Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that “The prorogation was void and of no effect”. “Parliament has not been prorogued.”
The present case has been brought by anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller and 70 parliamentarians who bought separate legal challenges in English and Scottish courts arguing the prorogation was unlawful.
The Supreme Court had to consider the two conflicting rulings by lower courts. The highest court in Scotland ruled that Mr Johnson’s advice on prorogation was unlawful and “clandestine” and was aimed at stymieing parliament. By contrast, London’s High Court found that Mr Johnson’s action had not broken the law, because the case was not even reviewable by the courts – non-justiciable – under Britain’s unwritten constitution because it was a matter of “high policy and politics”.
Supreme Court ruled the case is justiciable and able to be reviewed by the courts.
Lady Hale stated that “The court is bound to conclude the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful.” She added it stopped parliament from scrutinising the executive and a number of bills were lost due to the five-week shutdown.
