Mrs [Claire] Blackman said: "After a very useful exploratory meeting with a number of MPs, where we discussed Al's case at length, we all agreed that we should postpone the planned debate whilst I take further legal advice.
"I understand that postponement of the debate will be a disappointment to so many people who have supported Al through the e-petition.
"It was a difficult decision, but I hope that you will understand that it was necessary to ensure the best possible outcome for Al. I have been assured that a debate will be held as soon as it is pertinent to do so."
Mr [Oliver] Colvile [MP] said he had withdrawn the debate on the petition at the request of the Blackman family.One assumes that separation-of-powers concerns over legislative interference with a final judgment of the courts led to the postponement. If any British readers can shed light on this, please comment.
It is an application of the sub judice (literally 'under the (consideration of) judge') rule or convention. In UK as in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, government officials and parliamentarians will refrain from making public comments about a pending case. It is considered a valid limitation to freedom of expression/speech as protection of separation of powers is considered more important. See http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefing-papers/SN01141/sub-judice-rule and http://www.parl.gc.ca/procedure-book-livre/document.aspx?sbdid=abbc077a-6dd8-4fbe-a29a-3f73554e63aa&sbpidx=7ReplyDelete