Thread by @Joe_Marshall0

What has the Supreme Court decided?
supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks…

Quick thread on reasoning and implications.

1. The court highlighted the significant distinction between prorogation, recess, adjournment and dissolution in term s of parliamentary activity- including its ability to hold government to account. instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/pro…

2. The court highlighted the extraordinary length of the prorogation. Much longer than is usually the case ahead of a Queen's Speech.

3. The court outlined 4 issues it needed to consider
- Is the issue justiciable (for the courts)?
- If so, by what standard is its lawfulness to be judged?
- By that standard, is it lawful?
- If so, by what standard is its lawfulness to be judged?
- If not, what remedy?

4.On justiciability, the court first highlighted that the fact legal disputes can be politically controversial doesn't prevent review, PM's accountability to Parliament doesn't exclude a role for the courts (Sep of powers protected)+prorogation prevents ministerial accountability

5.On justiciability - the court distinguished:
a) Whether a prerogative power exists, and if so, its extent
b) Whether it has been exercised within its limits and whether it is open to challenge on some other basis.
No q of justiciability rises regarding (a). These are qu of law

6. The court then looked at whether the PM's advice went beyond the limits of the power to prorogue

7. The court noted that prerogative powers are bound by legal limits, in particular fundamental principles of constitutional law. It is the role of the courts to uphold these values - in particular when determining legal limits of powers conferred on the executive

8. The court said 2 fundamental const principles were in play:
a) Parliamentary sovereignty - laws enacted by Parliament are supreme. PS would be undermined if executive could prevent Parliament legislating for as long as it liked. There are already legal limits on prorogation

9. Prorogation is not always incompatible with PS. Effect of prorogation on PS is relatively minor when prorogation is short.

10. b) Parliamentary accountability- the conduct of gov by a PM and cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy.

Again, short prorogation is not incompatible with parl accountability.

11. Drawing on how the courts have used constitutional principles in interpreting statute, the court found that the *effect* of the prorogation was to frustrate or prevent, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parl to fulfil its functions.

12. The court noted that the circumstances played a key role. Brexit will have a fundamental effect on the constitution. Parliament has a right to have a voice in how Brexit comes about.

13. The government did not provide a justification for the long prorogation, although the court highlighted that it was not looking at the PM's motive. Would have been possible to have a Queen's speech with a shorter prorogation.

14. On remedy - the court declared that the advice to the Queen to prorogue was unlawful, as was the Order in Council proroguing Parliament. This means Parliament is not prorogued.
(Speaker of HoC has since called for a resumption of Parli activity)

15. The Bill of Rights exclusion of courts considering parli issues doesn't bite, as prorogation is not a 'proceeding in Parliament' - it is something imposed on Parliament from the outside.

16. The decision is hugely significant.
- The concept of Parli Sov has been drawn wider than ever before. Gov accountability to Parliament is brought centre stage.
- The Supreme Court has affirmed its key role in policing the (uncodified) constitution

17. What happens now?
- HoC due to resume business tomorrow - expect UQs/emergency debate/ministerial statement, but no PMQs
- Political pressure on gov to increase
- Parli seeking to undertake significant scrutiny
- No Queen's speech without a (lawful) prorogation