The Courier & Advertiser (Fife Edition)
Parliament suspension challenge turned down
Ex-PM John Major to join push for judicial review against Boris Johnson on prorogation plan as Scots judge throws out petition
Opponents of Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament have been denied an interim interdict by a judge at Scotland’s highest civil court.
A cross-party group of MPs and peers filed a petition at the Court of Session in Edinburgh earlier this summer aiming to stop the prime minister being able to prorogue Parliament.
They called for an interim interdict until a final decision has been made on the case after Mr Johnson went ahead and announced that Parliament was being suspended for five weeks from September 10.
Yesterday, judge Lord Doherty dismissed the action ahead of a full hearing scheduled for next week.
He said: “I’m not satisfied that it has been demonstrated that there’s a need for an interim suspension or an interim interdict to be granted at this stage.”
He said a substantive hearing was already set to take place on Friday September 6 “before the first possible date parliament could be prorogued”.
But he brought that hearing forward to Tuesday “in the interest of justice”.
Aiden O’Neill QC, representing those for the action, had argued for the substantive hearing to be moved forward, saying: “There is an urgency to this – any delay is prejudicial – not just to the prejudice of the petitioners, but to the country as a whole.”
Lord Doherty said: “I’m going to move the substantive hearing forward to Tuesday.
“Weighing consideration in the balance, it’s in the interest of justice that it proceeds sooner rather than later.”
The decision came after the Queen approved Mr Johnson’s request for Parliament to be suspended for five weeks from September 10.
On Thursday, the judge heard arguments from a lawyer for the campaigners – led by SNP MP Joanna Cherry QC and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson and aided by Jo Maugham of the Good Law Project – and from a legal representative for the UK Government.
Mr O’Neill QC urged the court to step in and stop the suspension of Parliament, arguing it would prevent an “abusive” and “unconstitutional” use of government powers.
However, Roddy Dunlop QC, representing the UK Government, called on the judge to reject the request, as the Queen has already prorogued Parliament and there is “no reason” to have an interim decision on such an important matter.
Responding to Lord Doherty’s decision yesterday, a government spokesperson said: “As we have set out, the government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda and MPs are not prevented from scrutinising our withdrawal from the EU.
“We are glad the court found against the interdict – there was no good reason to seek one, given the full hearing is due to take place next week, and the process of bringing the session to an end will not start until the week commencing September 9.”
Meanwhile, former prime minister Sir John Major intends to fight Boris Johnson in the courts over his plan to suspend Parliament.
The ex-Tory leader promised to seek a judicial review if the prime minister prorogued Parliament to prevent MPs opposing his Brexit plans.
He will now seek to join a legal challenge being brought by campaigner Gina Miller.
Sir John suggested his experience in Number 10 could assist the High Court in deciding whether Mr Johnson’s actions are lawful.
Businesswoman Ms Miller – who previously took the government to court over the triggering of Article 50 to start the Brexit process – said the case would be heard on September 5.
The prime minister has ordered a suspension of Parliament for up to five weeks before a Queen’s Speech on October 14. Opponents claimed the move was aimed at stopping discussion of Brexit and hampering cross-party efforts to block the prospect of a no-deal withdrawal from the European Union an allegation denied by Mr Johnson.
Sir John said: “In view of the imminence of the prorogation – and to avoid duplication of effort and taking up the court’s time through repetition – I intend to seek the court’s permission to intervene in the claim already initiated by Gina Miller, rather than to commence separate proceedings.”