Judges at the UK’s highest court have unanimously ruled that the decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful. A total of 11 judges at the Supreme Court in London made the historic decision that Prime Minister Boris Johnson should not have asked the Queen to prorogue parliament until 14 October.
The justices were asked to determine whether the PM’s advice to the Queen was ‘justiciable’ – capable of challenge in the courts – and, if so, whether it was lawful. They unanimously agreed the advice was justiciable. They also unanimously agreed that the prorogue was unlawful. Lady Hale said the prorogation was ‘void and of no effect’, adding: ‘Parliament has not been prorogued.’ Lady Hale’s full ruling on Boris’ ‘unlawful’ proroguing of Parliament
In a statement, House of Commons speaker John Bercow said: ‘I welcome the Supreme Court’s judgement that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. ‘The judges have rejected the Government’s claim that closing down Parliament for five weeks was merely standard practice to allow for a new Queen’s Speech. ‘In reaching their conclusion, they have vindicated the right and duty of Parliament to meet at this crucial time to scrutinise the executive and hold Ministers to account.
‘As the embodiment of our Parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must convene without delay. ‘To this end, I will now consult the party leaders as a matter of urgency.’ Boris Johnson’s prorogue was ‘unlawful’, ‘void and of no effect’
Mr Johnson, who will be told the court’s decision in New York where he is attending a UN climate summit, had been accused of an unlawful ‘abuse of power’ and of ‘misleading’ the Queen. Opponents described the length of the suspension as ‘exceptionally’ long. 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 asked whether he would resign if the Government lost and said: ‘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.’ Asked whether he would rule out proroguing parliament again before the current 31 October Brexit deadline, the PM replied: ‘I’m saying that Parliament will have bags of time to scrutinise the deal that I hope we will be able to do.’ Opponents argued the suspension was an attempt to silence parliament over Brexit
In her ruling, Lady Hale told the court: ‘This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. ‘This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. ‘This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. ‘The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. ‘This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.’ She added: ‘It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. ‘Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. ‘It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.’ Prime Minister Boris Johnson is in New York for the UN Climate Action Summit 2019
Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller brought the legal challenge against the prorogation (Picture: PA) Eleven judges at the Supreme Court in London made the decision on the legality of the five-week suspension (Picture: PA) The Prime Minister advised the Queen on 28 August to prorogue parliament for five weeks, and it was suspended on 9 September until 14 October. 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. But those who brought legal challenges argue the prorogation is designed to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit.
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 then 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.
About The Author
