Britain’s high court hears Brexit case
Suspension of Parliament illegal, queen misled, premier’s challengers argue
LONDON — The British government and its opponents faced off Tuesday at the U.K. Supreme Court over Brexit in a case that will determine whether new Prime Minister Boris Johnson broke the law by suspending Parliament at a crucial time ahead of Britain’s impending departure from the European Union.
As pro-EU and pro-Brexit protesters exchanged shouts outside the court building on London’s Parliament Square, the government’s opponents argued that Johnson illegally shut down Parliament just weeks before the country is due to leave the 28-nation bloc for the “improper purpose” of dodging lawmakers’ scrutiny of his Brexit plans. They also accused Johnson of misleading Queen Elizabeth II, whose formal approval was needed to suspend the legislature.
The government countered that, under Britain’s largely unwritten constitution, the suspension was a matter for politicians, not the courts.
Government lawyer Richard Keen said judges in a lower court had “nakedly entered the political arena” by ruling on the matter.
Johnson sent lawmakers home on Sept. 9 until Oct. 14, which is about two weeks before Britain is scheduled to leave the EU on Oct. 31. A ruling against the government by the country’s top court could force him to recall Parliament.
Johnson hasn’t said what he will do if the judges rule the suspension illegal.
Keen promised that “the prime minister will take any necessary steps to comply with any declaration made by the court.” But he had no answer when judges asked if Johnson might recall Parliament on the court’s order, only to suspend it again.
The prime minister says Britain must leave the EU at the end of next month with or without a divorce deal. But many U.K. lawmakers believe a no-deal Brexit would be economically devastating and socially destabilizing.
Lawyer David Pannick, who represents one of the campaigners challenging the government, told 11 Supreme Court judges that Johnson had improperly suspended the legislature “to silence Parliament … because he sees Parliament as an obstacle to the furtherance of his political aims.”
Johnson says the suspension is routine, and will allow his government to launch its domestic agenda with a new session of Parliament. But the decision angered many lawmakers, who say it’s designed to prevent them from challenging Johnson’s push to leave the EU in October “do or die.”
The suspension sparked legal challenges, to which lower courts have given contradictory rulings. England’s High Court said the move was a political rather than legal matter, but Scottish court judges ruled last week that Johnson acted illegally “to avoid democratic scrutiny.”
The Supreme Court is being asked to decide who was right, in a case scheduled to last up to three days.
Keen insisted there was nothing improper in the government’s behavior. He said there were previous cases of British governments suspending Parliament “for political reasons” and for “extensive periods of time.”
But Pannick, attorney for transparency advocate Gina Miller, told the court it was a fundamental constitutional principle that “Parliament is sovereign and the executive is accountable to Parliament.”
He said the five-week suspension of Parliament was the longest for decades, and called it “remarkable” that the prime minister had not submitted a witness statement to the court outlining his reasons. He said, in the absence of a sworn statement, “we say the court should infer that there is no answer” to the allegation that Johnson acted improperly.