This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/uk-supreme-court-ruling-key-issues-behind-judges-decision-boris-johnson-suspension-parliament

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
UK supreme court ruling: the key issues behind judges' decision Did Johnson lie to the Queen? Key questions in supreme court verdict
(about 5 hours later)
What were the issues at stake? What issues were at stake?
The nub of this case was whether Boris Johnson had the right under the UK’s unwritten constitution to suspend parliament, and whether the courts had the authority to intervene. Aidan O’Neill QC, the advocate who led on the anti-prorogation case in Scotland, insisted the courts had a duty to ensure the prime minister was not abusing his powers. The two main questions before the supreme court were whether Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to suspend parliament for five weeks in the middle of a constitutional crisis over Brexit was lawful, and whether the courts had the authority to intervene. Aidan O’Neill QC, the advocate who led on the anti-prorogation case in Scotland, had insisted the judges had a duty to ensure the prime minister was not abusing his powers.
The UK has a tripartite system, where parliament, the government and the courts each have a defined role in balancing out the others’ decisions. O’Neill successfully persuaded three senior Scottish judges 13 days ago that Johnson was abusing the government’s powers to suspend parliament to prevent it from carrying out its constitutional duties to scrutinise and approve the government’s decisions on Brexit. The UK’s unwritten constitution is a tripartite system, with parliament, government and the courts playing supposedly complementary roles. O’Neill successfully persuaded three senior Scottish judges 13 days ago that Johnson was abusing the government’s powers to suspend parliament in order to prevent it from carrying out its constitutional duties to scrutinise and approve the government’s decisions on Brexit.
Yet judges in London and Belfast had ruled in two very similar cases that Johnson did have the power to do so: they supported the government’s views that prorogation was a political decision and that courts had no right to interfere. Yet judges in London and Belfast had ruled in two very similar cases that Johnson’s action was lawful: they supported the government’s views that prorogation was a purely political decision and the courts had no right to interfere.
How did it end up in the supreme court?How did it end up in the supreme court?
The competing English and Scottish court decisions were immediately sent to the UK supreme court on appeal; the judges rushed back from holiday to fast-track the hearing, allocating 11 judges – the largest number they can convene, to hear the case. (There are 12 judges on the court, but it must have an odd number sitting on the bench to prevent deadlock.) The competing English and Scottish court decisions were immediately sent to the UK’s highest court on appeal; the justices rushed back from holiday to fast-track the hearing. A panel of 11 judges was assembled, the largest number they can convene, to hear the case. Twelve judges are on the bench but an odd number must sit to prevent deadlock.
What exactly did the court have to decide? How did the court reach its decision?
The court had to decide firstly whether Johnson’s decision – exploiting residual, royal prerogative powers – was “justiciable”, meaning it could be subjected to the court’s scrutiny under the constitution. Much of the hearing was devoted to the issue of whether Johnson’s decision – exploiting residual, royal prerogative powers – was “justiciable”, meaning that it could be subjected to examination by a court. Prerogative powers are often subject to legal challenge.
It then had to rule on whether the Scottish or English courts were right: was prorogation unconstitutional, or did Johnson have the right to organise parliamentary time as prime minister? The prime minister’s right to recommend prorogation to a monarch was not in doubt. The question was whether suspending parliament for such a long period at a crucial, constitutional moment without sufficient reason undermined parliament’s authority and duty to subject the government to scrutiny.
The final question the court addressed was what remedy it should grant if the prorogation was deemed unlawful. The justices sidestepped challenges by government lawyers who claimed the court would have to specify precisely the number of days it would be legal to suspend parliament.
Having decided those questions, the 11 justices then had to address what remedy was appropriate in such politically sensitive circumstances.
“It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the prime minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27 or 28 August, that parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9 and 12 September until 14 October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not.”“It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the prime minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27 or 28 August, that parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9 and 12 September until 14 October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not.”
“The first question is whether the lawfulness of the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.““The first question is whether the lawfulness of the prime minister’s advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.“
“It prevented parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31 October. Proroguing parliament is quite different from parliament going into recess. While parliament is prorogued, neither house can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither house can debate government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of ministers or meet and take evidence in committees…This prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the vonstitution of the United Kingdom on 31 October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.”“It prevented parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31 October. Proroguing parliament is quite different from parliament going into recess. While parliament is prorogued, neither house can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither house can debate government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of ministers or meet and take evidence in committees…This prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the vonstitution of the United Kingdom on 31 October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.”
“The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.““The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.“
“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.”“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.”
“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.”“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.”
The full judgment and the summary judgment can be downloaded from the Supreme court website.The full judgment and the summary judgment can be downloaded from the Supreme court website.
What conclusions did it reach? Did Boris Johnson lie to the Queen?
The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable” and subject to the law. Giving the judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.” The inner house of the Scottish court of sessions concluded Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen had been “motivated by the improper purpose of stymying parliament”.
They then ruled that the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.” She added: “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.” The supreme court in London, however, avoided making direct, personal criticism of the prime minister. It decided simply that the effect of a lengthy, parliamentary suspension at this time was unlawful. “We are not concerned with the prime minister’s motive in doing what he did,” the justices ruled.
In the most striking part of its ruling, the court said the speakers in both the Commons and Lords can reconvene both houses immediately. The judges upheld the court of session’s ruling that prorogation was void. They also stated that the privy council’s decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament was also “unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed”. In effect, Hale said “parliament has not been prorogued”. They subjected the reasons given in cabinet documents, however, to searching analysis. Johnson, they said, was neglecting his wider constitutional responsibilities. “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court,” the judges said.
What next? What conclusions did the court reach?
Immediately after the court said the next steps would be up to the speakers of the two houses, John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, said the Commons had to “convene without delay” and that he would urgently consult all party leaders about doing so. That could mean the Conservative conference, due to start this weekend, would need to be cut short. The 11 judges ruled unanimously. They said the case was “justiciable” and Johnson’s advice subject to the law. Giving judgment, Lady Hale said: “The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries.”
At the Labour conference, Jeremy Corbyn said parliament should immediately be recalled. The prime minister, meanwhile, must decide whether to return from the UN general assembly in New York. They then ruled the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had “the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification”. She added: “No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court.”
If he does return, Johnson could simply allow parliament to sit; seek to prorogue again, arguing that a shorter, “normal” prorogation ahead of a Queen’s speech is not ruled out by the court’s judgment but risking accusations that he could precipitate a constitutional crisis; or, as Corbyn and others call for his resignation, he could try to force an election. In the most striking part of its ruling, addressing remedy, the court said the speakers in both the Commons and Lords could reconvene both houses immediately. The UK judges upheld the court of session’s ruling that the prorogation was null and void. They also stated the privy council’s decision to ask the Queen to suspend parliament was also “unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed”. In effect, Hale said “parliament has not been prorogued”.
What are the constitutional implications of the ruling?
By stating in such unambiguous terms that Johnson’s prorogation was illegal, it will make it extremely difficult for the prime minister to suspend parliament again immediately for anything other than a few days. The former prime minister Sir John Major gave evidence that preparation for a Queen’s speech at the start of a new session typically required only four to six days.
The court’s unanimous conclusion in upholding parliamentary sovereignty – consistent with its ruling in the article 50 case in 2017 – places firm limits on the power of the executive and helps empower MPs.
Resolving such a crucial political crisis will inevitably enhance the supreme court’s role as vital pivot in the UK’s unwritten constitution. Other Brexit-related cases are already queuing up to lodge appeals. The justices will find it difficult to deny they are becoming a constitutional court.
UK supreme courtUK supreme court
BrexitBrexit
Scotland
Boris JohnsonBoris Johnson
The Queen
explainersexplainers
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content