A panel of three judges at the Court of Session today found in favour of a cross-party group of politicians who were challenging the prorogation of Parliament by the Prime Minister. The judges said the PM was attempting to prevent Parliament holding the government to account ahead of Brexit. The UK government said it will appeal against the ruling to the Supreme Court in London.

So what does this all mean moving forward? From a constitutional perspective all rulings held in the different judicial systems of the UK carry equal weight but significantly The judges failed to issue an interdict, or injunction, ordering the UK government to reconvene parliament, prompting a row over whether the decision meant MPs could go back to the House of Commons.

The Court of Session decision overturns an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week that Mr Johnson had not broken the law.

The rest of this article is only showing below as part of our PREMIUM CONTENT section. As a totally independent News Network, we rely on the support of our subscribers to produce articles, commentary, live shows, interviews and outside broadcasts. Social media is throttling our reach as they don’t want new publishers to be able to compete.

From just £4.99 a month you can read the rest of this article and support our work. You can easily and securely subscribe by:

CLICKING HERE NOW!

 

MPs are not due to return to Parliament until 14 October, when there will be a Queen’s Speech outlining Mr Johnson’s legislative plans. The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October and according to the Prime Minister, with or without a deal.

Mr Johnson has previously insisted that it was normal practice for a new government to prorogue Parliament, and that it was “nonsense” to suggest he was attempting to undermine democracy.

According to the Court of Session judges they were unanimous in their belief that Mr Johnson was motivated by the “improper purpose of stymieing Parliament”, and that he had therefore effectively misled the Queen in advising her to suspend Parliament.

They added: “The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the prime minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.”

70 largely pro-Remain MPs and peers behind the legal challenge were headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who called for Parliament to be immediately reconvened following the ruling saying: “We feel utterly vindicated and I would be confident that the UK Supreme Court will uphold this decision.”

The parliamentarians appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session after their original challenge to the suspension of Parliament was dismissed by judge Lord Doherty last week.

Lord Doherty said Mr Johnson had not broken the law by proroguing Parliament, and that it was for MPs and the electorate to judge the prime minister’s actions rather than the courts.

 

One of the three judges, Lord Brodie, said: “This was an egregious case of a clear failure to comply with generally accepted standards of behaviour of public authorities.

“It was to be inferred that the principal reasons for the prorogation were to prevent or impede Parliament holding the executive to account and legislating with regard to Brexit, and to allow the executive to pursue a policy of a no-deal Brexit without further Parliamentary interference.”

Lord Drummond Young  also said: “The circumstances, particularly the length of the prorogation, showed that the purpose was to prevent such scrutiny. The only inference that could be drawn was that the UK government and the prime minister wished to restrict Parliament.”

The judges will release their full findings on Friday.

Jolyan Maugham QC who is the arch legal warfare remainer said: “Our understanding is that unless the supreme court grants an order in the meantime, parliament is unsuspended with immediate effect.

I’m relieved that my understanding of the functioning of our democracy – that allows parliament to exercise its vital constitutional role – has been vindicated by Scotland’s highest court.

This is an incredibly important point of principle. The prime minister mustn’t treat parliament as an inconvenience.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “We are disappointed by today’s decision and will appeal to the UK supreme court. The UK government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. Proroguing parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.”

 

So what does this all mean?

As someone who has the misfortune of living in SNP led Scotland it is no surprise the judges took this political decision. The initial legal judgement of Lord Doherty was bang on and the ruling of these judges is politically led. Scotland is sadly now a crony run joke country that would make Venezuala blush.

As things stand however Parliament is still prorogued but next week sees another Titanic battle taking place in the Supreme Court over this case and also that of the Gina Miller case that was thrown out in the first instance.

Whilst from a brexiteers perspective it is hoped that the Supreme Court will not find in favour of either of this cases it is sadly my opinion things are looking pretty ominous. We are fast approaching a banana republic with a corrupt judiciary and parliament if not already.