BORIS Johnson was facing multiple calls to resign after the highest court in the land hammered him for the “unlawful” suspension of Parliament.

That unprecedented verdict from the Supreme Court forced an unprecedented reaction from Downing Street, who accused the justices of acting politically.

Before yesterday’s ruling legal pundits had predicted a close run thing, with the 11 judges delivering a split verdict.

But in the end it wasn’t even close, with a unanimous and unequivocal judgement making clear that the Prime Minister had put party interests ahead of the national interest when he asked the Queen to prorogue Parliament.

The judges were looking at two separate cases: an appeal by the Government on the verdict of the Court of Session in Edinburgh, on the so-called Cherry case.

And the second, an appeal by businesswoman Gina Miller against a judgement in the High Court of England and Wales.

The Miller case had been turfed out by the High Court, who said the issue was “political” and therefore a “non-justiciable exercise of prerogative power,” effectively not a matter for the courts.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Cherry case, brought by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry and 70 other parliamentarians, saw the Court of Session in Edinburgh find the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament as unlawful. The Government appealed, but the justices on the Supreme Court backed the Scottish decision.

The 11 justices said the effect of their decision meant that Parliament had not actually been prorogued.

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

Delivering the court’s judgement, Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, 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”.

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.”

She said the “prolonged suspension” of Parliament happened during “quite exceptional circumstances”.

Hale added: “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”.

Giving her reaction to the verdict on the steps of the court, Cherry said: “There is nothing to stop us, myself and my colleagues, immediately resuming the important job of scrutinising this Tory Government, which has us hurtling towards Brexit,” she said. “Boris Johnson must have guts for once, and resign.”

Miller said the victory was “not a win for any individual or court,” but “a win for parliamentary sovereignty”.

A No 10 source told the BBC: “We think the Supreme Court is wrong and has made a serious mistake in extending its reach to these political matters.

“Further, the Supreme Court has made it clear that its reasons are connected to the Parliamentary disputes over, and timetable for, leaving the European Union. We think this is a further serious mistake. “

“We think this is a further serious mistake.

“We will study the judgement carefully to consider how we can best respond in these unique circumstances. As always the Government will respect the law and comply with the courts.”

A snap poll of 4000 adults by YouGov suggested the public are divided over whether the Prime Minister should resign, with with 43% saying he should compared to 39% who said he should stay.