'It's irrelevant' Gina Miller REFUSES to disclose cost of taking Brexit case to High Court
THE CAMPAIGNER who led the fight for Parliament to trigger Article 50 refused to disclose how much she spent bringing the case to the High Court despite being repeatedly pressed on it.
Gina Miller grilled on Brexit legal expenses
Investment manager Gina Miller clashed with talkRADIO host Julia Hartley-Brewer over the ruling, which prevents the Government from starting Brexit negotiations without the approval of Parliament.
Ms Miller said: “My lawyers are pro bono, my counsel I paid for, so it’s been a fraction of what the cost would be.”
Hartley-Brewer repeatedly pushed Ms Miller for an answer on the cost of the case before she refused to disclose the amount.
“It’s not a huge amount,” the campaigner insisted. “Well, a case of this amount would be hugely expensive and I haven’t had to do that.
My lawyers are pro bono, my counsel I paid for, so it’s been a fraction of what the cost would be
“The government asked and we’ve agreed to keep that confidential it is not my decision to disclose that amount, it is the court’s.”
The radio host hit back and said: “My point is, what you consider to be not a very large amount of money… is probably more than what most people in this country earn net in a year.
“Most people would not be able to bring a court case like this and that’s where the anger about the elite establishment and rich comes in.”
Ms Miller said the presenter was making “huge presumptions” and said it was “irrelevant” to the point of the case.
Nigel Farage and Gina Miller CLASH over Brexit
She said: “The point of the case is the fact that this is something about democracy, we do not live… in a tinpot dictatorship.
“I’m sorry, [but] Mrs May’s reaction to the case actually confirms exactly that because she is now saying she is more supreme than the courts? No body is about the law.
“It’s not about politics it’s about process of law.”
Hartley-Brewer argued Parliamentary sovereignty was already in action after MPs voted six to one to hold the referendum.
She said: “MPs’ Parliamentary sovereignty has been asserted already where MPs said ‘we are going to hand this decision over to the British people’, on that basis why does Parliament have to have another vote?”
But Ms Miller insisted the court case “does not frustrate Mrs May”.
"She could draft an act of Parliament and have it before the house whenever she wishes, and her timetable is not interrupted,” she said. “But she should have done it along the lines that were required."