This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49722087

The article has changed 19 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Supreme Court examines lawfulness of Parliament suspension Supreme Court examines lawfulness of Parliament suspension
(32 minutes later)
The Supreme Court is meeting to consider whether Boris Johnson acted lawfully in suspending Parliament.The Supreme Court is meeting to consider whether Boris Johnson acted lawfully in suspending Parliament.
The 11 judges will hear two appeals relating to the PM's decision to prorogue Parliament to mid-October. 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. 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.
The prime minister says he will "wait and see what the judges say" before deciding whether to recall Parliament. Lady Hale, the President of the Court, said its job was to "decide serious and difficult questions of law".
For the next three days, the Supreme Court in London will hear evidence from the government and campaigners challenging the decision to suspend Parliament. 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".
The suspension of Parliament, a process known as proroguing, began a week ago. 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.MPs are not scheduled to return until 14 October, when there will be a Queen's Speech outlining Mr Johnson's legislative plans.
Opposition parties have called for Parliament to be recalled. Scotland's highest civil court last week found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians challenging the PM's move and ruled that Mr Johnson's suspension of Parliament was unlawful.
Speaking to BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg ahead of the start of the court case, Mr Johnson said he had the "greatest respect for the judiciary", and its independence "is one of the glories of the UK". The judges were unanimous in finding Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and he had effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament.
"And I think the best thing I can say, having said that, is to wait and see what they say," he said. 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".
Asked again if he would be ready to recall Parliament if that was what the Supreme Court said he ought to do, he said: "I think the best thing I could do is wait and see what the judges say."
Justice Secretary Robert Buckland told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that whatever the Supreme Court's decision, the "robust independence of our judiciary" must be respected.
The government had a duty to study the "precise wording" of the court's ruling before deciding what to do.
But he said suggestions Parliament had been sidelined "had not been borne out by events" as it had passed "significant" legislation curbing the PM's room for manoeuvre.
Scotland's highest civil court, the Court of Session, last week found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who were challenging the prime minister's move and ruled that Mr Johnson's suspension of Parliament was unlawful.
The judges said the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account ahead of Brexit.
They were unanimous in finding that Mr Johnson was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament", and that he had effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament.
Following the ruling, business minister Kwasi Kwarteng said "many people" believe judges are biased about Brexit - comments that prompted criticism and led to the prime minister defending the independence of the judiciary.
The judgement at the Court of Session came after London's High Court heard a case brought by businesswoman 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".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".
The government is now appealing against the ruling in Scotland, while Ms Miller is appealing against London's High Court judgement.The government is now appealing against the ruling in Scotland, while Ms Miller is appealing against London's High Court judgement.
'Frustrate policies'
Lord Pannick, the crossbench peer and QC representing Ms Miller, said it was not the court's responsibility to determine the length of time Parliament should have been suspended, as this was a political matter for the government.
But he said it was "being asked to consider the legal question of whether it is within the scope of the power conferred on the prime minister to exercise it for the purpose alleged".
The facts, he said, showed the PM had advised the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks "because he wishes to avoid what he saw as the risk that Parliament, during that period, would take action to frustrate or damage the policies of his government".
Eleven of the Supreme Court justices - the largest possible panel - will hear legal arguments from the English and Scottish court cases. The government's lawyers will then respond.Eleven of the Supreme Court justices - the largest possible panel - will hear legal arguments from the English and Scottish court cases. The government's lawyers will then respond.
BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said it was only the second time 11 justices would sit - the first time this happened was in Ms Miller's successful challenge as to whether the prime minister or Parliament should trigger Article 50 to start the process for leaving the EU.BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said it was only the second time 11 justices would sit - the first time this happened was in Ms Miller's successful challenge as to whether the prime minister or Parliament should trigger Article 50 to start the process for leaving the EU.
He added that they will determine whether prorogation is a matter for the courts. He added that they would determine whether prorogation was a matter for the courts.
If they decide it is, they will go on to rule definitively on whether Mr Johnson's true motive in advising the Queen was to undermine MPs' ability to legislate and respond to events as the country prepares to leave the EU, our correspondent added. If they decide it is, they will go on to rule definitively on whether Mr Johnson's true motive in advising the Queen was to undermine MPs' ability to legislate and respond to events as the country prepares to leave the EU, our correspondent added. 
Speaking on Monday, Mr Johnson said the EU had had "a bellyful" of the Brexit process and wanted to get a deal in order to move on to the next phase of talks on future relations. Opposition parties have called for Parliament to be recalled.
A UK government source said on Monday that the gap the UK and Brussels needed to bridge to achieve a Brexit deal on the terms of the UK's exit "remains quite large". Speaking to BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg ahead of the start of the court case, Mr Johnson said he had the "greatest respect for the judiciary", and its independence "is one of the glories of the UK".
"And I think the best thing I can say, having said that, is to wait and see what they say," he said.
Asked again if he would be ready to recall Parliament if that was what the Supreme Court said he ought to do, he said: "I think the best thing I could do is wait and see what the judges say."
On Monday, the prime minister held talks in Luxembourg with EU counterparts and negotiators.
Afterwards, he said the EU had had "a bellyful" of the Brexit process and wanted to get a deal in order to move on to the next phase of talks on future relations.
A UK government source said on Monday the gap the UK and Brussels needed to bridge to achieve a deal on the terms of exit "remains quite large".