This week the High Court in England heard argument in a legal challenge by UK citizens’ living abroad to their disenfranchisement in the European Referendum on 23 June.

British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years are to be denied the vote, unless (as their counsel pointed out) they hastily move back to the UK.

They cannot vote while Commonwealth citizens living in the UK, whether for a long or a short time, can vote.

Aidan O’ Neill QC for the claimants pointed out the great deal at stake for the claimants – their right to live, work or study in the European Union. He also highlighted that the government has said it plans to abolish the 15-year for other elections, does not know how many UK citizens are affected and has not identified its justification for the 15-year rule, which makes it an arbitrary rule.

James Eadie QC for the government argued that deciding who should have the vote was a matter for the government and the consequences for British citizens abroad, in event of a Leave vote, are unknown.

The case was heard Lord Justice Lloyd-Jones and Mr Justice Blake (who heard the Gurkha case that Liberal Democrats took a strong interest in). They have reserved judgment, meaning they wish to consider matters further and give a judgment at a later day.  Either side might appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. I expect the Supreme Court would consider it a matter sufficiently important to be heard by that court and might be expedited to go there directly.

At times like this I am glad England’s judiciary is generally respected for its party political neutrality, unlike the US Supreme Court whose majority judgment in Bush v Gore is a monument to partisan decision-making in court.

* Antony Hook was #2 on the South East European list in 2014, is the English Party's representative on the Federal Executive and produces this sites EU Referendum Roundup.