The prime minister is legitimately giving effect to the “will of the people” in plans to trigger Brexit without seeking parliamentary approval, the attorney-general said yesterday.

Jeremy Wright, QC (pictured), was setting out his defence to a challenge over Theresa May’s decision to use the royal prerogative to start the process for leaving the EU. “It is our case,” he told three senior judges, that “parliament’s consent is not required”.

As the government opened its case, the Lord Chief Justice warned that the “full vigour of the law” would be brought against those found to have harassed or abused those bringing the court challenge.

Various campaigners have mounted a historic challenge to argue that Mrs May lacks power to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to leave the EU without the prior authorisation of parliament. However, Wright, in his most high-profile court case since he became attorney-general in July 2014, said that resort to Article 50 involved the “proper and well established use of the royal prerogative by the executive”. It had been made available after the vote in favour of Brexit, “to give effect to the will of the people – wholly within the expectation of parliament”.

The judicial review application, which is being heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, and two other judges, has been described as one of the most important constitutional cases in generations. May announced at the Conservative party conference that she intends giving an Article 50 notification by the end of March 2017 using the royal prerogative.

Her opponents are arguing that she would be pre-empting parliament and unlawfully removing statutory rights granted to UK citizens under the European Communities Act 1972, which made EU law part of UK law.

Because of the urgency and constitutional importance of the case, any appeal is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, before the end of the year.

During the hearing, Lord Thomas criticised those who have threatened the businesswoman Gina Miller, an investment fund manager and philanthropist who is at the forefront of the Brexit challenge. On the second day of the hearing, the Lord Chief Justice said the court had been informed that Miller had received abusive emails and “other communications”.

He declared to the packed courtroom: “It is simply wholly wrong for people to be abusive of those who seek to come to the Queen’s courts.” And he warned those responsible that they had to appreciate “the full vigour of the law” would be used against them if the conduct continued.

See Blue Bag below

Government plans to reduce the number of court cases involving babies harmed by the NHS during labour risk sweeping the core causes of clinical negligence under the carpet, lawyers warned yesterday.

Specialists said that health service-conducted investigations into the causes of birth trauma often do not reveal the full circumstances of the mistakes.

“It is often only when specialist lawyers and independent medical experts are involved in investigating these incidents that the true failures are revealed,” said Lisa Jordan, head of medical negligence at Irwin Mitchell, a national law firm.”

Jordan continued: “The NHS does not have a great track record of learning from mistakes that have often caused life-changing injuries and this has to change if we are to reduce the number of birth-related tragedies that occur … We have a number of cases which would not have even been investigated without the intervention of independent medical negligence lawyers.”

Others agreed that the NHS’s record on dealing with claims has been driven by “economics rather than legal merit”. According to Douglas Miller, a partner at law firm Coffin Mew, “currently, if you have an expensive claim, the NHS will fight longer to keep its money. We have seen matters where early admission would prove beneficial to all involved, but the NHS still makes the victim prove their claim.”

Mark Bowman, a partner at Fieldfisher, said it was important for parents to “be made aware of the costs of bringing up a brain-injured child for life and not just be encouraged to accept a lump sum early that sounds fantastic but in reality is nowhere near enough”.

Neil Sugarman, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and a partner at GLP Solicitors in Manchester, backed that view. He said his organisation would “be reminding the Department of Health that children suffering cerebral palsy and brain damage at birth need round-the-clock medical care, specialist equipment and support for the rest of their lives”.

A London judge yesterday sentenced a paid McKenzie friend to a one-year prison term for perverting the course of justice in a case that will reignite debate over the regulation of non-qualified court advocates.

David Bright was sentenced at Wood Green crown court after submitting a psychology report during a family court case earlier in the year that was prepared by his partner, who had falsely claimed to be a clinical psychologist.

Both Bright and Claire Mann – who used her maiden name, Silverstone – were convicted of perverting the course of justice. According to the Law Gazette, the recorder Robert Morrison sentenced Mann, who pleaded guilty, to nine months in jail for the offence.

Both the Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, and the Bar Council, the body representing barristers, have campaigned against the use of paid McKenzie friends and have lobbied for their fees not to be recoverable.

Earlier this year, the Judicial Executive Board proposed to ban non-professionals who charge for legal services from recovering fees for litigation or advocacy. However, recent significant cuts to civil legal aid eligibility implemented by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 triggered a rise in the prevalence of McKenzie friends.

Cambridge University may have topped this year’s table for best law degree course but it seems the stress of going to No 1 is driving some students to substance abuse.

The law faculty is alleged to have been rife with traces of cocaine, according to a drugs survey conducted by a leading online student website.

The Tab reported that the law and history faculties at the ancient university yielded the most prevalent traces of cocaine use. “The English faculty and Econ faculty were boring,” said the website’s drugs squad, “but the Law faculty (unsurprising, given the amount of work they have) and the History faculty (surprising, given how little work they have) tested positive.”

The revelation comes just over a year after Legal Cheek, a website aimed specifically at law students, revealed that aspiring barristers were “the biggest druggies at law school”. That survey revealed that marijuana was easily the drug of choice for law students, with more than 72 per cent of those admitting to taking illegal substances opting for weed.

Ecstasy/MDMA came in second place on 41.5 per cent, while 22 per cent of law students taking drugs put their hands up to a fondness for cocaine.

Small businesses are to be offered free legal advice in David and Goliath intellectual property disputes as part of a scheme launched yesterday.

The programme has been launched in response to a recent call from Judge Hacon – the presiding judge of London’s Intellectual Property Enterprise Court – for intellectual property specialists to offer advice and support to unrepresented claimants and defendants in disputes.

Called IP Pro Bono, the scheme has been concocted by a group including the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, the Intellectual Property Lawyers’ Association and the Law Society.

Sean Dennehey, acting chief executive of the Intellectual Property Office, said that the service would be available “to those who cannot reasonably afford to pay for professional advice from a firm”. Organisers said that a case officer would assess applications and, if the applicant met the stated criteria, allocate the case to one of the participating firms on a rota basis.

About a dozen law firms have signed up to the scheme so far, but organisers declined to name them before the official launch this evening. “The scheme members are a good cross section of firms from the IP community,” a spokesman said, “including firms of patent and trade mark attorneys and law firms with an IP department.”

Judge appeals to child abuse victims and witnesses as Scottish inquiry begins – BBC Scotland

New York Times’ lawyer letter over Trump libel allegation goes viral – Law.com

‘You got a bad attitude’: Agitated judge tears off robe, tackles man in courtroom, video shows – Washington Post

Five myths about studying law, debunked – The Guardian