DOWNING Street says it will appeal the Court of Session's judgement that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully by suspending Parliament.
In a sensational decision, that caught Westminster on the hop this morning, three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge said the Tories were trying to stymie Parliament.
They also suggested the Prime Minister had misled the Queen.
Their judgement overturns last week’s ruling that progration was a purely political process.
Lawyers acting for 75 opposition MP and peers, led by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, had argued that Johnson’s five week prorogation of Parliament in the run up to the Brexit deadline was designed to stifle parliamentary debate and was therefore in breach of the constitution.
The Court of Session agreed.
READ MORE: The Court of Session's statement on the illegal prorogation of Parliament in full
In a statement, they said “the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen that the United Kingdom Parliament should be prorogued from a day between 9 and 12 September until 14 October was unlawful because it had the purpose of stymying Parliament."
It continues: "All three First Division judges have decided that the PM's advice to the HM the Queen is justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliament and that it, and what has followed from it, is unlawful."
They added: "The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister's advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect."
At the hearing, Judge Lord Carloway told the court: "We are of the opinion that the advice given by the Government to her majesty the Queen to prorogue parliament was unlawful and that the prorogation itself was unlawful."
He referred the matter to the UK Supreme Court for resolution.
A UK Government spokesman said: "We are disappointed by today's decision, and will appeal to the UK Supreme Court.
"The UK Government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this."
The Supreme Court has already scheduled an emergency hearing on both the Scottish and a seperate English cases for next Tuesday.
The three Scottish judges are to all issue their own reasonings in full on Friday.
Jolyon Maugham QC, whose Good Law Project funded the legal challenge, said: “Our understanding is that unless the supreme court grants an order in the meantime, parliament is unsuspended with immediate effect.
“I’m relieved that my understanding of the functioning of our democracy – that allows parliament to exercise its vital constitutional role – has been vindicated by Scotland’s highest court.
“This is an incredibly important point of principle. The prime minister mustn’t treat parliament as an inconvenience.
Cherry tweeted: "All 3 judges in Scotland's Highest court of appeal rule #Prorogation #unlawful! #Cherrycase succeeds.
"Huge thanks to all our supporters & our fantastic legal team who have achieved the historic ruling that #prorogation is #unlawful #Cherrycase #Brexit."
Labour MP Ian Murray tweeted: "Great result from the Court of Session. The contempt that the PM has shown to Parliament and the public is unprecedented. The advice given to the Queen was not the reason wanted for a 5 week prorogation."
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