Boris Johnson: What now for a 'humiliated' prime minister - and Brexit?
A legal precedent is set by the Supreme Court - historians will judge its effect on our constitution and the impact on Brexit.
Wednesday 25 September 2019 09:15, UK
We expected constitutional history leading to legal and political tremors聽- we got an earthquake. The government has lost on all levels.
The Supreme Court decided they do have a right to intervene, the prorogation was unlawful and this was not a parliamentary procedure, above legal oversight, this suspension was "imposed on parliament".
It's a devastating decision for Boris Johnson and hard to see a single positive for him, other than perhaps, that the court didn't go into his motives.
They didn't say he deliberately misled the Queen. But Lady Hale made clear that he had undermined the sovereignty of parliament, that the "effect was extreme" and it had been done "without reasonable justification".
The truth is that government lawyers never even tried to justify the PM's position. Even though the prime minister made clear in statements that he had done it in order to prepare for a Queen's Speech, this wasn't given as legal justification in court.
Instead his lawyers took the first line of defence, by saying the courts had no right to interfere.
But president of the Supreme Court Lady Hale bust that door down when, in her statement, she quoted laws dating back to 1611 stating that "the court held that 'the King (who was then the government) hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him'." With that, the government's whole case collapsed.
It won't be lost on anyone that she referred to him trying to behave like a king. Of course, Mr Johnson once stated that he wanted to be "World King" but it turns out you can't behave like one, even if you live in Downing Street.
Lady Hale notes that the only evidence on why the government prorogued parliament was a memorandum by government adviser Nikki da Costa, explaining why a Queen's Speech would be desirable.
But it did not explain why it was necessary to bring parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks when the normal period necessary is four to six days.
Listen to the Daily podcast on , , ,
It's notable that during legal proceedings Lord Garnier, representing former prime minister John Major, pointed out that Nikki da Costa had written an article in The Spectator describing prorogation as a "nuclear option" to override interfering MPs, and that this potential motive appeared to contradict the memorandum.
Judges sometimes use oblique language but Lady Hale couldn't have found a better metaphor when she said the suspension of parliament was "as if the Royal Commissioners had walked into the House of Lords with a blank sheet of paper". The prorogation was void and had no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued.
This isn't about how we leave the EU other than - as Lady Hale pointed out - the prime minister tried to remove five of the eight weeks of sitting time between recess and the Brexit date.
Crucial time for parliament to do its job. Well, now they will be back and scrutinising harder than ever - a wounded and humiliated prime minster.
The Supreme Court has spoken - but it is not beyond criticism itself. Some will argue it has gone too far.
The balance between the executive, parliament and the courts is like a game of scissors, paper, stone. When the scissors of government tried to cut the paper of parliament - it was blunted by the stone of the Supreme Court. But that whole game relies on powers being balanced equally.
A legal precedent has been set today - historians will judge its effect on our constitution - and indeed the impact on Brexit.