Parliament could remain suspended

Two rules could still see Westminster being prorogued

Parliament may remain suspended even if Prime Minister Boris Johnson loses a historic Supreme Court case over the five-week prorogation.

Documents submitted on Thursday to the 11 justices hearing the case revealed three possible scenarios in the event the court rules the suspension was unlawful, two of which could see the prime minister make a fresh decision to prorogue Parliament.

The other outcome could be that Parliament should be recalled, but Mr Johnson’s lawyers urged the judges to consider the “very serious practical consequences” involved in this option, as it would require a new Queen’s Speech and State Opening of Parliament.

The document stated: “A Queen’s Speech, and the State Opening of Parliament which accompanies it, is a significant political, constitutional and ceremonial occasion, which involves the sovereign attending in person.

“As the court will be well aware, the proper preparations for a Queen’s Speech are a matter of thoroughgoing importance, including in relation to the content of that speech.

“Extensive arrangements would have to be made, including as to security, to enable this to occur.

“These considerations lead to the need for any order that the court makes, if necessary, to allow for these steps relating to the earlier meeting of Parliament to occur in an orderly fashion.”

The court is hearing appeals arising out of two separate challenges in England and Scotland – which produced different outcomes – over the prime minister’s advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks until October 14.

At the High Court in London, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and two other judges rejected businesswoman Gina Miller’s challenge, finding that the prorogation was “purely political”.

But in Scotland, a cross-party group of MPs and peers won a ruling from the Inner House of the Court of Session that Mr Johnson’s prorogation decision was unlawful because it was “motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing Parliament”.

Mrs Miller is now appealing against the decision of the High Court, asking the Supreme Court to find that the judges who heard her judicial review action “erred in law” in the findings they reached.

Her barrister, Lord Pannick QC, told the court on Tuesday that Mr Johnson’s motive for an “exceptionally long” prorogationwasto“silence”Parliament, and that his decision was an “unlawful abuse of power”.

Sir James Eadie QC argued on the prime minister’s behalf on Wednesday the suggestion the prorogation was intended to “stymie” Parliament ahead of Brexit was “untenable”.

The justices are also being asked by the Westminster Government to allow an appeal against the decision in Scotland.

Mrs Miller’s case is supported by former prime minister Sir John Major, shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, the Scottish and Welsh governments and Northern Irish victims’ campaigner Raymond McCord.

Yesterday, the third and final day of the unprecedented hearing in London, Sir John’s QC Lord Garnier told the court his intervention was “nothing to do with the arguments for or against Brexit”.

Picture: PA. Gina Miller is appealing the High Court’s decision that the prorogation of Parliament was ‘political’.

Picture: PA.