- Supreme Court in London will spend three days reconciling judgments issued by English and Scottish courts
- Last week Scottish judges ruled Parliament was suspended illegally by PM to avoid scrutiny of Brexit policy
- But High Court judges in London decided that decision was ‘purely political’ and not a matter for the courts
- Gina Miller leading the legal battle and ex-PM Sir John Major will give evidence to try to defeat Government
- Her QC said PM shut Parliament because ‘he sees Parliament as an obstacle to the further his political aims’
- Boris Johnson says it is ‘claptrap’ and ‘mumbo jumbo’ for people to say he has stopped MPs having their say
- BBC star David Dimbleby interviewed crowds saying case is ‘big potatoes’ and Britain ‘never been so divided’
Boris Johnson has ‘abused’ his power more than any other Prime Minister for more than 50 years in an attempt to force through Brexit on October 31, arch-remainer Gina Miller’s QC told the Supreme Court today.
The UK’s 11 most senior judges have been asked to have the final say on whether Mr Johnson broke the law and misled the Queen by shutting the Commons for five weeks in a ruling that could influence whether Britain leaves the EU.
The Tory leader will be under huge pressure to resign as Prime Minister if the Supreme Court decides he lied to Her Majesty about the reasons for suspending Parliament until October 14. His pledge to deliver Brexit by Halloween would also suffer a sledgehammer blow.
Britain’s highest court is hearing an appeal case launched by arch-remainers including Ms Miller and former Tory prime minister Sir John Major after the High Court in London rejected their claims that the PM is trying to ‘stymy’ scrutiny of his Brexit policy to force through No Deal.
The 11 judges will also rule on an appeal by the Government against a decision by Scottish justices in Edinburgh who said shutting down Parliament until mid-October is unlawful.
After three days of evidence this week the Supreme Court will rule on the issue next week – it would carry full political and legal weight over the High Court case in London and the Scottish case in Edinburgh.
Opening the case Gina Miller’s barrister Lord Pannick QC alleged today that the PM’s aim was ‘to silence Parliament for that period’ rather than hold a Queen’s Speech.
He said: ‘The exceptional length of the prorogation in this case is strong evidence that the Prime Minister’s motive was to silence Parliament for that (five-week) period because he sees Parliament as an obstacle to the furtherance of his political aims’.
He added: ‘No Prime Minister has abused his power in the manner in which we allege in at least the last 50 years’.
Lord Pannick emphasised that he was ‘making no criticism of Her Majesty in these proceedings – Her Majesty acted on the advice of her Prime Minister’ – but suggested that the Queen had been misled by the Government and said Boris Johnson’s refusal to give evidence to the court should be held against him by the judges.
This morning his client Ms Miller was clapped and cheered by fans chanting ‘Gina, Gina, Gina’ as the landmark Brexit legal battle started.
On the steps of the court the millionaire businesswoman said her legal team would do their ‘best’ to win and when asked if the courts should intervene in political decisions she added: ‘If there is an overarching [misuse] of power, yes’.
Constitutional QC Lord Pannick, who is representing Gina Miller (pictured behind him in today), has accused Boris Johnson (right in Downing Street) of abusing his power as Prime Minister to try to force Brexit
The 11 judges of the Supreme Court file in at the start of the first of three days of evidence that will have a huge impact on Brexit
Boris Johnson’s Brexit strategy could be saved or completely unravel if the Supreme Court sides with remainers including Gina Miller (left today) and SNP MP Joanna Cherry (right today) who say prorogation of Parliament was unlawful
A protester dressed as the Incredible Hulk paced outside the Supreme Court – wearing a Boris Johnson wig and clutching a placard with the words ‘Incredible Sulk’
Supreme Court President Lady Hale made an opening statement at the start of the case and said their ruling would be ‘without fear or favour’ and ‘will not determine when and how the UK leaves the EU.’
She added: ‘This is a serious and difficult question and is demonstrated by three senior judges in Scotland reaching a different conclusion to three senior judges in London. This is what the Supreme Court is for’.
One Miller supporter wore a Boris Johnson-style wig and an Incredible Hulk costume while carrying an ‘Incredible Sulk’ placard to lampoon the PM’s claim he will channel the superhero to ensure Brexit happens in 44 days’ time. He was later arrested by another remainer protester dressed as RoboCop.
On the day of the landmark Supreme Court hearing that could change the direction of Brexit, it emerged:
- Boris Johnson had ‘improper motive’ for proroguing Parliament until October 14 and lied to the Queen to do it because he sees MPs as an ‘obstacle’ to Brexit, Gina Miller’s QC has said;
- Lord Pannick says that Boris Johnson’s decision not to give evidence in crunch case should be held against him by the 11 judges;
- President of the Supreme Court Lady Hale insists their crucial ruling ‘will not determine when and how the UK leaves the EU’;
- The Supreme Court would carry full political and legal weight over the High Court case in London and the Scottish case in Edinburgh;
- Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, refused to rule out a second bid to prorogue Parliament in October;
The Prime Minister said last night it was ‘claptrap’ that he had stopped MPs having their say on Brexit and said a Queen’s Speech was required to end the longest Parliamentary session since the English civil war ended in 1651.
What the 11 Supreme Court judges finally decide will have huge implications for Boris Johnson’s premiership.
If they rule against him he could be forced to recall Parliament where MPs will try to take complete control of Brexit and some critics have said that Mr Johnson would have to resign if it was found that he had misled the Queen about the reasons for suspending Parliament.
If he wins MPs will not return to the House of Commons until October 14 – 17 days before Britain is due to leave the EU.
Over the next three days the Supreme Court in London will hear appeals from two separate challenges brought in England and Scotland to the prorogation of Parliament and will return verdicts on both by next week.
On the same day last week an Edinburgh court ruled it was unlawful while the High Court in London disagreed and said the decision was ‘purely political’.
The justices, led by president Lady Hale, will grapple with whether the PM’s decision about the length of the prorogation is not a matter for the courts – or unlawful.
At the start of today’s hearing Lady Hale emphasised that the case is only about whether the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen was lawful.
She said: ‘That this is a serious and difficult question of law is amply demonstrated by the fact that three senior judges in Scotland have reached a different conclusion from three senior judges in England and Wales.
‘The Supreme Court exists to decide such difficult questions of law and we shall do so in accordance with our judicial oaths – to do right by all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.
‘It is important to emphasise that we are not concerned with the wider political issues which form the context for this legal issue.
‘As will be apparent when we hear the legal arguments, the determination of this legal issue will not determine when and how the UK leaves the European Union.’
Protesters claiming they are ‘defending democracy’ outside the Supreme Court today where the three-day hearing is due to begin at 10.30am
Members of the public queue to enter the court along with one woman who has gagged herself and carried a sign reading ‘No Parliament, no voice’
Lord Pannick argued that the Scottish Court of Session reached the ‘correct’ conclusion as to Mr Johnson’s motive for proroguing Parliament.
He told the court: ‘Their conclusions, we say, are supported by the Prime Minister’s own public statements as to his concerns as to what Parliament may do and the courts in addition should be prepared in the circumstances to draw an inference from the absence of any evidence on the Government’s side by way of a witness statement.
‘We submit that on all the material the court should conclude that, but for the Prime Minister’s wish to avoid Parliamentary control, he would not have recommended to Her Majesty a prorogation for a period of longer than five weeks, but he would have recommended a substantially shorter period … as had occurred on every occasion … in the last 40 years.’
Lord Pannick added that, if the court accepts the Prime Minister had an ‘improper motive’ for proroguing Parliament, it would be for Mr Johnson to provide evidence that it was ‘not material’ to his decision – which he would be unable to do in the absence of a statement.
He added: ‘The point I emphasise is that Parliament is prevented from responding to whatever developments there may be, and it is not difficult to see that there are and will be developments as from September 9.’
Outside court an outnumbered pro-Brexit supporter shouting ‘we voted to leave’ was ushered away from anti-Brexit protesters outside the court.
As he walked away, the man shouted ‘we want our country back’ and ‘democracy deniers’ at the crowd.
Later a group of around 20 pro-Brexit supporters gathered.
One man asked anti-Brexit demonstrators: ‘The EU is not a democracy – are you stupid?’ A woman held a handmade cardboard sign with the words: ‘Never surrender. Traitors must go.’
Victims’ campaigner Raymond McCord – who is intervening in the Supreme Court case – arrived at the court to cheers from EU supporters and boos from the counter-demo.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said the Supreme Court case was mentioned by Boris Johnson during Tuesday’s Cabinet meeting.
‘He mentioned the fact that the court case was ongoing and that we are confident in our arguments,’ the spokesman said.
Asked whether Mr Johnson should either give evidence or submit an affidavit to the court, the Prime Minister’s spokesman said: ‘I am not going to comment on an ongoing court case.
‘The way court cases begin is that one side will set out their position and then there will be a response for the Government.
‘The court is the right forum for this to take place.’
Ms Miller was flanked by security as she arrived at the court on Parliament Square but received a warm welcome from supporters
A gagged woman protests outside the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom against Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament. Demonstrators insist that Boris Johnson misled the Queen
The Prime Minister has refused to deny that he could ignore any ruling from the courts to force through Brexit.
He told the BBC last night he had the ‘greatest respect for the judiciary’ and asked if he would recall MPs if he lost the case he added: ‘I think the best thing I could do is wait and see what the judges say.’
Mr Johnson says the five-week suspension is to allow the Government to set out a new legislative agenda in a Queen’s Speech when MPs return to Parliament on October 14.
But those who brought legal challenges against the Prime Minister’s decision argue the prorogation is designed to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s impending exit from the EU on October 31.
The Supreme Court, which will sit as a panel of 11 justices for only the second time in its 10-year history, must reconcile contradictory judgments issued by the English and Scottish courts.
Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, failed to rule out a second bid to prorogue Parliament in October.
Asked whether it was remotely conceivable that Mr Johnson could suspend Parliament again, Mr Buckland told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘Harold Wilson said a week is a long time in politics, it seems like an hour is a long time in politics at the moment, and for me to sit here and imagine what might happen at the end of October, I think is idle.
‘What I do know is if we are able to, we will have a Queen’s Speech in October, there will be debate during that time and a vote as well, perhaps a series of votes, and I think Parliament has already shown its power.’
Robocop arrests the Incredible Hulk outside the entrance to the court ahead of the biggest Brexit case for years
SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, who led the cross-party group in the action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, said she is ‘cautiously optimistic’ that the ruling by the Scottish judges will stand.
She told BBC Radio Scotland: ‘I think that Scotland’s supreme court reached the right decision here for the right reasons and I’m cautiously optimistic that at least a majority of the UK Supreme Court justices will follow.’
Last week the High Court in London dismissed the case brought by businesswoman and campaigner Gina Miller – who previously brought a successful legal challenge against the Government over the triggering of the Article 50 process to start the Brexit countdown – finding that the length of the prorogation was ‘purely political’.
Giving reasons for their ruling on September 11, three of the most senior judges in England and Wales said: ‘We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable (capable of challenge). It is not a matter for the courts.’
But, on the same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that Mr Johnson’s decision was unlawful because ‘it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament’.
Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, said: ‘The circumstances demonstrate that the true reason for the prorogation is to reduce the time available for parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit at a time when such scrutiny would appear to be a matter of considerable importance, given the issues at stake.’
Following that ruling, a Downing Street source suggested the MPs and peers who brought the legal challenge ‘chose the Scottish courts for a reason’ – prompting criticism from Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who branded the comments ‘deeply dangerous’, as well as Justice Secretary Robert Buckland.
Mrs Miller’s challenge was supported by former prime minister Sir John Major, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti and the Scottish and Welsh governments, who are all interveners in the Supreme Court case.
A cross-party group of around 75 MPs and peers, led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, was responsible for the Scottish challenge and the appeal against the Court of Session’s decision is being brought by the Advocate General for Scotland, on behalf of the Westminster Government.
Lawyers wheels box-after-box of evidence and files into the court for three days of arguments over Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue
The Supreme Court, which will sit as a panel of 11 justices for only the second time in its 10-year history, must reconcile contradictory judgments issued by the English and Scottish courts
Victims’ campaigner Raymond McCord – who brought separate proceedings in Belfast, arguing that a no-deal Brexit would damage the Northern Ireland peace process – has also been given permission to intervene in the Supreme Court case.
In a statement ahead of the hearing, Mrs Miller said: ‘As with my first case, my Supreme Court case is about pushing back against what is clearly a dramatic overreach of executive power.
‘This is an issue that cuts across the political divides – and the arguments about the EU – and it has united remainers and leavers and people of all political complexions and none in opposition to it.
‘The precedent Mr Johnson will set – if this is allowed to stand – is terrifying: any prime minister trying to push through a policy that is unpopular in the House and in the country at large would from now on simply be able to resort to prorogation.
‘No one could ever have envisaged it being used in this way: this is a classic power-grab.’
She added: ‘The reason given for the prorogation was patently untrue and, since then, the refusal to come clean or provide any of the disclosures we have asked for has compounded the deception.
‘It is my view – and the view of a great many others – that Mr Johnson has gone too far and put our parliamentary sovereignty and democracy in grave danger by his actions.’
Mr Johnson advised the Queen on August 28 to prorogue Parliament for five weeks from the week of September 9.
The Supreme Court judges will hear submissions from the parties and interveners from Tuesday to Thursday, but it is not clear when they will give a ruling.
Yesterday, another former Tory prime minister, David Cameron, accused Mr Johnson of ‘sharp practice’ for proroguing Parliament.
But Mr Johnson said it was ‘claptrap’ for people to say he had stopped MPs having their say on Brexit.
He told the BBC: ‘All this mumbo jumbo about how Parliament is being deprived of the opportunity to scrutinise Brexit. What a load of claptrap. Actually, Parliament I think has lost about four or five days.’
Boris Johnson’s description of former Prime Minister, David Cameron, as ‘a girly swot’ in unredacted cabinet papers disclosed to court. Crucially it says that Parliament sitting in September was a ‘rigmarole introduced … to show the public that MPs were earning their crust’
And senior Tories last night claimed that the Prime Minister is ready to ignore a controversial law pushed through Parliament forcing him to seek another Brexit delay if a deal is not reached by October 19 – even if it means he is dragged to court.
Mr Johnson yesterday said another extension would be ‘crackers’ and insisted the law would not stop him taking the UK out of the EU next month – with or without a deal.
Eleven supreme court justices have started to hear the claim that Mr Johnson acted unlawfully in advising the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks in order to stifle debate over the Brexit crisis.
Documents published by the Supreme Court yesterday show how the Prime Minister’s team will argue decisions to prorogue are a matter of ‘high policy’ and not law – meaning the courts should not intervene. They revealed Sir John will make an ‘oral intervention’ for up to 20 minutes on Thursday. The former prime minister is listed as an ‘intervener’ on Miss Miller’s case, alongside Labour’s Baroness Chakrabarti.
Miss Miller’s written case said: ‘The Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for a period of five weeks is an unlawful abuse of power, because there has been no prorogation for longer than three weeks in the past 40 years and prorogation is typically for a week or less.
‘To prorogue Parliament for such a lengthy period removes the ability of Parliament to take such action as it sees fit… relating to the arrangements for the UK to leave the EU when time is very much of the essence…’
It adds that Mr Johnson’s reasons for advising the prorogation were ‘improper’ and influenced by ‘his concern that Parliament might take steps which would undermine the Government’s negotiating position with the EU’.
The case will be led in court by Lord Pannick, who led Miss Miller’s previous successful case forcing the Government to give MPs a vote on triggering Article 50.
The documents reveal Mr Johnson’s case is that the claims are ‘non-justiciable’ – meaning they are not within the scope of the courts.
The PM’s case points out that MPs could have legislated to ensure that Parliament continued to sit during the prorogation – but it did not do so.
And it highlighted that the Queen is under no obligation to accept the advice of the Prime Minister.
…and the key players in the high profile Brexit legal battle
As the Supreme Court considers legal challenges to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament, here is a look at the key players in the case before the UK’s highest court.
The court hears appeals on cases of the greatest public importance where it is considered there is an arguable point of law.
Now the Supreme Court, which will sit as a panel of 11 justices for only the second time in its 10-year history, must reconcile contradictory judgments issued by the English and Scottish courts.
– Gina Miller
The investment fund manager and campaigner first came to public prominence in 2016 when she launched a legal challenge to then prime minister Theresa May’s decision to use the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50, starting a two-year countdown to the UK’s departure from the EU.
The High Court ruled that the prime minister did not have the power to trigger Article 50 without the authority of Parliament, a ruling ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in January 2017.
– Boris Johnson
Mr Johnson was appointed Prime Minister on July 24, after refusing to rule out proroguing Parliament during the contest to succeed Mrs May as leader of the Conservative Party.
The Queen prorogued Parliament, on Mr Johnson’s advice, on August 28 after Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lords Leader Baroness Evans and chief whip Mark Spencer flew to Balmoral for a Privy Council meeting.
A handwritten note of Mr Johnson’s dated August 16, replying to advice on prorogation, said Parliament sitting in September was a ‘rigmarole introduced … to show the public that MPs were earning their crust, so I do not see anything especially shocking about this prorogation’.
An unredacted version of the note leaked to Sky News revealed Mr Johnson wrote that the ‘rigmarole’ had been ‘introduced by girly swot (former prime minister David) Cameron’.
– Joanna Cherry QC MP and others
SNP MP Joanna Cherry, pictured at the Supreme Court today, described the ruling as ‘historic’ and ‘fantastic’
Joanna Cherry, a barrister-turned-MP and the SNP’s justice and home affairs spokeswoman, is the lead claimant in the proceedings brought in Scotland.
The case is brought by a total of 79 petitioners, including Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas and Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader Liz Saville Roberts.
– Sir John Major
Sir John served as prime minister between 1990 and 1997, taking over from Margaret Thatcher and defeating Labour leader Neil Kinnock in the 1992 general election before losing to Tony Blair’s New Labour in 1997.
In July, after Mr Johnson refused to rule out prorogation, Sir John told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that it would be ‘utterly and totally unacceptable’ for any British premier to shut down Parliament.
The former prime minister said he would bring a judicial review against any attempt to do so and intervened in Mrs Miller’s High Court case in September. His lawyers have been given permission to make oral submissions at the Supreme Court hearing.
However, Sir John himself controversially prorogued Parliament ahead of the 1997 general election, which prevented a report on the cash for questions scandal being considered by MPs.
– Baroness Chakrabarti
The peer was director of civil liberties organisation Liberty from 2003 to 2016, during which time she was described by the Sun newspaper as ‘the most dangerous woman in Britain’.
Following her appointment in 2016 as the chairwoman of an inquiry into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, Baroness Chakrabarti was nominated to the House of Lords and subsequently appointed Labour’s shadow attorney general.
– Raymond McCord
The victims’ rights campaigner, whose son was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in 1997, is one of three individuals bringing a legal challenge in Belfast, arguing that a no-deal Brexit would damage the Northern Ireland peace process.
Unlike in England and Wales and Scotland, cases in Northern Ireland cannot leapfrog straight to the Supreme Court, so Mr McCord’s case was heard by the Court of Appeal in Belfast on Monday – and he has also been given permission to intervene at the Supreme Court.
source:dailymail