SCOTLAND'S top law officer is seeking to intervene in the court bid to block Prime Minister Boris Johnson's attempts to prorogue parliament.
The chief legal adviser to the Scottish Government has lodged an application to intervene in legal cases brought by Joanna Cherry MP and others at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, and anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller's action at the High Court in London.
James Wolffe QC will argue that the UK Government’s prorogation of the UK Parliament prevents scrutiny and represents an abuse of executive power.
The hearing in Edinburgh before Lord Doherty takes place on September 3, and the hearing in London is scheduled for September 5.
Constitutional Affairs Secretary Michael Russell said: “Accountable government is a fundamental principle of our democracy. This attempt to suspend the UK Parliament at such a critical time is a clear attempt to silence opposition and must be resisted.
“The democratic wishes of the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament should not be allowed to be brushed aside as if they did not matter.”
Cherry's case, supported by 74 other MPs, contends that it is "unlawful and unconstitutional" to prorogue Parliament to avoid further Parliamentary participation on Brexit.
If the Commons is prorogued, it would sharply cut the number of days MPs have to stop Brexit.
Lord Doherty refused a request for an interim suspension or interdict in the case, but moved the hearing forward from Friday to tomorrow.
At the time, Jolyon Maughan QC, of the Good Law project which is backing Cherry’s case, said: "The decision of the Outer House of the Court of Session today - which explicitly declined to express any view on our prospects – just kicks the can a few days down the road.
“We are pleased the Court of Session agreed to advance the full hearing on the lawfulness of the Prime Minister’s attack on Parliamentary sovereignty from Friday of next week to Tuesday.”
A UK Government spokesman said: “As we have set out, the government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda and MPs are not prevented from scrutinising our withdrawal from the EU.
“We are glad the court found against the interdict – there was no good reason to seek one, given the full hearing is due to take place next week, and the process of bringing the session to an end will not start until the week commencing 9 September.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel