The Annual Bristol Law Conference is a student-led event that aims to put Bristol on the map as a centre of legal excellence. This year the panel discussed the implications of the Miller case and the huge amount of legal untangling there now needs to be done. They also outlined why this makes for an incredibly exciting time to be studying law.

Of particular note was the presence of Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the historic case against the UK Government who successfully argued that the Government could not bypass Parliament and trigger Article 50 without primary legislation.

“The Government wanted to use the referendum poll as justification to trigger Article 50 and bypass Parliament. With no opposition, the precedent would be set with no debate and no challenge.  There was an urgent need to hold government to account. Set within the mood of rising populism, I believed the defence of the rule of law and proper legal processes took on heightened importance. So I pushed.”

Paul Craig QC (Hon.), Professor of English Law at the University of Oxford provided a detailed analysis of the judgment, focusing on the limits of prerogative powers, and the background constitutional principles protecting the position of Parliament. 

All speakers agreed that, as a result of the litigation spearheaded by Gina Miller, clarity about the legal process surrounding Brexit has begun to emerge. But, as Professor Phil Syrpis highlighted, there is much work ahead; and in some respects, the Supreme Court’s judgment represents an opportunity lost.

Once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations begin – perhaps later this month – attention will shift to the conclusion and ratification of the withdrawal deal, and EU law questions surrounding the revocability of Article 50 will dictate the extent to which any Parliamentary vote will be meaningful. 

Of course, answers to these questions are difficult to find. David Allen Green, law and policy commentator for the Financial Times and a solicitor for Preiskel & Co, stated;

“Article 50 was put in place to reassure Eurosceptics and nationalists that no member state was bound to be a member.  It was intended as an ornament not an instrument. As a legal instrument it is not fit for purpose.”

Douglas Lloyd, Barrister and alumnus (LLM 2004), looked at the extent to which media and politicians sought to use the judgments to attack not only Gina Miller, but also judges and the British constitution.

“Critics suggesting the judges were out of touch with the will of the people clearly neglected the court’s reference to Dicey’s masterful analysis of Parliamentary sovereignty: ‘judges know nothing of any will of the people except insofar as it is expressed by an Act of Parliament.’ There is nothing undemocratic about ensuring law is made by Parliament. The court simply, and correctly, ruled that law is made by Parliament and not by kings, tyrants or Prime Ministers, even when they invoke “popular will”. Parliament, mindful of the referendum result, will rightly decide the next step. Not judges, not the media.”

A lively debate followed as law students asked questions of the speakers during a panel session. 

“As a committee of passionate law students we believe that the issues covered in today’s conference has helped dispel any possible misconceptions that law is an isolated discipline, one that is too technical and dull to be of interest to those who do not study or practice it.  We would like to thank all our speakers today for illustrating so clearly that law provides a platform for exciting critique, analysis and debate,” Darius Jun Hoe Leong, President, Conference Committee.

Speakers congratulated the students responsible for organising the event – and left with some inspirational words for those attending.

“This case is a wonderful teaching tool if you are going to do law. It provides key arguments that illustrate the dark and light in academic commentary and Supreme Court judgments - detailed doctrine, argument and background value. For those of you studying law this case is of lasting constitutional importance. Law is always a political story. It takes two to tango, it takes two sides to engage in litigation. I thank Gina Miller for the role she has played in protecting UK democracy,” Professor Paul Craig

“You will never have this time again. Older lawyers will envy you. When we were studying, law cases were never playing out in real time. Today, you are as much a part of the debate as your tutors.  Academic law is like a reading sheet of music. Law comes alive in its performance. Gina Miller has brought law alive for students. There has never been a case that has covered so much from constitutional law, parliament vs judiciary and a supreme court case - all in respect of the EU!” David Allen Green

The Annual Bristol Law Conference “Untangling Britain from Europe: Brexit and the future of EU Law,” took place on Monday 6 March in the Great Hall, Wills Memorial Building, University of Bristol.