Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 272 views

    Whaley V Watson

    Uploaded by

    Emily Hancox
    Whaley v Watson concerned a petition seeking to prevent a member of the Scottish Parliament from introducing a private member's bill to abolish mammal hunting on grounds that it would breach lobbying rules. The court determined that it was not appropriate to interfere with the Scottish Parliament's legitimate decisions regarding its own affairs or to reconsider a decision already made by the Standards Committee. The remedy for concerns about lobbying rule breaches lies with complaints or petitions to the Parliament, not legal action requiring the court to declare the Parliament misdirected. It is inappropriate for pressure groups or individuals to use legal action to tell a Parliamentary committee its view of its own rules is wrong.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Whaley V Watson

    Uploaded by

    Emily Hancox
    272 views2 pages
    Whaley v Watson concerned a petition seeking to prevent a member of the Scottish Parliament from introducing a private member's bill to abolish mammal hunting on grounds that it would breach lobbying rules. The court determined that it was not appropriate to interfere with the Scottish Parliament's legitimate decisions regarding its own affairs or to reconsider a decision already made by the Standards Committee. The remedy for concerns about lobbying rule breaches lies with complaints or petitions to the Parliament, not legal action requiring the court to declare the Parliament misdirected. It is inappropriate for pressure groups or individuals to use legal action to tell a Parliamentary committee its view of its own rules is wrong.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Whaley v Watson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Whaley v Watson concerned a petition seeking to prevent a member of the Scottish Parliament from introducing a private member's bill to abolish mammal hunting on grounds that it would breach lobbying rules. The court determined that it was not appropriate to interfere with the Scottish Parliament's legitimate decisions regarding its own affairs or to reconsider a decision already made by the Standards Committee. The remedy for concerns about lobbying rule breaches lies with complaints or petitions to the Parliament, not legal action requiring the court to declare the Parliament misdirected. It is inappropriate for pressure groups or individuals to use legal action to tell a Parliamentary committee its view of its own rules is wrong.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    272 views2 pages

    Whaley V Watson

    Uploaded by

    Emily Hancox
    Whaley v Watson concerned a petition seeking to prevent a member of the Scottish Parliament from introducing a private member's bill to abolish mammal hunting on grounds that it would breach lobbying rules. The court determined that it was not appropriate to interfere with the Scottish Parliament's legitimate decisions regarding its own affairs or to reconsider a decision already made by the Standards Committee. The remedy for concerns about lobbying rule breaches lies with complaints or petitions to the Parliament, not legal action requiring the court to declare the Parliament misdirected. It is inappropriate for pressure groups or individuals to use legal action to tell a Parliamentary committee its view of its own rules is wrong.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Whaley v Watson, 2000 SC 125.

    Petitioners sought an interim interdict against a member of the


    Scottish Parliament against his introducing a private members Bill
    to abolish hunting of mammals.

    Argued that by doing so he would be in breach of art 6 of The


    Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional A Provisions)
    (Members' Interests) Order 1999 (SI 1999 No. 1350

    'Where, at any time after the date on which he was returned as a member, a
    member receives or expects to receive any remuneration, he shall not (a) do
    anything in his capacity as a member in any proceedings of the Parliament which
    relates directly to the affairs or interests of, or which seeks to confer benefit
    upon, the person from whom the member B received or expects to receive
    remuneration or to the affairs and interests of a client or an associate of that
    person; or (b) encourage any other member to do anything mentioned in
    paragraph (a).'
    o

    Scottish campaign against hunting with dogs provided assistance in


    drafting bill benefits in kind

    Considers that the petitioners seek to achieve, by a roundabout


    method, the obstruction of the legitimate presentation of a Bill to
    the Parliament which must be allowed to regulate its own affairs
    and determine whether or not in its opinion the member is
    competent to present it. That has already been decided and that, in
    my opinion, is a matter for Parliament and the Standards
    Committee. The matter seems to me to be compounded by the fact
    that if persons such as the petitioners had a legitimate concern, and
    maybe they have, that the lobbying rules had been breached, it
    seems to me that their remedy is by way of complaint, petition or
    even public address. This court, in my opinion, is not in the position
    of interfering with legitimate decisions of the Parliament as to its
    own affairs and certainly not to re-hear a decision that the
    Standards Committee has already taken.

    It seems to me to be a recipe for disaster to allow members of the


    public who are aggrieved by the potential consequences of a
    particular piece of legislation to have the right to enter into the
    procedure of the Scottish Parliament and require this court to
    declare that it has misdirected itself. There has been a vast
    development in the last 20 years of the concept of judicial review
    but it has always been very carefully orchestrated against the
    background of Lord Diplock's celebrated dicta which are now too
    well known to even be recorded. The Scottish Parliament is entitled
    to make its own determination, in my opinion, upon its own rules
    and this court should not even look at it on grounds of irrationality.
    It may be in due course that if there is a fundamental irrationality in
    its approach to the legislation it passes, such could be
    challengeable for a number of reasons based on its legislative
    competence upon the view that an organisation that is acting

    beyond its powers is acting irrationally and therefore not within its
    competence. In the case of the Parliament that is legislative
    competence. I offer no further view on that subject. What I am
    entirely satisfied about is that it is quite inappropriate for pressure
    groups, or individuals, however their interests may be affected, to
    have the right to tell, by way of legal action, a committee of this
    Parliament that its own view of its own rules is inappropriate or even
    wrong. That, in my opinion, is far beyond what the legislation
    contemplated the extent of intervention

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy