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-49795111

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme Court to rule on prorogation on Tuesday Supreme Court to rule on Parliament suspension on Tuesday
(32 minutes later)
A ruling on the legality of Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks will be announced by the Supreme Court on Tuesday at 10:30 BST. A ruling on the legality of Boris Johnson decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks will be announced by the Supreme Court on Tuesday at 10:30 BST.
The government argues prorogation is not a matter for the courts, but critics say the PM is trying to limit MPs' scrutiny of his Brexit policy. The government argues suspension - or prorogation - is not a court matter, but critics say the PM is trying to limit scrutiny of his Brexit policy.
Parliament is currently due to return on 14 October - the UK is scheduled to leave the EU on 31 October. Parliament is currently due to return on 14 October, with the UK scheduled to leave the EU on 31 October.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the government would "abide by the ruling".
However, he did not rule out the possibility that Parliament could be prorogued again, if the government lost the case.
The three-day hearing at the highest court in the country dealt with two appeals - one from campaigner and businesswoman Gina Miller, the second from the government
Ms Miller was appealing the English High Court's decision to throw out her challenge to prorogation.
The government, on the other hand, was appealing the ruling from Scotland's Court of Session that the prorogation was "unlawful" and had been used to "stymie" Parliament.
The challenge to the prorogation in the Scottish Court was brought by 75 parliamentarians, including SNP MP Joanna Cherry.
During the court case, government lawyer Lord Keen QC said prorogation was "forbidden territory, which is a matter between the executive and Parliament", and MPs "had the tools" to change the law if they did not like it.
However, Lord Pannick QC, representing Ms Miller, argued it "was motivated, or at least strongly influenced" by Mr Johnson's belief that Parliament was "a threat to the implementation of his policies".