Skip to main content

Brexit blocking MPs handed boost after a Scottish court says Boris Johnson was UNLAWFUL to shut down Parliament

BREXIT blockers have been handed a boost after a Scottish court said Boris was UNLAWFUL to shut down Parliament.

Top judges found in favour of an appeal against Boris Johnson and the case will go to the Supreme Court next week.

Brexit blockers have been handed a boost after a Scottish court says Boris Johnson was unlawful to shutdown Parliament
PA:Press Association


However, no measure is being made to cancel the suspension of Parliament, the Court of Session in Edinburgh heard today.

All three of the judges in Scotland’s highest appeal court ruled the shutdown was “unlawful”, it has been reported.

An official summary of today’s ruling read: “The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.”

This suggests the court has found the shutdown is null and void – but there are no plans for MPs to start sitting again at this point.

The original case was brought by a cross-party group of 70 MPs and anti-Brexit activists fighting to reverse the PM’s decision to stop MPs sitting for more than a month.

Parliament was officially prorogued – or suspended – on Tuesday with MPs returning on October 14.

The UK government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda. Proroguing Parliament is the legal and necessary way of delivering this.

Government spokesman

They launched their legal bid in a rage over what they believe was Boris Johnson dodging Parliamentary scrutiny over his handling of Brexit – and in particular, No Deal.

However, they defeated the PM in Commons and pushed through a bill demanding he go to Brussels and ask for a Brexit extension, meaning that No Deal is no longer a viable option.

A spokesman for No10 said the government was “disappointed” by the decision today and that proroguing Parliament was “the legal and necessary way” of delivering its domestic agenda.

A Downing Street source later suggested to The Sun that the Scottish judges were politically biased.

They said: “We note that last week the High Court in London did not rule that prorogation was unlawful. The legal activists choose the Scottish courts for a reason”.

However, the cross-party group claimed they chose to fight their case in the Scottish courts because England’s High Court was not sitting in August.

The Justice Secretary Robert Buckland QC has since come out to disagree with the No10 source, saying: “Our judges are renowned around the world for their excellence and impartiality and I have total confidence in their independence in every case.”


Lefty union boss Len McCluskey said the PM should be “arrested” for shutting down Parliament in a bizarre outburst.

The Unite Chief and Labour backer told Sky News: “My advice to the prime minister is don’t go up to Scotland – you’re liable to face a citizens arrest.”

Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer described the court ruling as “huge”.

Speaking at the TUC Congress in Brighton, the Labour MP said: “I need to get back to Parliament, to see if we can reopen the doors and hold Johnson to account.

“The Prime Minister was not telling the truth about why he was doing it. The idea of shutting down Parliament offended everyone across the country, and then they felt they were not being told the truth.”

Meanwhile in Westminster 30 MPs gathered outside Parliament to protest against the prorogation.

The group, led by Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson, brandished a large signed declaration and in light of today’s decision, said “we’re here, we’re ready to work”.


Will Parliament come back now?

No. The Parliament shutdown will continue at the moment – with the case now set to be heard at the Supreme Court on September 17.

What happens next?

The group of around 70 MPs and anti-Brexit activists will now battle the government in the Supreme Court later this month.

Has Boris broken the law?

According to a High Court ruling last week – the PM’s move to shutdown Parliament was not unlawful.

Today’s decision is still only an allegation which is yet to proven in a court of law.

What is the campaigners’ argument?

The Remainer group, including anti-Brexit barrister Jo Maugham QC, claimed Johnson’s move was illegal and in breach of the Parliamentary constitution.

During the appeal hearing last week, their lawyer said: “A decision to prorogue shuts down Parliament. It is in those circumstances an attack on democracy.”

What did the judges say?

Top judges Lords Carloway, Brodie and Drummond Young described Boris move as “improper” and a “tactic to frustrate Parliament”.

While a summary of today’s decision read: “The Court will accordingly make an Order declaring that the Prime Minister’s advice to HM the Queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect.”


Last week it looked like Boris Johnson had seen off the legal challenge after top judge Lord Doherty ruled the prorogation was lawful.

Now the case will be taken to Britain’s highest court.

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court in London has said “should any parties choose to appeal to the UK Supreme Court following the prorogation appeal hearings in the lower courts”, the court has set aside September 17 “as a date to hear such an appeal”.

Today’s decision goes against the ruling of the High Court last week – which rejected the case of desperate Lawyer Gina Miller and ex-PM John Major.

Miller’s legal team told the High Court that the PM’s decision to stop MPs sitting for five weeks was an “exceptional” length of time and “unlawful abuse of power”.

But after hearing submissions on Thursday, Lord Justice Burnett ruled this morning that this was not the case.

Rejecting Mrs Miller’s argument, he said: “We have concluded that, whilst we should grant permission to apply for judicial review, the claim must be dismissed.”

The PM previously warned the case could cause “catastrophic damage” to politics if it succeeded in stopping Brexit.

Remainer QC Jo Maugham said the PM’s plans to suspend Parliament were ‘undemocratic’
Rex Features
Top judges found in favour of the appeal against the PM at the Court of Session in Edinburgh today

We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at or call 0207 782 4368 . You can WhatsApp us on 07810 791 502. We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.


Popular posts from this blog

Politicians are wrong about what the public want

So the, out of touch political elite are trying to say that the public would be happy to cough up an extra £2000 a year, per household to prop up the NHS? 
Advertisers website Wrong! While many British families struggle to make ends meet, the political elite thinks that people will be glad to fund a failing business that is being run into the ground because of their failed policies on how the NHS is managed?

No. This just shows that we have monkeys running our country! Many people on Facebook have shared the above post on various pages; a large number of those people don't even do politics. If our political elite were more than just yes men weighed down by the chains of political correctness, they would see that the people of Britain have had enough. 
Ever increasing taxation to try and fix their mistakes? 
Continuiosly using the NHS as a stick to beat the opposition or a classic party political paper dragon! (Paper Dragon): a politician or political party whocampaign to fox the proble…

PETITION - Keep Swinson OUT of the Lords

Keep Jo Swinson from being given a Peerage.
Sign the petition and share this everywhere

If Jo Swinson is given honors, it will be a scandal and ANOTHER Nail in the coffin for the House of Lords. Sign the petition


Has the Supreme Court handed Boris Johnson a Brexit escape route?

The Supreme Court’s judgment is the latest constitutional perversion after the Benn act. But ironically it may assist the Government in achieving its objective of Britain leaving the EU by 31 October, without having to seek an extension to the Article 50 process.
In paragraph 34, the Supreme Court states that its ‘proper function’ under our constitution is to give effect to the separation of powers (which justifies court intervention in relation to prorogation). Then, in what appears to be an innocuous sentence in paragraph 55, it says that it is to be “remember[ed] always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts.”
Yet the Benn Act manifestly contradicts this principle. It dictates how the Government must conduct negotiations with a foreign body, the EU, to the extent of obliging the Prime Minister to write specifically worded letters and accept whatever extension it offers when certain conditions are not met. In the situation when t…