Yes I do understand how your laws work. Someone says it's not illegal, someone else says it is illegal.
Incorrect; in lower courts, someone says a law was broken, and another says they didn't break it, or, rarely, that this law doesn't apply, or even more rarely, a case is not about a law at all, but about a constittional precedent.
In this case, there was no law as such (no law based on an act of parliament), it was a case based on constitutional precedent. When the lower courts are unable to reach a verdict, or there is an appeal, it gets passed up to a higher court, in this case, all teh way to the Supreme Court. They generally only hear cases where there is ambiguity in the law (due to badly worded or contradictory Acts, in which case I believe the later Act takes precedent), or where there is no legal precedent, in which case they have to weigh up the existing constitutional and legal precedents, and make an appropriate judgement.
IANAL, of course, but clearly, neither are you.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
