HE may not be able to be called a liar in Parliament but a Scottish court heard yesterday how Prime Minister Boris Johnson was economical with the truth over the prorogation of Parliament.
The case led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry took a dramatic turn when papers handed to Cherry’s lawyers at 11pm on Monday night turned out to include evidence that Johnson was considering suspending Parliament as early as August 15 – for several days after that, Downing Street denied that there was any plan for prorogation.
At the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday Aiden O’Neill QC for Cherry and the 75 other MPs and peers in the action told judge Lord Doherty about a note dated August 15 from Nickki da Costa, a former director of legislative affairs at Number 10, and seen by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his adviser Dominic Cummings, which asked whether an approach should be made to prorogue Parliament.
The note stated: “Are you content for your PPS (principal private secretary) to approach the palace with the request for prorogation to begin with the period 9 September to Thursday 12 September and for the Queen’s Speech on 14 October?”
A tick and the word “yes” was written on the document, the Court heard, although the author of the annotation was not disclosed in court.
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: Democracy is at stake in our Brexit court battle
Aiden O’Neill QC, representing the parliamentarians, said: “One presumes this was a document sent in the red box to the Prime Minister to be read at his leisure.”
Johnson replied the following day with a handwritten note describing the September session of Parliament as a “rigmarole” designed to show MPs were “earning their crust”. He added it should not be “shocking” to suspend Parliament.
The Queen met the Privy Council led by Jacob Rees-Mogg on August 28 to approve the move which led First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to brand Johnson a “tin pot dictator”.
A decision was made to bring a full hearing forward to Tuesday from this Friday after the judge ruled it would be “in the interest of justice that it proceeds sooner rather than later”.
The case turns on whether prorogation is unlawful because it is about avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny over Brexit.
O’Neill described as having a record that was “characterised by incontinent mendacity, an unwillingness or inability to speak the truth”.
He pointed to the documents as showing the suspension of Parliament policy was being considered much earlier than announced and argued the court had been misled.
O’Neill said: “This court was told nothing of that and was told in fact that this judicial review is academic, hypothetical and premature.
“That is not true. This court and these petitioners were being actively misled.”
He argued the real reason to suspend Parliament was to allow a No-Deal Brexit to take place by removing proper scrutiny.”
READ MORE: Boris Johnson loses his majority as Tory MP defects to Liberal Democrats
The lawyer added: “This is an attempt to roll back history in favour of some kind of divine right.”
O’Neill also said Johnson was trying to govern as an “autocracy” using “one-man rule” by these attempts.
He added: “Why were these specific dates chosen? It’s because they think they’re gaming the system.”
It was stated that decisions in two separate Brexit-related court cases, brought by activist Gina Miller and Andy Wightman MSP, show Parliament should decide whether or not the UK leaves without a deal. O’Neill said it was not lawful to create circumstances where that happens without such approval.
David Johnston QC, representing the Government, said the arguments were “academic” as it was not for the courts to decide if Parliament can be prorogued.
Johnston said: “This is political territory and decision making which cannot be measured against legal standards, but rather only by political judgements which must permit a degree of flexibility according to circumstances.”
Later in the House of Commons, Joanna Cherry asked Johnson if he “would give his word that he and his Government will respect legislation passed by this House and decisions made by the two legal jurisdictions in this Union, the jurisdictions in England and in Scotland?”
Johnson declined to give his word on the matter.
Lord Doherty said he would consider his verdict overnight. The court will reconvene at 10am today.
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