THE Government acted unlawfully when it suspended Parliament for five weeks in the run up to the Brexit deadline, the Supreme Court has ruled. 

In a unanimous and explosive decision, the 11 justices hearing the case at the UK’s highest court said the effect of their verdict means that Parliament is not actually prorogued. 

Within minutes of the judgement, the Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow called for MPs to come back to Westminster. 

The court was looking at two appeals.

The first was brought by the government in response to a case in Scotland's Court of Session - brought by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry and a cross party group of around 70 MPs, and QC Jo Maugham - where the Scottish court declared prorogation was unlawful. 

The other was an appeal from Gina Miller against a decision in the High Court of England and Wales that said the decision wasn’t a matter for the courts. 

Delivering the court’s judgement, Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, said the justices had decided that the case was justiciable, and secondly, they upheld the Scottish court's decision that the Prime Minister’s decision to ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful.

Hale said there was “no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power.”

She said a decision to advise the monarch to prorogue would be unlawful “if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive.” 

That justices decided that this was exactly what had happened.

Hale said: “This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech. 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 31st 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. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen’s Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. 

“This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st 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, she said, concluded “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 effect of that was, she said, that Parliament has not been prorogued.

In a statement, Bercow welcomed the judgement and said he would consult with party leaders as a "matter of urgency".

He said: "The judges have rejected the government's claim that closing down parliament for five weeks was merely standard practice to allow for a new Queen speech. 

“In reaching their conclusion, they have vindicated the right and duty of Parliament to meet at this crucial time to scrutinise the executive and hold ministers to account. 

“As the embodiment of our Parliamentary democracy, the House of Commons must convene without delay.”