The story of the Brexit legal challenge, by somebody who went to every hearing

By on

Gina Miller’s case was the biggest in recent history. I was one of the few journalists there from beginning to end


I’ve been in court at every stage of the Brexit legal challenge, from the case management hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in July 2016 to the Supreme Court’s judgment hand down this week. History was made with the Miller judgment, and I’m glad I got to experience it.

The importance of the case has always weighed heavy on the court’s shoulders. Things got serious really quickly: anti-EU protesters picketed claimant Gina Miller’s solicitors firm, Mishcon de Reya, in early July. The case hadn’t even reached the courtroom by this point, nor had Miller been named as the lead claimant.

Image via @david2206
Image via @david2206

Judge Sir Brian Leveson used the case’s first spell on the courtroom floor as an opportunity to condemn this abuse, but it persisted. A 55-year-old man was later arrested for sending her racist threats online, with judges at every stage — Leveson, Lord Thomas and Lord Neuberger — forced to remind their audiences that abuse like this will not be tolerated by the justice system.

Consistent and widespread, the abuse highlighted how highly-charged and emotive the Brexit legal challenge was. Though very pantomime-esque, the wig and gown-donning protesters outside the High Court on day one of the first instance hearing, 13 October, brought this mood to life.


Inside the courtroom, things were a little more humdrum, yet the first hearing still managed to feel like a legal profession red carpet event. Lord Pannick QC, Lord Thomas, Sir Terence Etherton, Jeremy Wright QC — if you hung around in the corridor long enough you were bound to bump into someone. Even University Challenge legend Ted Loveday was watching from the wings!

With big events comes big interest, and rafts of people flocked to the RCJ to watch the show. At the preliminary case management hearing, the whole courtroom was bulging at the seams. It was vacated and everyone shifted over to Court 4 just minutes before the judges took their seats. At the hearing itself, the High Court was more prepared, so set up cinema-style screening rooms (‘overflow courts’) to help meet the demand.

Unfortunately, the camera angles left a lot to be desired and the audio was scratchy. The courtroom was the place to be, certainly when the High Court’s much-anticipated judgment was handed down.

The fear in the courtroom was palpable: it’s worth remembering that up until days before, almost no one believed Miller and co had a chance of success. Legal affairs journalist Joshua Rozenberg, Oxford EU law academic Paul Craig and others went on record to this effect. And then this happened:

The mood in court that day was certainly upbeat, probably because there were so many claimants in attendance. I had the awkward experience of bumping into Charlie Mullins, millionaire plumber and Miller claim backer, outside the RCJ toilets and not realising who he was until the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg jumped on him as he left the building. Miller herself was there at every stage too. Often flanked by bodyguards and/or her legal team, she looked nothing but steely and focused.

Mullins and Miller were of course thrilled with the result, but in and among the joy there was a lot of disappointment and the occasional unjustified scathe. The right-wing press’s reaction to the judgment hand down shocked even the most seasoned lawyer.


With the profession busy rounding on the right-wing media and later Justice Secretary Liz Truss for failing to defend the judiciary from the right-wing media, the government filed its leapfrog appeal with little fuss.

But by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the press had been churning out accusations of judicial bias for weeks. Tensions were at fever pitch when all eleven justices convened to hear the case on 5 December.

These accusations clearly had an impact: Neuberger admitted the judges had taken the very unusual step of asking the parties whether they wanted any justices to recuse. Watching from the media suite on that day, journalists couldn’t believe what they’d just seen. I felt a similar way when I found out how expensive a Supreme Court meal deal is.

You heard it here first: a meal deal from the Supreme Court is £7

A photo posted by Legal Cheek (@legalcheek) on

A bigger bugbear for me was the lack of meaningful protest outside the court. There were a few eccentrics — a man Irish dancing with no trousers on, for example — but as for an organised, group effort, zilch. I got the impression the court was expecting some: the security/police presence was intense (I felt very nervous to pap my meal deal pic), but perhaps not necessary.

Ultimately — regardless of the media interest, the case’s importance and Pannick’s dreamy advocacy — a four-day hearing about the constitutional law intricacies of prerogative powers can only be so interesting. Journalists and other courtroom-goers looked noticeably pained when Dominic Chambers QC began his submissions on the history of the royal prerogative, while James Eadie QC, for the appellant government, also induced some yawns.

That’s why we were grateful for the occasional lighter moments. The now famous tomato/tomato, De Keyser/De Keyser exchange provided some light relief, as did Lord Sumption’s colourful tie collection. Wearing a Team GB tie on day three of the hearing, then ruling in Miller’s favour? Sumption is officially the biggest tease on the Supreme Court bench.


Otherwise, the ruling went mostly as people expected. The court dismissed the government’s appeal eight to three, which means MPs will now vote on whether to trigger Article 50. Will parliament decide to block Brexit? Weirder things have happened.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub



Brian Leveson had nothing to do with this case. Are you sure you were there?



It must be difficult to tell the difference between all these top, top, top judges.



It’s not about the case, or about the judges. It’s about her, and the fact that she was there.



Hah ! So speaks a renowned wallflower…


KK's admire from the North

I was going to say, it is breath taking that some people go on the attack without taking the time to check facts. Well answered KK.



Except that he and Cranston J dealt with the very first hearing on 19 July, which is what KK is referring to…



Did no-one tell Lord Sumption that the Law Lords don’t wear wigs in the Supreme Court?



Oh, sorry, just realised it isn’t a wig!



I still cannot quite understand the (apparent) horror at newspapers being outraged by judges. Judges have enormous power. They deal with highly contentious issues. Of course they’re going to attract unfavourable comment at times. And when the tabloids comment they don’t go at it in a measured, academic style.

Politicians get this every single day. Celebrities, footballers and football managers, business leaders, senior civil servants, the Governor of the Bank of England – they and plenty of others all have derision regularly heaped on them. Why should judges be off-limits?

This episode revealed some terrible preciousness. (Not from the judges – I strongly doubt they could care less, very sensibly – but from the more excitable parts of the profession.)



It’s because the right wing press did not understand the issue that was before the Court, and tried to exert political pressure on judges to make the decision they (the press) wanted without any regard to the actual legal position. Not to mention the thinly veiled homophobia in the Mail’s coverage…

Judges should interpret the law, not make political decisions. They should, therefore, not be subjected to political pressure from ill informed tabloid journalists who lack the intellectual capacity to grasp with the real issues.



I doubt the papers misunderstood anything. They just didn’t like the judgment and inveighed against those who gave it. Which is their right, just as it’s anybody’s right. They have no “political pressure” to exert, only the power to comment, and possibly persuade, using words and pictures.

I agree that the reference to sexuality was objectionable.



If you genuinely don’t think that the Daily Mail has political power to wield, you are deeply, deeply naive. Or full of ****



I don’t think you understand what political power is.


Anyone who read the submissions put before the Divisional Court was well aware that the case was highly likely to go against the government – that Legal Cheek’s pet commentators didn’t think so doesn’t mean that the profession as a whole was surprised….



What’s this got to do with Amal though?



Amazing times, amazing ties! Pleased Legal Cheek covered it.



“Protesters with no trousers on” – skirts?



See Katie, you can write decent articles like this.

On a very serious note, I enjoyed this article. Please refrain from the Mrs Clooney stuff and produce more articles like the one above.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories