a “political matter” that did not require legislation to initiate it.
The 71-year-old Supreme Justice said High Court took a “narrow view” of the issues at stake and added: “The article 50 process must and will involve a partnership between parliament and the executive. But that does not mean that legislation is required simply to initiate it.
"Legislation will undoubtedly be required to implement withdrawal, but the process, including the form and timing of any legislation, can and should be determined by Parliament not by the courts.
BREXIT: Supreme Court Ruling
Tue, January 24, 2017
Britain's most senior judges ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the power to trigger the formal process Article 50 for the UK's exit from the European Union without Parliament having a say.
1 of 12
Issued by the Supreme Court of (top row, from the left) Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Sumption, (bottom row, from the left) Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Hodge, who agreed with the majority decision that the Government could not trigger Article 50 without Parliamentary approval.
"That involves no breach of the constitutional principles which have been entrenched in our law since the 17th century, and no threat to the fundamental principle of Parliamentary sovereignty."
Lord Hughes, Lord Carnwath and Lord Reed, the three supreme court justices who disagreed with the ruling were outweighed by eight other justices who concluded that the law required a Parliamentary vote on the matter.
Siding with his fellow dissenters, Lord Reed added: “It is important for courts to understand that the legislation of political issues is not always constitutionally appropriate and may be fraught with risk, not least for the judiciary.”
Get Quotes on Home Insurance
Lord Chancellor Liz Truss has described the UK’s most senior lawyers as “people of integrity and impartiality”.
She added: “While we may not always agree with judgments, it is a fundamental part of any thriving democracy that legal process is followed. The government has been clear that it will respect the decision of the court.”
Gina Miller after the Brexit ruling said ,"Parliament alone was sovereign"
Happy with the widely predicted ruling, Gina Miller who brought the legal challenge said, “Parliament alone is sovereign”, but later condemned certain politicians who did not “stand up earlier when the judges were being vilified”.
Mrs Miller added: “I think it was wrong of them to not actually speak up sooner about abuse for not just myself but for other people who live in the UK.”
All 11 Supreme Court Justices sat as a panel to hear the Government's appeal
All 11 Justices were present in Court No.1 of the Supreme Court in London to hear President, Lord Neuberger, deliver a brief summary of their 96-page ruling, after the four-day hearing in December.
Lord Neuberger explained the reasons for the ruling and said the referendum is of "great political significance", and any change in the law "must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution".