,
22 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Good morning from the @UKSupremeCourt. Lady Hale is expected to deliver a summary of the court’s judgment in the Miller/Cherry prorogation appeals at 1030. This will be live-streamed and televised. I’m in the court media room and plan to live-tweet (threaded) what’s said in court
The oral summary of the judgment normally lasts for only a few minutes. Written copies of the full judgment will then be posted online. There are no advance copies for the media (or, we are told, the parties) so the first anyone knows the result will be when Lady Hale gives it.
If the court is divided then a simple majority will decide the case. In that event, I would expect Lady Hale to tell us which of the judges are in the majority and which are in the minority. There can be no further appeal.
Lady Hale is bound to repeat that this case is not about the merits or the form of Brexit. The first question is whether the case is “justiciable”. If not, the PM wins. If it is, the next question is whether he acted unlawfully. If he did, the big question is what happens next.
Lady Hale is good at explaining these things in plain language. But, just to remind you, Gina Miller is the appellant in the English case. Joanna Cherry is the respondent in the Scottish case. The PM wants the court to uphold the English decision and overturn the Scottish one.
Lord Pannick QC is in court but I can’t see who’s representing the PM today.
Lady Hale leads the justices into the courtroom.
Hale: two appeals, one from England and one from Scotland. These cases are not about Brexit. They are about the PM’s advice to HM on prorogation.
Lady Hale summarises the factual background.
Lord Wilson looks poised to say something after Lady Hale has finished speaking.
The judgment is unanimous.
The case IS justiciable.
Lady Hale explains the court’s supervisory role. It depends on what the power is all about. This case is about the limits of the power to advise HM to prorogue parliament.
Hale: the power to prorogue is limited. A decision will be unlawful if it frustrates the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions.
Hale: no need for court to consider PM’s motive or purpose if the prorogation was unlawful.
Hale: this prorogation prevented parliament from sitting for five weeks. That’s different from a recess. This prolonged suspension took place in exceptional cirucumstances.
Hale: no explanation before the court of why it was necessary to suspend parliament for five weeks. We are bound to conclude that the decision was unlawful.
Hale: what remedies? Prorogation is NOT a proceeding in parliament, with which the courts cannot interfere.
Hale: order in council is void and should be quashed. Parliament has not been prorogued.
Hale: Speaker and Lord Speaker can reconvene parliament, unless there is something of which we are unaware.
Court rises. Full judgment runs to about about 20 pages. Issued in the name of Lady Hale and Loird Reed on behalf of the court.
“The thing about great cases is that what once seemed impossible now seems inevitable” — comment made by one of the lawyers involved after the judgment.
