UK Supreme Court to hear appeals against Parliament’s shutdown
The UK’s highest court will hear two appeals against the prorogation – or shutdown – of Parliament until mid-October. A…
The UK’s highest court will hear two appeals against the prorogation – or shutdown – of Parliament until mid-October. A Scottish court had decided that the decision was unlawful.
Lord Pannick, QC argues that Boris Johnson acted with an "improper motive" and that parliament may have kept an eye on no deal plans, or on the progress made in Europe.— Sky News Politics (@SkyNewsPolitics) September 17, 2019
Follow live here: https://t.co/IjY95j1DpV pic.twitter.com/xsveoxmdmk
The Supreme Court is meeting to consider whether Boris Johnson acted lawfully in suspending Parliament.
The 11 judges are hearing two appeals relating to the PM’s decision to prorogue Parliament to mid-October.
Edinburgh’s Court of Session found last week that the shutdown was unlawful and “of no effect”, but London’s High Court said it was not a court matter.
Lady Hale, the President of the Court, said its job was to “decide serious and difficult questions of law”.
But, in her opening statement, she said the court would not determine “wider political questions” relating to the Brexit process and its ruling would have no bearing on “when and how the UK leaves the EU”.
Ahead of the unprecedented hearing, the prime minister said he would “wait and see what the judges say” before deciding whether to recall Parliament.
For the next three days, the Supreme Court in London will hear arguments from the government and campaigners challenging the decision to suspend Parliament.
The suspension, a process known as prorogation, began a week ago.
MPs are not scheduled to return until 14 October, when there will be a Queen’s Speech outlining Mr Johnson’s legislative plans.
The judgement came after London’s High Court heard a case brought by businesswoman and campaigner Gina Miller, who argued the shutdown of Parliament was “an unlawful abuse of power”.
The judges said they rejected her claim because the suspension of Parliament was a “purely political” move and was therefore “not a matter for the courts”.