Imagine you drive at 29mph in what to date has been a 30 mile an hour limit, but you are prosecuted for breaking the speed limit. The court decides that it is best in today’s circumstances if that limit is 20 miles an hour and so you are described as a law breaker. Would that really be fair and accurate?
When the PM prorogued parliament for a few weeks, he thought and was legally advised that it was his legal right and the courts could not challenge however unreasonable the period seemed. Even the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord of the Rolls thought the same. All the advisers to parties to the litigation expressed surprise when the Supreme Court decided otherwise and in effect changed what people commonly thought was the law, echoed by many academic legal professors.
The campaign to discredit then constantly branded the PM a law breaker, a flouter with disregard for the law. The media got on the bandwagon. That accusation has been repeated day after day by anti Mr Johnson MPs and others. No great surprise but it should fool nobody.
This was with a view to getting ordinary people to consider him a criminal. But nothing could be further from the truth. The Supreme Court changed the law and extended their own powers.
The attempt to brand Mr Johnson a deliberate law breaker is a prime example of intellectual dishonesty, and it is to be hoped the dishonesty will not reappear during the election.
