Legal challenges that should be regretted

BRITISH democracy will suffer if the most important issues facing our country are dragged into the courts. There will have been groans across Britain yesterday when Scotland’s highest court ruled that Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful.

The Remainer politicians who brought the legal challenge will be delighted – especially because a judge dismissed it last week – but voters will be dismayed that the Brexit saga is now beset with constitutional turmoil.

When Scottish nationalist sentiment threatens the future of the Union we have the spectacle of a clash of courts.The High Court in London decided the prorogation of Parliament was a political matter, not something for judges, but Scotland’s Court of Session ruled that the Prime Minister’s intention was “stymieing” MPs.

The Supreme Court in London will hear an appeal against the ruling next week. This is a distraction when the Government should be focused on a successful exit from the EU.

It will be deeply regrettable if Britain’s political culture becomes more litigious, with politicians who have failed to win power bringing vexatious legal challenges to pit judges around the UK against one another.

Throughout British history, prorogation has been used as a political tool. Labour’s Clement Attlee deployed it to trim the powers of the House of Lords, and Sir John Major used it to avoid a debate on the cash-for-questions scandal.

If voters are upset by a PM’s decision they can boot out a government. It is the hardwon right of the electorate, not members of the judiciary, to make such judgments.