Re: Anybody there?

--000000000000b7376e059585a04b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

There is a convention that an appellate court should not ordinarily
overturn a finding of fact. For example, The Supreme Court ruled in April  '
It is well settled, outside the field of defamation, that an appellate
court will not interfere with a finding of fact by a first instance judge
merely because it takes a different view of the matter' (Stocker
(Appellant) v Stocker (Respondent), 3 April 2019).

If the Appeals Court were to declare that Boris had accepted an offer of
extension then the Supreme Court would expect to rule the same way even if
the law lords hearing that appeal took a different view.

No need to arrest. Boris since, despite his protestation to the contrary,
the Supreme Court would be bound to agree with an Appeal Court ruling that
he had accepted the extension.

The Scottish Court of Session has declined to rule whether the government
has complied with the Benn Act because the process is not yet complete.In
the current case the court could still rule as Peter suggests.



On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 20/10/2019 14:57, Mark Lomas wrote:
> > The Financial Times came to a similar conclusion regarding Scottish law.
> >
> > While reporting on the recent Court of Session ruling, which the
> > government appealed to the Supreme Court and lost, the FT sought legal
> > advice on what might follow.
> > It concluded that if either a statute or a court ruling obliges somebody
> > to sign or lodge a document, the Court of Session has the power to rule
> > that it has been done -
> > the court does not need to rule that it should be done.
> >
> > That brings two thoughts to mind:
> > 1) a signature in Scotland is like Schroedinger's cat - a document with
> > no visible signature may become signed if you ask the Court of Session
> > whether it was signed.
> > 2) is it perjury to tell a court that you did not sign a document after
> > the Court of Session rules that you did?
> >
> > Many news sources have reported that Boris Johnson has sent an unsigned
> > letter to the European Commission.
> > If the Court of Session were to rule that the Benn Act requires a
> > signature then those reports would retrospectively become untrue.
> >
> > Conclusion: I suggest that Boris also signed the document yesterday in
> > Scotland, provided someone later asks the Court of Session whether he
> did.
>
> New possible scenario:
>
> The EU offers an extension, Boris refuses it. The timetable runs out and
> we have a no-deal Brexit. The Appeals Court arrests Boris and declares
> that he did in fact accept the offer of an extension and there was no
> Brexit.
>
> Boris appeals to - the European Court?
>
>
> Peter Fairbrother
>
>

--000000000000b7376e059585a04b
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"arial, san=
s-serif">There is a convention that an=C2=A0appellate=C2=A0court should not=
 ordinarily overturn a finding of fact. For=C2=A0example, The Supreme Court=
 ruled in April =C2=A0&#39;<span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">I</span><span s=
tyle=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">t is well settled, outside the field of defamatio=
n, that an appellate court will not interfere with a finding of fact by a f=
irst instance judge merely because it takes a different view of the matter<=
/span>&#39; (<span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">Stocker (Appellant)=C2=A0</sp=
an><span style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:italic">v=C2=A0</span><span s=
tyle=3D"color:rgb(0,0,0)">Stocker (Respondent), 3 April 2019</span>).</font=
></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><=
div><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif">If the Appeals Court were to declare t=
hat Boris had accepted an offer of extension then the Supreme Court would e=
xpect to rule the same way even if the law lords hearing that appeal took a=
 different view.</font></div><div><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif"><br></fo=
nt></div><div><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif">No need to arrest. Boris sin=
ce, despite his protestation to the contrary, the Supreme Court would be bo=
und to agree with an Appeal Court ruling that he had accepted the extension=
.</font></div><div><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><=
font face=3D"arial, sans-serif">The Scottish Court of Session has declined =
to rule whether the=C2=A0government has complied with the Benn Act because =
the process is not yet complete.In the current case the court could still r=
ule as Peter suggests.</font></div><div><font face=3D"arial, sans-serif"><b=
r></font></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><d=
iv dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Peter Fai=
rbrother &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:zenadsl6186-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]">zenadsl6186-1HOZaDBbGgxaa/[email protected]=
</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left=
-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 20/10/2019 14:57, Mark Lomas w=
rote:<br>
&gt; The Financial Times came to a similar conclusion regarding Scottish la=
w.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; While reporting on the recent Court of Session ruling, which the <br>
&gt; government appealed to the Supreme=C2=A0Court and lost, the FT sought =
legal <br>
&gt; advice on what might follow.<br>
&gt; It concluded that if either a statute or a court ruling obliges somebo=
dy <br>
&gt; to sign or lodge a document, the Court of Session has the power to rul=
e <br>
&gt; that it has been done -<br>
&gt; the court does not need to rule that it should be done.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; That brings two thoughts to mind:<br>
&gt; 1) a signature in Scotland is like Schroedinger&#39;s cat - a document=
 with <br>
&gt; no visible signature may become signed if you ask the Court of Session=
 <br>
&gt; whether it was signed.<br>
&gt; 2) is it perjury=C2=A0to tell a court that you did not sign a document=
 after <br>
&gt; the Court of Session rules that you did?<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Many news sources have reported that Boris Johnson has sent an unsigne=
d <br>
&gt; letter to the European Commission.<br>
&gt; If the Court of Session were to rule that the Benn Act requires a <br>
&gt; signature then those reports would retrospectively become untrue.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Conclusion: I suggest that Boris also signed the document yesterday in=
 <br>
&gt; Scotland, provided someone later asks the Court of Session whether he =
did.<br>
<br>
New possible scenario:<br>
<br>
The EU offers an extension, Boris refuses it. The timetable runs out and <b=
r>
we have a no-deal Brexit. The Appeals Court arrests Boris and declares <br>
that he did in fact accept the offer of an extension and there was no <br>
Brexit.<br>
<br>
Boris appeals to - the European Court?<br>
<br>
<br>
Peter Fairbrother<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000b7376e059585a04b--