They justify this by saying:
We have a duty to ensure that that we understand the reasoning of a court so that we can correctly apply any considerations to future cases and charging decisions. This appeal was pursued because what is required, for all concerned, is clarity and certainty.
There is a technical description for that, which is it is drivel (other words could be used).
The reality is that the Tories want to limit free speech.
The courts would not do it.
Making a justified claim that the Tories are scum is clearly a legal thing to do.
Unless you are a Tory minister, of course, whose aim here is to politicise the Supreme Court, whatever the outcome. Which looks like the actions of Tory enemies of free speech to me.
Taking is to the Supreme Court clarifies whether it is legal to call a Tory minister scum. Which is what the department of pp is saying they’re doing.
“Scum” is clearly not libel, as it’s “mere vulgar abuse”. Something that was clarified in libel law by a case or 17 going up and down the court system until top judges clarified what “mere vulgar abuse” was and why it wasn’t libel.
There’s also behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace – currently calling someone n word probably is in a way that a century ago it probably wasn’t.
And so on. We have interlocking restrictions on what may and may not be legally said in public. We also have a common law system, which means that it’s, often enough, the judges making precedent setting rulings which define what those specific laws are.
Here we’ve an interesting question. Which needs to be sorted. So, the system we’ve got is going to sort it.