Scottish courts throw out challenge to Boris Johnson proroguing Parliament

WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

The highest court in Scotland has found Boris Johnson's planned prorogation of Parliament lawful.

Legal action was brought by a cross-party group of 75 parliamentarians, after the Prime Minister announced plans to suspend Parliament ahead of the October 31 Brexit deadline.

They argued that the PM had exceeded his powers, but Judge Lord Doherty ruled there had been no contravention of the law by the UK government.

He said that the issue of prorogation was for politicians and voters to judge, not the courts.

The group of MPs and peers behind the legal challenge have indicated they will appeal against the ruling.

Addressing Edinburgh's Court of Session on Wednesday, Lord Doherty said any decision to prorogue Parliament was "political territory".

He said: "In my view, the advice given in relation to the prorogation decision is a matter involving high policy and political judgement.

"This is political territory and decision-making, which cannot be measured by legal standards, but only by political judgements. Accountability for the advice is to Parliament and, ultimately, the electorate, and not to the courts."

"I do not accept the submission that the prorogation contravenes the rule of law and the claim is justiciable because of that," he added.

"In my opinion, there has been no contravention of the rule of law. The power to prorogue is a prerogative power and the Prime Minister had the vires to advise the sovereign as to its exercise."

The Prime Minister announced his plans to suspend Parliament on August 28, ahead of a Queen's Speech on 14 October.

His political opponents, including the cross-party group led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC, argued the PM's aim was to avoid parliamentary scrutiny or attempt to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

The UK government denies these accusations and says proroguing Parliament will allow Mr Johnson to set out his legislative plans in the Queen's Speech while still allowing sufficient time for MPs to debate Brexit.

Lord Doherty heard arguments from both sides on Tuesday before making his ruling.

British barrister Jo Maugham QC responded by confirming an appeal would be launched against the decision, calling it a "pre season friendly".

In a statement posted on Twitter he wrote: "The idea that if the PM suspends Parliament the Court can't get involved looses some ugly demons.

"If he can do it for 34 days, why not 34 weeks, or 34 months? Where does this political power end.

"It's not the law, as I understand it.

"Yesterday's hearing was always going to be a bit of a pre season friendly.

"We're now focused on the Inner House, hopefully later this week, and then the Supreme Court on 17 September."

Labour Edinburgh South MP Ian Murray, who was one of the petitioners in the case, insisted afterwards: "The fight against Boris Johnson's assault on democracy and his plan to crash the UK out of the EU goes on."

"There will be an appeal on this ruling and there is another court case taking place in England," he said.

"But the main battle is currently in Parliament, where the Prime Minister has lost his majority and does not have the support of the House for his dangerous plan to impose a no-deal Brexit on the country.

"We have wrested control of parliamentary business and will attempt to pass a law that makes a no-deal Brexit illegal. We will also fight to secure a final say for the people of the UK on Brexit and we must campaign to remain in the EU."

The appeal will be heard at the Inner House, which is the supreme civil court in Scotland.

This was two weeks before publicly announcing the move and despite Mr Johnson's spokesman then claiming any suggestion of prorogation was "entirely false".

A note dated August 15 from Nickki da Costa, a former director of legislative affairs at Number 10, which was seen by Mr Johnson and his adviser Dominic Cummings, asked whether an approach should be made to prorogue Parliament, between September 9 and October 14.

A note of "yes" was written on the document, the Court of Session in Edinburgh heard.

Dominic Cummings also saw the handwritten note.
Getty Images

Aiden O'Neill QC, representing the cross-party parliamentarians, said: "One presumes this was a document sent in the red box to the Prime Minister to be read at his leisure."

The Queen met the Privy Council on August 28 to approve the move.

Mr O'Neill described Mr Johnson as having a record that was "characterised by incontinent mendacity, an unwillingness or inability to speak the truth".

Responding for the Government, David Johnston QC, said: "The proper forum for these matters to be scrutinised is the political forum.

"Those who make decisions that don't go down well in the political forum wil be held to account there - either in Parliament or, ultimately, by the electorate."

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in