Politics

Boris Johnson wanted to ‘silence’ Parliament, Supreme Court hears

.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the suspension of Parliament
The Supreme Court is listening to arguments concerning the suspension of Parliament (Picture: Getty/EPA)

The motive Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament for 5 weeks was to ‘silence’ MPs, the Supreme Court has heard.

The prime minister claims the suspension of Parliament was a routine choice taken so as to put ahead his new legislative agenda and are available again with a Queen’s speech.

But it’s the longest suspension of this sort in additional than 40 years, and comes proper earlier than Brexit – which means MPs have much less time to debate and scrutinise what’s being finished.

Courts in England and Scotland have returned clashing rulings about whether or not the prorogation was authorized, which implies the Supreme Court should give the ultimate judgement.

Lawyers for Gina Miller, who’s bringing a problem over Mr Johnson’s recommendation to the Queen to droop Parliament for 5 weeks, instructed the ’s highest courtroom that the Prime Minister’s choice was an ‘unlawful abuse of power’.

.

.

They additionally mentioned he has failed to present a witness assertion or every other proof to clarify his choice to the courtroom.

During a historic listening to in London on Tuesday, Mrs Miller’s barrister Lord Pannick QC mentioned: ‘The exceptional length of the prorogation in this case is strong evidence that the prime minister’s motive was to silence Parliament for that interval as a result of he sees Parliament as an impediment to the furtherance of his political goals.’

Lord Pannick added that it was a ‘remarkable feature’ of the proceedings that Mr Johnson has not offered an announcement explaining why he suggested the Queen to droop Parliament for the ‘exceptionally long period’.

Eleven justices are listening to appeals over three days in a case with excessive media consideration – which you’ll be able to watch dwell on the courtroom’s web site.

During the primary morning of the listening to on Tuesday, the dwell stream was accessed 4.Four million occasions – with 2.eight million stream requests being logged within the hour earlier than the 1pm break for lunch.

Typically, the dwell streaming service is accessed about 20,000 occasions a month.

.
Screengrab taken from the Supreme Court in London where judges are hearing legal challenges to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament. PA Photo. Picture date: Tuesday September 17, 2019. The Supreme Court will hear appeals over three days from two separate challenges to the prorogation of Parliament brought in England and Scotland. See PA story COURTS Brexit. Photo credit should read: Kirsty O'Connor/PA Wire
Judges are listening to authorized challenges to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s choice to droop Parliament (Picture: PA)
.
SNP MP Joanna Cherry outside the Supreme Court in London where judges are due to consider legal challenges to Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament. PA Photo. Picture date: Tuesday September 17, 2019. The Supreme Court will hear appeals over three days from two separate challenges to the prorogation of Parliament brought in England and Scotland. See PA story COURTS Brexit. Photo credit should read: Kirsty O'Connor/PA Wire
SNP MP Joanna Cherry outdoors the Supreme Court in London (Picture: PA)
.
Protesters hold banners outside the Supreme Court in London, Tuesday Sept. 17, 2019. The Supreme Court is set to decide whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson broke the law when he suspended Parliament on Sept. 9, sending lawmakers home until Oct. 14 ??? just over two weeks before the U.K. is due to leave the European Union. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)
Protesters maintain banners outdoors the Supreme Court (Picture: PA)

It comes after the High Court in London dismissed Mrs Miller’s case, discovering that the size of the prorogation was ‘purely political’ and never a matter for the courts.

In Edinburgh, nonetheless, the Court of Session concluded Mr Johnson’s choice was illegal as a result of it was ‘motivated by the improper purpose’ of irritating Parliament.

.

.

Barrister Lord Pannick argued: ‘We submit that on all the material the court should conclude that, but for the Prime Minister’s want to keep away from Parliamentary management, he wouldn’t have really useful to Her Majesty a prorogation for a interval of longer than 5 weeks, however he would have really useful a considerably shorter interval … as had occurred every time … within the final 40 years.’

He mentioned the enchantment raises ‘fundamental questions of constitutional law’ and that no courtroom had been requested to contemplate these points as a result of no Prime Minister ‘has abused his power in the manner in which we allege in at least the last 50 years’.

.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - SEPTEMBER 17: Police officers escorts a protester wearing a Hulk face mask outside UK Supreme Court in London, United Kingdom on September 17, 2019 as the court begins a three day appeal hearing in the multiple legal challenges against the Prime Minister Boris Johnson??s decision to prorogue Parliament ahead of a Queen??s speech on 14 October. The legal challenge is brought by former Conservative Prime Minister John Major and Article 50 campaigner Gina Mille. Eleven instead of the usual nine Supreme Court justices will hear the politically charged claim that Boris Johnson acted unlawfully in advising the Queen to suspend parliament for five weeks in order to stifle debate over the Brexit crisis.??It is the first time the Supreme Court has been summoned for an emergency hearing outside legal term time.??Lady Hale, the first female president of the court who retires next January, will preside. (Photo by Dinendra Haria/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Police officers escorts a protester sporting a Hulk face masks outdoors the Supreme Court (Picture: Getty)

A crowd of about 40 protesters, holding indicators saying ‘Defend democracy’, ‘Reopen Parliament’ and ‘They misled the Queen’, gathered outdoors the courtroom forward of the listening to.

Among them was a person dressed as Robocop and one other calling himself the ‘Incredible Sulk’ – sporting a blond wig with an Incredible Hulk costume – who was impressed by Mr Johnson evaluating himself to the comedian guide character in a current interview.

Supporters of Mrs Miller cheered and shouted ‘Bravo Gina Miller’ because the businesswoman and campaigner arrived at courtroom.

Ahead of the listening to, Mrs Miller described the prorogation choice as ‘a classic power-grab’, whereas Ms Cherry mentioned she was ‘cautiously optimistic’ the Supreme Court would uphold the Scottish ruling.

.

.

To Top