,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
full judgement from Inner House of Court of Session: judgement where prorogation ruled unlawful
bit.ly/2lMu0nC
bit.ly/2lMu0nC
just reading through now, some key points -
The Lord President, Lord Carloway said that it was for parliament to decide on which days it should sit, but added that a particular attempt to restrict the available days is unlawful.
The Lord President, Lord Carloway said that it was for parliament to decide on which days it should sit, but added that a particular attempt to restrict the available days is unlawful.
Lord Carloway said the suspension of parliament had been sought in a clandestine manner, and that there was no reason for a prorogation for such a long length of time.
Lord Carloway added that tenor of the PM's remarks and the discussion around them – revealed in docs submitted to the court - pointed to various factors being used to publicly deflect from the real reason for the prorogation.
Lord Brodie said procedural manoeuvres are the stuff of politics and not necessarily open to judicial review, but when the manoeuvres blatantly designed to 'frustrate parliament' at such a critical juncture in UK's history the court may legitimately find it unlawful
Lord Brodie said 'landscape changed' (for the court action) with PM’s letter to MP's on 28th of August and the disclosure to court of copies of three redacted documents.
Lord Drummond Young said in his opinion nothing in the documents released to court provided any rational explanation as to why Parliament must be prorogued as early as 9 September for a period of five weeks.
Lord Drummond Young: only inference that could be drawn, government and PM wanted to restrict debate in Parliament for as long as poss during period leading up to European Council meeting mid Oct and UK exit from EU Oct 31st: 'this not a proper purpose for proroguing Parliament'
