DOWNING Street has gone on the attack after a humiliating judgement in Scotland's Court of Session ruled that Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was unlawful.
In remarks that have sparked outrage across the country, sources in No 10 claimed that the Scottish judges were politically biased against them.
Someone from Downing Street told the Sun journalist Tom Newton Dunn that the Scottish courts were never going to give the Tory government a fair hearing.
The source said: "We note that last week the High Court in London did not rule that prorogation was unlawful. The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason".
READ MORE: Prorogation of Parliament unlawful, Court of Session rules
READ MORE: The Court of Session's statement on the illegal prorogation of Parliament in full
Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: “This is pitiful, pathetic and desperate from No10.”
Theresa May’s former chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, urged caution. He tweeted: “This is a very unwise road for a party that believes in a) the Union and b) the rule of law to go down”.
Tory MSP, and constitutional law professor, Adam Tomkins agreed: "To politicians who don’t like court judgments: don’t attack the judges or the independence of the legal system. Don’t ever do that.
"Appeal, test your legal arguments in a superior court. Why does this even need saying?"
The party's acting leader in Scotland, Jackson Carlaw tweeted: "Let’s be very clear & I don’t much care where the sources are from who might suggest otherwise - we have absolute confidence in the independence and integrity of the Scottish judiciary."
And the UK Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland slapped down the unidentified Downing Street source. He tweeted: "Our judges are renowned around the world for their excellence and impartiality and I have total confidence in their independence in every case."
It's understood that the 75 MPs and Peers who first took the case to the Court of Session last month did so because England's high court doesn't sit in August.
In their sensational decision the three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, said the Tories were trying to stymie Parliament by proroguing the Commons in the run up to the Brexit deadline.
They also suggested the Prime Minister had misled the Queen.
The judgement of the Court of Session 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.
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."
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.
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