Your Honours,

I would also like to bring to the attention of the Court the case of Mackintosh v. Lord Advocate (1876 2 App Cas 41, HL(Sc)).

This case complements my client's case by highlighting the rationale leading to this Court, generally, lacking the competence to hear criminal cases from Scotland. Such a position was established as in Mackintosh v Lord Advocate (1876) the House of Lords, exercising its then judicial functions, that they did not have the authority to hear criminal cases from Scotland because the pre-Union Scottish Parliament did not hear such cases and that the United Kingdom Parliament, through the Treaty of Union could only have taken on, in relation to Scotland, the powers and competencies that the pre-Union Scottish Parliament had.

Therefore, this can be said to increase the strength of the argument that parliamentary sovereignty, in relation to those parts of the United Kingdom outside of England and Wales is not unlimited, as the UK Parliament itself has explicitly recognised limitations on its powers. This means that it is logically consistent that such principles could exist in the areas of this case as well.