Supreme Court - Parliament suspension ruling - 24th Sept 2019

[Amethyst]

The judgment has been handed down to rule whether the government suspended parliament lawfully.

The decision to porogue parliament was unlawful.

The advice to the Queen was unlawful, void and of no effect.

Parliament has not been prorogued.



On appeal from

R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)

Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)

Unanimous decision made by 11 justices ....

Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden, Lord Kitchin, Lord Sales

[wales01man]

Where do we go to from here?

[Amethyst]

Parliament reconvenes like it never happened...,.

24 Sep 2019	[2019] UKSC 41	UKSC 2019/0193	Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland)
24 Sep 2019	[2019] UKSC 41 Judgment and summary attached below	UKSC 2019/0192	R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent)

[Amethyst]

Para 70 of Judgment

70. It follows that Parliament has not been prorogued and that this court should make declarations to that effect. We have been told by counsel for the Prime Minister that he will “take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by the court” and we expect him to do so. However, it appears to us that, as Parliament is not prorogued, it is for Parliament to decide what to do next. There is no need for Parliament to be recalled under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797. Nor has Parliament voted to adjourn or go into recess. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule to the contrary of which we are unaware, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible to decide upon a way forward. That would, of course, be a proceeding in Parliament which could not be called in question in this or any other court.

[R0b]

I was half expecting the SC to rule that the prorogation was lawful but Lady Hale did give some indicators in the summary of the judgment about how it could be deemed lawful e.g. if a reasonable justification can be shown.

What surprised me more was that the decision was unanimous.

Would not be surprised if Boris has another stab at carrying out no deal.