IN an entirely predictable outburst, Prime Minister Boris Johnson yesterday declared that, despite three Scottish judges finding that he had acted unlawfully in getting the Queen to prorogue Parliament , he had not told lies to her majesty.
His denial came on the day when he won a case in Northern Ireland’s High Court in Belfast. But he then discovered that Joanna Cherry QC, the SNP MP whose case against the Government’s unlawful prorogation was sensationally won in Scotland’s appeal court, was taking another case to the Court of Session to force the Tory leader to ask the EU for an extension if the UK is heading for a No-Deal Brexit.
Asked whether he had lied to the monarch about his reasons for the suspension, Johnson replied: “Absolutely not.”
He added: “The High Court in England plainly agrees with us but the Supreme Court will have to decide.”
READ MORE: Scotland’s judges blast 'clandestine' bid by Johnson to prorogue Parliament
The process of the UK Supreme Court reaching a final decision on the prorogation issue will begin on Tuesday. Campaigners are meanwhile continuing to urge the recall of Parliament, stating that it is unlawful for the prorogation to continue. The Government disagrees and wants to let the Supreme Court action dealt with first.
Cherry and businessman Dale Vince plus Jolyon Maugham QC have lodged an action in the Court of Session because they fear that Johnson will defy the so-called Benn Law. It bans the UK Government from forcing a No-Deal Brexit without consulting Parliament and it is also now the law that if no deal can be achieved by October 19, Johnson must write to the EU ministers to seek a Brexit extension until January 31.
The same legal team will take forward the action which is only possible because Scots Law has the “nobile officium” which would allow judges to send the letter if Johnson refuses to sign it.
Maugham said: “The Inner House of the Court of Session has a special and versatile jurisdiction – its nobile officium – which it can use to, in effect, per procurationem (ie ‘pp’) any letter that the Prime Minister refuses to send. The rule of law is not a thing to be gifted – not even by the Prime Minister.
“We expect that the Inner House will be mindful of the deadline set out in the Benn Act, and will deal with the matter speedily.”
Vince, who is paying the legal fees, told the New European that he launched the legal action – it is aimed at Johnson in person – in response to the threat of a No-Deal Brexit.
“It’s just so wrong, isn’t it,” he said. “The impacts would be severe, people might lose their lives over it – certainly there would be great hardship ... there would be enormous impact on our economy. Not to mention the blight on the future of the young people of this country.”
READ MORE: Boris and Bibi ... a meeting of minds hell-bent on power at any cost
The only good news for Johnson was the Government win in the legal action in Belfast in which victims’ rights campaigner Raymond McCord sought to have a No-Deal Brexit set aside on grounds that it breached the Good Friday Agreement.
McCord’s lawyers will lodge an appeal today and the likelihood is that all the cases about prorogation and Brexit will be rolled up and put before the UK Supreme Court.
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