Johnson wanted to ‘silence’ Parliament
PRIME MINISTER Boris Johnson’s motive for an “exceptionally long” prorogation was to “silence” Parliament, Supreme Court justices have heard.
Lawyers for Gina Miller, who is bringing a challenge over Mr Johnson’s advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks, told the UK’s highest court that the Prime Minister’s decision was an “unlawful abuse of power”.
They also said he has failed to provide a witness statement or any other evidence to explain his decision to the court.
During a historic hearing in London yesterday, Mrs Miller’s barrister Lord Pannick QC said: “The exceptional length of the prorogation in this case is strong evidence that the Prime Minister’s motive was to silence Parliament for that period because he sees Parliament as an obstacle to the furtherance of his political aims.”
Lord Pannick added that it was “remarkable” that Mr Johnson has not provided a statement explaining why he advised the Queen to suspend Parliament for the “exceptionally long period”.
Eleven justices are hearing appeals over three days arising out of two separate challenges brought in England and Scotland over the legality of the prorogation – which resulted in different outcomes.
The High Court in London dismissed Mrs Miller’s case, finding that the length of the prorogation was “purely political”.
In Edinburgh, the Court of Session concluded Mr Johnson’s decision was unlawful because it was “motivated by the improper purpose” of frustrating Parliament.
Lord Pannick argued that the High Court “erred in law” in the case of Mrs Miller.
He submitted the Court of Session reached the “correct” conclusion as to Mr Johnson’s motive for proroguing Parliament. The barrister said: “We submit that on all the material the court should conclude that, but for the Prime Minister’s wish to avoid Parliamentary control, he would not have recommended to Her Majesty a prorogation for a period of longer than five weeks, but he would have recommended a substantially shorter period.”
Lord Pannick said the appeal raises “fundamental questions of constitutional law” and that no court had been asked to consider these issues because no Prime Minister “has abused his power in the manner in which we allege in at least the last 50 years”.
Mr Johnson advised the Queen on August 28 to prorogue Parliament for five weeks and it was suspended on September 9. He says the five-week suspension is to allow the Government to set out a new legislative agenda in a Queen’s Speech when MPs return to Parliament on October 14.
But those challenging his decision argue that it is designed to prevent parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit.
Mr Johnson will comply with whatever the Supreme Court rules, his lawyer said.
Giving a legal undertaking on behalf of Mr Johnson, the Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Keen QC, said the Prime Minister will “take the necessary steps”.
However, he refused to rule out the possibility Mr Johnson may advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament for a second time.