PRIME Minister Boris Johnson was acting illegally when he advised the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks ahead of Brexit, the UK's Supreme Court has ruled.
A panel of 11 judges announced their decision this morning following a historic hearing in London last week.
Lady Hale said prorogation is "void and of no effect" and should be quashed.
"Parliament has not been prorogued."
The Supreme Court judges heard appeals over three days from September 17 arising out of legal challenges in England and Scotland – which produced different outcomes.
In Scotland earlier this month, a cross-party group of MPs and peers, led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry, won a ruling from the Inner House of the Court of Session that Johnson's prorogation decision was unlawful because it was "motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing Parliament".
The PM advised the Queen on August 28 to prorogue Parliament for five weeks and it was suspended on September 9.
He claimed the prorogation was to allow the Government to set out a new legislative agenda in a Queen's Speech when MPs return to Parliament.
But those who brought the legal challenges argued the prorogation was designed to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of the UK's impending exit from the EU on October 31.
More to follow...
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