UK News: Suspension of Parliament ‘sought in clandestine manner’, says Scottish judge - - PressFrom - United Kingdom
  •   
  •   

UK NewsSuspension of Parliament ‘sought in clandestine manner’, says Scottish judge

11:35  13 september  2019
11:35  13 september  2019 Source:   msn.com

Parliament suspension sought in 'clandestine' manner, says senior Scots judge

Parliament suspension sought in 'clandestine' manner, says senior Scots judge The suspension of Parliament was sought in a "clandestine" manner and the "true reason" for the prorogation was to reduce the time available for scrutiny of Brexit, a senior Scottish judge said. © Provided by Johnston Publishing Ltd Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament was ruled "improper" and "unlawful" on Wednesday by three senior Scottish judges, who concluded it had been done with "the purpose of stymying Parliament". The full opinions from the judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh - who said the prorogation was "null and of no effect" - were issued on Thursday evening.

The suspension of Parliament was sought in a “ clandestine ” manner and the “true reason” for the prorogation was to reduce the time available for scrutiny of Brexit, a senior Scottish judge said . Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was ruled “improper” and “unlawful” on Wednesday by

The three senior Scottish judges concluded it had been done with "the purpose of stymying parliament ". The decision overturned an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week He added the suspension of parliament had been sought in a " clandestine manner ," and that there was no

The suspension of Parliament was sought in a “clandestine” manner and the “true reason” for the prorogation was to reduce the time available for scrutiny of Brexit, a senior Scottish judge said.

Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was ruled “improper” and “unlawful” on Wednesday by three senior Scottish judges, who concluded it had been done with “the purpose of stymying Parliament”.

The full opinions from the judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh – who said the prorogation was “null and of no effect” – were issued on Thursday evening.

The Court of Session case, brought by a group of more than 70 parliamentarians, appealed against an earlier ruling by a judge that the Prime Minister’s prorogation was lawful.

Scottish court rules Boris Johnson illegally suspended Parliament. U.K.'s top court will have the final say.

Scottish court rules Boris Johnson illegally suspended Parliament. U.K.'s top court will have the final say. A Scottish appeals court, the Court of Sessions, ruled Thursday that Prime Minister Boris Johnson violated Britain's constitution when he prorogued, or suspended, Parliament until Oct. 14. The three-judge panel, led by Lord Carloway, Scotland's senior-most judge, overturns a lower court ruling that courts can't interfere with political decision by the prime minister. But the appellate court did not immediately overturn Johnson's order, allowing the U.K. Supreme Court to make the final decision in an emergency session called for Sept. 17. It did, however, inject more chaos into an already madcap Brexit fight.

The suspension of parliament was sought in a “ clandestine ” manner and the “true reason” for the prorogation was to reduce the time available for scrutiny of Brexit, a senior Scottish judge said . Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend parliament was ruled “improper” and “unlawful” on Wednesday by

The three senior Scottish judges concluded it had been done with "the purpose of stymying parliament ". The decision overturned an earlier ruling from the court, which said last week He added the suspension of parliament had been sought in a " clandestine manner ," and that there was no

Judge Lord Doherty dismissed the challenge at the Court of Session last Wednesday, saying it was for politicians and not the courts to decide.

But the three judges at the Inner House, the supreme civil court in Scotland, disagreed with Lord Doherty’s ruling on Wednesday.

In the full opinions released on Thursday, Judge Lord Carloway said: “The circumstances demonstrate that the true reason for the prorogation is to reduce the time available for Parliamentary scrutiny of Brexit at a time when such scrutiny would appear to be a matter of considerable importance, given the issues at stake.

“This is in the context of an anticipated no-deal Brexit, in which case no further consideration of matters by Parliament is required. The Article 50 period, as extended, will have expired and withdrawal will occur automatically.”

Boris Johnson's Prorogation Of Parliament Was 'Unlawful', Rule Scottish Judges

Boris Johnson's Prorogation Of Parliament Was 'Unlawful', Rule Scottish Judges Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament was “unlawful”, judges at the appeal court in Edinburgh have ruled. The prime minister is now facing demands he recall the Commons. A group of around 70 parliamentarians had appealed against an earlier ruling by a judge at the court that Johnson’s suspension of parliament was lawful. SNP Joanna Cherry said the Commons must now be “recalled immediately”. Following today’s ruling, she said Johnson’s shutting down of parliament early was a “plot” to stop MPs blocking a no-deal Brexit. Labour MP David Lammy said: “Let’s unlock the doors tomorrow.

Grieve said he had information from public officials that such correspondence contained a “scandal”. But Downing Street sources suggested Johnson’s advisers would resort to legal action rather than hand over their Parliament suspension sought in ' clandestine ' manner , says senior Scots judge .

What did the Scottish judges say ? Mr Johnson had previously insisted that it was normal practice for a new government to prorogue Parliament , and that it was But the three Inner House judges said they disagreed with Lord Doherty's ruling because this particular prorogation had been a "tactic to frustrate

The judge said this conclusion on the “true reason” stemmed from a number of factors.

“First, the prorogation was sought in a clandestine manner during a period in which litigation concerning the prospect of prorogation occurring was extant,” he said.

“Although it is possible to argue about exactly what was meant by the respondent’s fifth plea-in-law, it is not unreasonable to comment that even the respondent’s legal team appear to have been kept in the dark about what was about to happen.

“Secondly, the decision to prorogue in the manner sought was taken against the background of the discussions in which it was being suggested that MPs, and thus Parliament, would be unable to prevent a no-deal Brexit if time was simply allowed to elapse, without further legislation, until the exit date.

“Put shortly, prorogation was being mooted specifically as a means to stymie any further legislation regulating Brexit.

‘Major showdown’ predicted after Parliament suspension ruled unlawful

‘Major showdown’ predicted after Parliament suspension ruled unlawful The UK Government plans to appeal against the latest ruling to the Supreme Court.

Court backs MPs who said suspension of parliament breached constitution.

Three judges at Scotland ’s highest court have ruled that the prorogation of parliament on Monday night was unconstitutional Cherry labelled the prorogation of parliament “a plot to prevent us representing our constituents views” and scrutinizing cabinet ministers over a back-door no-deal Brexit.

“Thirdly, there is remarkably little said about the reason for the prorogation in the respondent’s pleadings.”

Judge Lord Drummond Young said: “In my opinion, nothing in these documents can be said to provide any rational explanation as to why Parliament must be prorogued as early as September 9 for a period of five weeks.

“Nor has any other explanation been provided for the length of the prorogation, beyond references to the need to begin a new session of Parliament to promote a new legislative programme.

“That, of course, does not explain the length of the prorogation; merely the fact that prorogation is required.

“In these circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the only inference that can properly be drawn on an objective basis is that the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, wished to restrict debate in Parliament for as long as possible during the period leading up to the European Council meeting on 17/18 October and the scheduled date of Britain’s departure from the European Union.

“It would be wrong to speculate as to whether this is because the Government wishes to persuade the European Union to accept a withdrawal agreement that differs from the agreement previously concluded or whether the Government is truly intent on achieving departure from the European Union without a withdrawal agreement.

“In either event, the matter clearly calls for Parliamentary scrutiny. The effect of the prorogation under consideration, in particular its length, is that proper Parliamentary scrutiny is rendered all but impossible.”

The Government is appealing and the case is scheduled to go to the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Queen dragged into 'unlawful' shutdown of Parliament as Boris Johnson resists demands to recall MPs.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit Secretary, called on MPs to return to Westminster so they can 'open those doors' and hold PM to account

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 0
This is interesting!