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 8 Version 9
Supreme Court examines lawfulness of Parliament suspension Supreme Court: Parliament suspended 'to stop MPs frustrating PM', judges told
(36 minutes later)
The Supreme Court is meeting to consider whether Boris Johnson acted lawfully in suspending Parliament. Boris Johnson sought to suspend Parliament to avoid the risk of MPs "frustrating or damaging" his Brexit plans, the Supreme Court has heard.
The 11 judges are hearing two appeals relating to the PM's decision to prorogue Parliament to mid-October. Lawyers for campaigners challenging the suspension said there was "strong evidence" the PM saw MPs "as an obstacle" and wanted to "silence" them.
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 judges are hearing two challenges relating to the five-week prorogation.
Lady Hale, the President of the Court, said its job was to "decide serious and difficult questions of law". Lady Hale, President of the Court, stressed the landmark case would have no bearing on the timing of Brexit.
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". In her opening statement, the most senior judge in the UK said she and her 10 colleagues would endeavour to address the "serious and difficult questions of law" raised by the case.
Ahead of the unprecedented hearing, the prime minister said he would "wait and see what the judges say" before deciding whether to recall Parliament. But 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".
For the next three days, the Supreme Court in London will hear arguments from the government and campaigners challenging the decision to suspend Parliament. Over the next three days, the Supreme Court will consider two separate legal challenges over whether Boris Johnson acted lawfully in advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament.
The suspension, a process known as prorogation, began a week ago. Mr Johnson maintains it was right and proper to terminate the last session of Parliament in order to pave the way for a Queen's Speech on 14 October, in which his new government will outline its legislative plans for the year ahead.
MPs are not scheduled to return until 14 October, when there will be a Queen's Speech outlining Mr Johnson's legislative plans. He insisted the move had nothing to do with Brexit and his "do or die" pledge to take the UK out of the EU on 31 October, if necessary without a deal.
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. But last week, Edinburgh's Court of Session found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians challenging the PM's move, ruling the shutdown was unlawful and "of no effect",
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. Scotland's highest civil court found Mr Johnson's actions were motivated by the "improper purpose of stymieing Parliament" from properly scrutinising the government's Brexit plans in the run-up to a crucial summit of EU leaders on 17 October.
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". It found that the prime minister had effectively misled the Queen in the sovereign's exercise of prerogative powers.
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". But, in a separate case, London's High Court rejected a challenge brought by businesswoman and campaigner Gina Miller, ruling that 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 the High Court judgement.
'Frustrate policies''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. Lord Pannick, the crossbench peer and QC representing Ms Miller, told the Supreme Court on Tuesday it was not the judges' 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". However, he said the "exceptional length" of the prorogation was "strong evidence the prime minister's motive was to silence Parliament because he sees Parliament as an obstacle".
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".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. He said the court had a "common law duty" to intervene if the PM has used his power improperly.
"It is 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."
Eleven of the Supreme Court justices - the largest possible panel - are hearing legal arguments from the English and Scottish court cases on Tuesday.
The government's lawyers will then respond on Wednesday.
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 would determine whether prorogation was 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. 
Opposition parties have called for Parliament to be recalled.Opposition parties have called for Parliament to be recalled.
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".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."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.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.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".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".