Supreme Court judges to rule on parliament's prorogation tomorrow
Justices at the UK's highest court are to decide if it was legal for Boris Johnson to send MPs home for five weeks.
Monday 23 September 2019 15:33, UK
Judges at the Supreme Court will deliver their verdict on Boris Johnson's prorogation of parliament at 10.30am on Tuesday.
Seven of the 11 judges who sat during the three-day hearing last week will attend, a statement confirmed.
Mr Johnson suspended parliament for five weeks, longer than the usual recess period during conference season, in order to prepare a Queen's Speech and bring about a new parliamentary session.
But the decision was criticised by MPs and campaigners, who believed the prime minister was attempting to stop parliament working on Brexit.
Mr Johnson denied lying to the Queen about his reasons for suspending parliament when he sought her permission.
Gina Miller, a businesswoman and campaigner, brought a case against the government to the High Court in England and Wales but failed to convince judges there that it was illegal for Mr Johnson to suspend parliament for so long.
However, judges in Scotland, at the equivalent Inner House of Session, ruled that it was illegal, in a case brought by SNP MP Joanna Cherry.
The Supreme Court has heard appeals from both sides, with the government appealing against the Scottish decision, and Mrs Miller appealing against the English court ruling.
The ruling will be a test of the unwritten constitution, and on separation of powers. Courts in Britain do not intervene in political decisions, so the justices have examined case law to assess whether they have any basis to in this instance.
The government's lawyers argued that it was a political matter, and therefore not something the courts can rule on.
Those against proroguing say the five-week suspension is unlawful because it prevents parliament from being able to scrutinise government - particularly regarding Brexit. They say it is politically motivated, and intended purely to prevent MPs from interfering with the prime minister's plans.
Lord Pannick QC, acting for Gina Miller against the government, said the suspension was for a period of "exceptional length", for "no rational reason" and had come at a "vital time".
If the government loses, parliament may be recalled immediately, but Mr Johnson could simply try to prorogue parliament again.
Joshua Rozenberg QC said: "Normally, only a few of the justices who hear a case in the Supreme Court are present when judgment is handed down.
"However, if a justice has dissented from a majority ruling then that justice might want to summarise his/her reasons after the majority's summary has been read."
Mr Johnson is in New York, where he is to meet US President Donald Trump on Tuesday for talks at the United Nations General Assembly.
He had advised the Queen to prorogue parliament for five weeks on 28 August, which took effect from 9 September.
In the days before MPs went, they managed to pass a bill which compelled the prime minister to ask the EU for an extension to the Brexit deadline of 31 October, if he failed to return from the next summit with a deal.
But judges were keen to remind lawyers during the proceedings that their decision would have nothing to do with when Britain leaves the EU.
At the close of the proceedings, Lady Hale said: "I must repeat that this case is not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
"The result of this case will not determine that.
"We are solely concerned with the lawfulness of the prime minister's decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament on the dates in question."