The Court of Session Appeal Court has agreed with the petitioners. All three judges in the appeal court have stated that the prorogation of the Westminster Parliament is unlawful & unconstitutional.
There is no interdict (temporary stop to the action) as the case was already known to be going (final appeal) to the Supreme Court on Tuesday 17th.
BoJo is not out (yet), but he is reeling, on the canvas, and the referee has started the count.
Congratulations to Joanna Cherry (and others) for another famous victory. First victory was confirmation that Article 50 could be unilaterally revoked. Now, prorogation of parliament is judged to be unlawful.
Fingers crossed that the Supreme Court agrees.
I'm thinking Joanna Cherry QC MP was pleased with to-day's result.
Just back home (late #DogWalk, to-day).
The QCs for the petitioners (ones taking the action against Johnson's government) are going to town on the lack of a witness statement (affidavit). I just knew this would come back to haunt Johnson's government, after the Court of Session action. Regardless what else happens this will be crucial.
Joanna Cherry has written a nice summary of the court decision, and what (should) happen next:
So, PM Boris Johnson is in serious trouble regarding the unlawful prorogation of parliament.
Suddenly, *someone* leaks the legal advice from Geoffrey Cox (Attorney General for England & Wales) that the prorogation was legal.
It appears Mr Cox has been thrown under one of the PM's busses.
I think you are right.
Something about her body language, I think.
Her facial expression also seems to express some happiness.
You'll not have been the only excited person after hearing that news.
It put a smile on my face.
I'm not sure it will change much, about the Brexit situation, but it is an extraordinary development that the UK government has acted unlawfully.
TBH I've always been unhappy about the position of the Supreme Court, bu that is a fight for another day.
It's the wigs. Definitely the wigs.
OK, the red silk robes *and* the wigs.
I wonder if the wigs are still powdered.
Do judges wear wigs anywhere else in the world? Perhaps in some Commonwealth countries.
Mostly Commonwealth countries, yes.
I remember seeing the Ghana Supreme Court once (at least i think it was Ghana), and the wigs were... Let's say surprising.
Also funny: a lot of courts in Germany require their judges to wear funny little hats.
Here is a good comparison: http://jjmccullough.com/judges.htm
@ParadeGrotesque @fitheach We visited the UK Supreme Court - mostly because there’s a cafe and restrooms in the basement. But the court was a big surprise and amazingly open - tourists can wander around the building unattended and even walk into ongoing sessions. Our kid got to sit in the main judge’s chair and the guards had a good laugh about it. 😊
Lovin' the hats in Haiti.
I think I've discovered a new hobby: image searches for court costumes. 😃
@fitheach Lord Brodie looks like someone you don’t want to cross.
A Hanging Judge, maybe?
@fitheach I told him at that moment that he is the most powerful person in the UK as long as he sits there. Apparently that will be true now in another week.
@fitheach so what happens on 7th?
The final appeal* is heard at the Supreme Court.
* I say the final appeal because I am assuming the Boris Johnson government wouldn't appeal to the European Court of Justice. 😃
@fitheach yes, I've meant the 17th and the appeal. Say that the court still finds the move illegal. What then?
That'll be most interesting. BoJo will then have been in breach of the Court of Session Appeal decision, which may be impeachable. If so, then he couldn't be PM or MP and possibly go to prison. Cool, eh?
Regardless, if the Supreme Court also find that it was unlawful, then parliament must be reconvened. May not stop Brexit, but the government will look really stupid.
[Other legal opinions are available. 😃 ]
@fitheach but they have booke their add Holidays already
I'm hoping some of them might be spending their leisure time "at her Majesty's pleasure".
@fitheach yap she has a pleasure room in the basement of Buckingham palace
I was thinking more Tower of London or Wormwood Scrubs.
@fitheach what should come out of this?
@fitheach Too much buffering over here in NA I'm afraid.
I guess the SC didn't foresee the need for geographically dispersed CDNs.
@fitheach Just informed Matt Beringer of The National of this clear breach of copyright. That Scottish rag can expect a 'cease and desist' and a take-down notice by the end of the week.
Should think that is unlikely as the article was wriiten by Joanna Cherry, who is a QC.
Who is Matt Beringer?
No, no, no. That's Matt Berninger. No wonder my Internet search drew a blank. 😃
A very parliamentarian response. 😉 Although, I believe it is actually "hear, hear".
I stand corrected.
@fitheach I'm really not into politics, but all this stuff going on has been so crazy I can't help but grab the popcorn
Yeah, UK politics has turned into a soap opera. We even have cartoon-style baddies, like Boris Johnson. From an entertainment standpoint, what's not to like?
@fitheach Interesting. I would have thought it was a matter of royal prerogative, between the sovereign and her first minister, and not subject to judicial review. I recall that that was the ruling for a similar case here in Canada ten years ago or so, when the PM was granted an early general election, notwithstanding a fixed election date law that he himself had brought in.
But of course the constitutional law of the Canada branched off from that of the UK long ago.
That was kind of the government's argument, too. However, in Scotland the Claim of Right is still in force. In particular, CoR strengthens parliament at the expense of the royal prerogative.
Also, I can't help thinking the UK gov failing to provide an affidavit may have had an effect.
The attached photo shows the crucial part of the judgement.
@fitheach Thanks for the documents.
I don't think those paragraphs hold up very well. Yes, the prorogation was intended to restrict Parliament's ability to interfere with the government's plans for #Brexit, but events have proven that Parliament did in fact retain sufficient power to scrutinise and even to bind. If the prorogation had started a week earlier and lasted until the start of November, then this finding would be more plausible.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!