Speaking in court today, Sir James said in his opening remarks:"We are dealing with a prerogative power.One justice posed the question of what would happen if a PM decided he did want to stifle the scrutiny of his actions and prorogued for a year. Sir James acknowledged the potential extreme use of it but told the court that principles shouldn't be established by being tested against the extreme.
Sir James also argued that MPs had their chance to legislate against prorogation, saying that they passed a new act which compelled the prime minister to ask for an extension if no new deal was offered, and so they should have added more details into that bill if they wanted to avoid parliamentary suspension.
Pointing the judges to the cabinet minutes and memos to Mr Johnson which have been submitted as evidence, Sir James said it was clear that the main aim of the prorogation was to get to a position in which a new Queen's speech could be prepared and not for any"improper purpose". Sir James also refuted the idea that any of the case law examples brought by Lord Pannick on Tuesday amounted to evidence that a court could rule how long a period of prorogation should be, and argued that a court could not rule on the length of prorogation because it's a political decision.
A vote in confidence instead was the answer
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Boris Johnson saw parliament as 'obstacle' to his Brexit plans, Supreme Court hearsThe Supreme Court has been adjourned for today. Tomorrow's session will start at 10:30, with evidence from Sir James Eadie, who is representing the UK government and will talk about the Miller case. Read more here 👉
Source: SkyNews - 🏆 35. / 67 Read more »
Boris Johnson wanted to 'silence' Parliament, Supreme Court hearsThe Supreme Court will rule on whether the suspension of Parliament was legal. 3 yrs not enough 😂😂 they had three years - bullocks.
Source: MetroUK - 🏆 13. / 82 Read more »
Boris ‘will comply’ with Supreme Court ruling over suspending parliamentA legal battle over whether Boris Johnson acted lawfully in suspending parliament kicked off in the Supreme Court today.
Source: MetroUK - 🏆 13. / 82 Read more »
Brexit: Claim Boris Johnson suspended parliament to ‘stymie’ MPs untenable, supreme court told - live newsRolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including day two of the supreme court hearing to decide if Boris Johnson’s five-week suspension of parliament was lawful the euist deputies are scaring democracy by hindering the implementation of Brexit with more shameful tricks. The popular will, after more than 3 years, is circumvented to impose on the British the will of the UEism, at all costs !! Traitors..😐 UK, Brexit just isn’t right for you. It’s a nightmare with Boris Johnson and white nationalists at the helm. It’s not what your country needs. You are so much better than this. Why isn't this on the Guardian website yet?
Source: The Guardian - 🏆 84. / 53 Read more »
Will Supreme Court judges be convinced Boris Johnson lied to the Queen?The battle over the decision to suspend parliament could set a precedent for how future governments behave. Nope and they won't wish to get involved in politics, they will rule its not a legal matter.
Source: SkyNews - 🏆 35. / 67 Read more »
Boris Johnson warns Supreme Court Justices to stay out of the 'political arena'For the second time in as many years, Britain’s future was placed in the hands of 11 Supreme Court Justices on Tuesday as the extent of the Prime Minister’s powers were put to the ultimate test. FXDIRK He will not stop, no deal brexit is coming no matter what
Source: The Telegraph - 🏆 41. / 63 Read more »