JUST IN: Boris Johnson’s Suspension Of Parliament Is Unlawful UK Supreme Court Rules

The historic ruling comes in a bombshell decision from
the Supreme Court that said the PM had an “extreme” effect on
democracy – and the order to prorogue Parliament must be
quashed

The UK’s highest court has ruled that Boris Johnson broke the
law when he advised the Queen to suspend parliament in a bombshell
unanimous judgement, Mirror.co.uk report^[1]

The court ruled that it was “unlawful, void and of no
effect”.

Supreme Court President Lady Hale said the prorogation was “void
and of no effect”, adding: “Parliament has not been prorogued.”

She told the court that the speakers of the Houses of Commons
and Lords “can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as
soon as possible”.

Responding to the ruling, Commons Speaker John Bercow said the
House must “convene without delay” and that he would be consulting
party leaders “as a matter of urgency”.

Lady Hale, who delivered the ruling, said that this prorogation
had this effect of “frustrating or preventing the ability of
parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without
reasonable justifications.”

Lady Hale told the court there had been “no justification” for
the decision to prorogue parliament for five weeks.

The Supreme Court spent three days hearing appeals on two
conflicting court cases.

Defiant Mr Johnson refused to rule out shutting down parliament
for a second time ahead of the landmark ruling.

Asked if he could stay in Number 10 if he was found to have
misled the monarch, the PM insisted: “No. I think the reasons for
wanting a Queen’s Speech are extremely good.”

Labour ’s shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, insisted ahead
of the ruling that parliament should be recalled “straight away” if
the PM has broken the law.

He said: “I will get the first train.”

During a three-day hearing last week eleven justices were asked
to determine whether his advice to the Queen to prorogue
Parliament, for what opponents describe as an “exceptionally long”
period, was unlawful.

Mr Johnson was asked whether he was nervous about the Supreme
Court judgment in an interview in New York, and replied: “It takes
a lot to make me nervous these days. “All I can tell you is that I
have the highest regard for the judiciary in this country, I will
look at the ruling with care.”

He was questioned by reporters on the flight to New York over
whether he would resign if the Government lost.

“I will wait and see what the justices decide, the Supreme Court
decides, because as I’ve said before I believe that the reasons for
… wanting a Queen’s speech were very good indeed,” he said.

He refused to rule out shutting Parliament for a second time
before the October 31 deadline.

Asked if he would rule it out the Prime Minister replied: “I’m
saying that Parliament will have bags of time to scrutinise the
deal that I hope we will be able to do.”

The Prime Minister advised the Queen on August 28 to prorogue
Parliament for five weeks, and it was suspended on September 9
until October 14.

Those who brought legal challenges argue the prorogation is
designed to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s impending
exit from the EU on October 31.

The Supreme Court heard appeals over three days arising out of
separate legal challenges in England and Scotland, in which leading
judges reached different conclusions.

At the High Court in London, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and
two other judges rejected campaigner and businesswoman Gina
Miller’s challenge, finding that the prorogation was “purely
political” and not a matter for the courts.

But in Scotland, a cross-party group of MPs and peers led by SNP
MP Joanna Cherry QC won a ruling from the Inner House of the Court
of Session that Mr Johnson’s prorogation decision was unlawful
because it was “motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing
Parliament”.

Mrs Miller has appealed against the decision of the High Court,
asking the Supreme Court to find that the judges who heard her
judicial review action “erred in law” in the findings they
reached.

The justices have been asked to determine whether Mr Johnson’s
advice to the Queen was “justiciable” – capable of challenge in the
courts – and, if so, whether it was lawful.

During last week’s hearing, Lord Pannick QC, for Mrs Miller,
told the packed court that Mr Johnson’s motive for a five-week
suspension was to “silence” Parliament, and that his decision was
an “unlawful abuse of power”.

He argued that Mr Johnson’s reasons for advising on a suspension
of that length “were improper in that they were infected with
factors inconsistent with the concept of Parliamentary
sovereignty”.

But Sir James Eadie QC argued on the Prime Minister’s behalf
that the suggestion the prorogation was intended to “stymie”
Parliament ahead of Brexit was “untenable”.

Mrs Miller’s case is supported by former prime minister Sir John
Major, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, the Scottish
and Welsh governments, and Northern Irish victims’ campaigner
Raymond McCord.

The justices have also been asked by the Westminster Government
to allow an appeal against the decision in Scotland.

Boris Johnson was slammed as the “father of lies” in the Supreme
Court for shutting down parliament.

Aidan O’Neill QC, representing the group of MPs and peers who
won a case in Edinburgh, urged 11 of the UK’s most senior judges in
the UK to uphold the Scottish ruling.

In an impassioned conclusion he urged them: “Stand up for truth,
stand up for reason, stand up for diversity, stand up for
Parliament, stand up for democracy by dismissing this Government
appeal and upholding a constitution governed by laws, not the
passing whims of men.

“What we have with prorogation is the mother of parliaments
closed down by the father of lies.”

Depending on the legal basis upon which the judges reach their
conclusions, Parliament may have to reconvene if Mr Johnson, who
has refused to rule out a second suspension, loses the case.

Documents submitted to the court revealed three possible
scenarios in the event the court rules the suspension was unlawful,
two of which could see the Prime Minister make a fresh decision to
prorogue Parliament.

The other outcome could see the court order Parliament to be
recalled.

But Mr Johnson’s lawyers urged the judges to consider the “very
serious practical consequences” involved in this option, as it
would require a new Queen’s Speech and State Opening of
Parliament.

Lawyers for Mr Johnson’s opponents said Parliament should meet
“urgently” after the ruling, to decide what to do in the event the
prorogation is declared “null” by the court.

At the close of the hearing on Thursday, the court’s president
Lady Hale said: “I must repeat that this case is not about when and
on what terms the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

“The result of this case will not determine that.

“We are solely concerned with the lawfulness of the Prime
Minister’s decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament on
the dates in question.”