Prorogation ruled unlawful

Lady Hale, President of the Supreme Court, said the effect of the judgment was to render the order in council to prorogue Parliament null and void and of no effect, as if the order were ‘a blank sheet of paper’. Parliament had not been prorogued, and it was up to the Speaker and Parliament itself to decide what to do next. Immediately after the court rose, Speaker John Bercow said Parliament must meet ‘without delay’.

The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson was in New York at the time of the judgment. He has so far refused to answer questions as to what he would do if the court held against him. Opposition MPs are calling for him to resign.

Lady Hale said PM Johnson had prorogued Parliament for five weeks, ostensibly to prepare for a Queen’s Speech, but had provided no justification for this. Preparation for a Queen’s Speech normally took four to five working days, she said.

Jolyon Maugham QC, who acted for Joanna Cherry MP and the more than 70 Parliamentarians who brought the Scottish case, said: ‘The last few weeks have seen an extraordinary series of attacks on our democracy.

‘Judges have been threatened by a “Number 10 source”. And those of us who have sought to protect the only institution with a UK wide democratic mandate have been subjected to death threats and some have had their home address published. I am pleased the Supreme Court protected the foundational principle of any democracy―the right of MPs to do the job for which they were elected.’

Simon Davis, Law Society President, said: ‘Whatever you think of the decision, today’s Supreme Court ruling is a vital expression of the checks and balances that exist in our democracy. Our court system and our judges are there so the law laid down by parliament can be interpreted. In a mature democracy it is crucial that the independence of this process is maintained.’

A spokesperson from the Attorney General’s Office said: ‘The Government acted in good faith and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional.  These are complex matters on which senior and distinguished lawyers have disagreed. The Divisional Court led by the Lord Chief Justice agreed unanimously with the Government’s legal position, as did the Outer House in Scotland.  We are disappointed that in the end the Supreme Court took a different view. We respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.’