British PM could recall parliament if suspension ruled unlawful

By Michael Holden

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

I expect the Supreme Court will find against Johnson.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Boris Johnson has little choice, a future General Election could, or will be decisive.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

desperate Boris... gotta say, interesting character, gave a new dynamic to the third season...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Fail to see how could it be illegal when the Queen has signed off on the Parliamentary break.

In a damning judgement last Wednesday, Scotland's highest court said the suspension was unlawful and an "egregious" attempt to stymie parliament.

Scotland's Government wants to stay in the EU its no surprised the activist Judges on this Court came up with this ruling, I cant see how a Scottish has any say in this matter.

However, a week earlier the High Court of England and Wales rejected a similar case, saying the matter was political and not something judges should interfere in.

This was the correct ruling the Judges aren't being asked to rule on a point of law, what is happening is a political process.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Andrew Crisp

That the queen signed off on it, isn't the point; constitutionally, she is expected to. The problem that is being argued is twofold, firstly, is the act of prorogation purely political, in which case the courts cannot intervene, and secondly, if there are bounds to the political nature of prorogation, allowing it to be judged on in law, then was what Boris Johnson did legal? Was parliament prorogued to deliberately prevent parliamentary scrutiny of the activities of the executive, as it is constitutionally expected to be able to do? In this case, it raises the question of whether or not the Queen was lied to to get the prorogation through.

The issue of the first point is important because, if it is purely a political act in which the courts cannot intervene, then anything goes. The prime minister can abuse this special privilege, to get his way.

On the Scottish judgement, it came about because constitutional law in Scotland is different because of the Claim of Right. Scotland has a say in this matter because (1) the Queen was in Scotland when parliament was prorogued, and (2) Scotland is part of the United Kingdom with its specific legal and constitutional rights that can be traced back to the Act of Union.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was correct. The Supreme Court found against BJ.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites