That brings our live coverage of the Supreme Court proceedings to an end for the day. The court will be back tomorrow to hear more from both camps.
British journalists have been digesting the first day of arguments at the Supreme Court. Here’s what a few of them made of it all.
The BBC’s Dominic Casciani noted that much of the debate was focused on whether the prorogation was a political matter, or one for the courts to weigh in on.
Carl Gardner, who served as a government lawyer for 12 years, suggested that Gina Miller and Joanna Cherry’s teams will be happier than the government’s at the end of day 1.
Legal expert Joshua Rozenberg picked up on a few queries the judges had for the government’s lawyer, Lord Kerr, at the end of the day’s proceedings.
But barrister Adam Wagner also felt the government could have ground to make up.
That’s it – a lengthy first day at the Supreme Court is over.
It will return tomorrow, as both appeals continue to be heard by the 11 judges.
Lord Keen has engaged in a back-and-forth with Lord Kerr, one of the judges, about the practical length of the prorogation.
The government’s lawyer argued it is “perfectly clear” that the suspension is of a maximum of seven days, given that it came either side of an anticipated recess for conference season. He accused the Scottish courts of misinterpreting the suspension, by saying in their judgement that it would last five weeks.
Keen is almost certainly correct that Parliament would not have been sitting for conference season – it never does.
But the government has still prorogued Parliament for five weeks, rather than waiting until the end of conference season and proroguing it for a week at that point.
That formed the basis of one of Kerr’s questions on the matter, before Keen wrapped up his statement.
Lord Keen tells the judges it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to decide whether the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks is legal or not.
Essentially, he’s arguing that what Boris Johnson has done is political, and that it’s not up to the courts to intervene.
Lord Keen is being asked what Prime Minister Boris Johnson will do if the Supreme Court upholds a ruling by Scotland’s highest court of appeal that his decision to prorogue Parliament was unlawful.
The judges push Keen on this point, asking whether Johnson “would prorogue Parliament again?”
The live stream of Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing has already been accessed 4.4 million times, the UK’s PA news agency reports.
Usually the live streaming service is accessed just 20,000 times a month, according to PA.
Lord Keen, the lawyer representing the UK government’s appeal against the ruling by the Scottish Court of Session last week, is now addressing the judges.
Quick re-cap: The case refers to a group of more than 70 lawmakers, led by Scottish National Party MP Joanna Cherry, who joined forces to sue the Prime Minister and prevent the suspension of Parliament.
On Wednesday their case was successful, with Scotland’s highest court ruling that Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was motivated by the “improper purpose of stymying Parliament.”
A quick round up of musings from British political heavyweights. Looks like the big question of “justiciability” – whether the court or Parliament has the right to make a decision on prorogation – is the key point in the case from Lord Pannick (Gina Miller’s lawyer).
ITV’s Robert Peston says “judges will have to decide whether the five-week prorogation was disproportionately long.”
The BBC’s Dominic Casciani says Pannick “wants the courts to focus on PM’s intention and its effect on Parliament’s sovereignty.”
Ian Dunt, the editor of Politics.co.uk, points out what many of us watching were perhaps thinking: that the real gems of information are often hidden among piles of administrative documents.
Gina Miller’s lawyer, Lord Pannick, wraps up his address with a final question for the judges:
The Court is now taking a lunch break. When it returns, the legal representative for the UK government appealing the Scottish case will be addressing the judges.
For those outside the UK (and even for those in it), the British legal system is a complex beast.
CNN’s Luke Hanrahan gives us a quick reminder of why all eyes are on the Supreme Court today:
“Justiciability” is a term we’re going to be hearing a lot of in the coming days.
Essentially, it’s the question of whether the court has the capability, or the right, to make a ruling in a particular case.
Judges in the English High Court have previously ruled that the suspension of Parliament is a political decision for the Prime Minister – not one for the courts.
Gina Miller’s lawyer, Lord Pannick, is now trying to convince the 11 Supreme Court judges otherwise.
It’s an important point, because if Pannick can’t sway these judges on justiciability, his case is unlikely to succeed.
Back inside the court, Gina Miller’s lawyer, Lord Pannick, is continuing his submission to the 11 judges, saying:
Demonstrations are in full swing outside London’s Supreme Court, where protesters are waving placards reading “Don’t silence our MPs” and “They misled the Queen.”
This activist argued that the PM’s controversial decision to prorogue Parliament had effectively gagged MPs, taking away their voice.
Another protester offered their take on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s attempt to draw comparisons with superhero the Hulk.
The three-day hearing includes appeals on three separate legal challenges to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plan to suspend parliament for five weeks.
Here’s a look at who launched the cases:
The English case: Gina Miller
High-profile anti-Brexit campaigner, Gina Miller, is appealing an English High Court decision to not issue an order lifting the suspension of Parliament. Judges said the suspension of Parliament is essentially a political decision for the Prime Minister.
But Miller says that suspending Parliament sets a horrifying precedent, and that Johnson’s government is “subverting democracy” in a way that is unprecedented.
John Major has joined Miller’s legal action, which means Britain is being treated to the extraordinary spectacle of a former Conservative prime minister suing his successor.
The Scottish case: Dozens of cross-party MPs
A cross-party group of more than 70 lawmakers, led by Scottish National Party MP Joanna Cherry, joined forces to sue the Prime Minister and prevent the suspension of Parliament.
Last week their case was successful, with Scotland’s highest court ruling that Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament was motivated by the “improper purpose of stymying Parliament.”
The Supreme Court must now rule which set of judges – those in England or Scotland – was right.
The Northern Irish case: Raymond McCord
The Northern Irish appeal refers to Raymond McCord, a campaigner whose son was murdered by a pro-Unionist paramilitary group in 1997, aged 22.
Earlier this month, a Northern Irish court rejected his claim that the UK’s plan for a no-deal Brexit would break the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
A no-deal Brexit would almost certainly lead to a need for some kind of infrastructure on or near the border between the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state, and Northern Ireland, which like the rest of the UK is leaving the bloc.
Gina Miller’s legal representative, Lord Pannick, points out that Prime Minister Boris Johnson has not given a witness statement explaining why he advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament.
If such a statement had been made, it could have been picked apart in court, if there was evidence that the reason given for the suspension was not true, Pannick argues.
Barrister Lord Pannick is now speaking on behalf of Gina Miller, one of the campaigners hoping to prevent the Prime Minister’s five-week suspension of Parliament.
Pannick says he wants to make three main points:
As Day One of the three-day Supreme Court case gets underway, you’ll be hearing these terms a lot over the coming days.
Here’s a quick rundown of what it all means:
Justiciability: Whether the court has the capability or right to make a ruling in a particular case.
Prerogative powers, or the royal prerogative: Powers that can be exercised without the consent of Parliament. By convention, the UK monarch only ever exercises these powers on the advice of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister. The power to suspend parliament is one such prerogative power.
The “divisional” court: Otherwise known as the High Court. Short for the divisional court of the Queen’s bench. Commonly known as the High Court in London.
Inner/Outer House: The two main chambers of the Court of Session – Scotland’s civil court. The Outer House hears civil cases when they first come to court. The Inner House is the appeal court, and is the highest civil court in Scotland.
The Advocate General: Scotland’s senior law officer. Will put the UK government’s case in Scotland. Post is currently held by Lord Keen.
Presiding Judge Lady Hale has opened proceedings in the Supreme Court.
It’s the first time the Supreme Court has been summoned for an emergency hearing outside of legal term time, and only the second time the court has been hosted by this many judges – 11.
The other time was in 2016 when a similar number of judges sat for the Article 50 case.
The only Supreme Court judge not sitting today is Lord Briggs. There are 12 judges here at the UK’s highest court. The reason there are 11 sitting is that the bench must have an odd number to prevent being deadlocked in a draw.
Cases usually only have around five judges sitting. But this is no ordinary case, and the atmosphere inside the court room reflects that – it’s positively charged with lawyers and members of the public and press.
Tuesday is day one of a three-day hearing that joins together three separate appeals from legal challenges in Edinburgh, Belfast and London.
Day One deals with appeals from the Scottish Court of Session, the English High Court and the Northern Irish court.
Eleven judges will hear arguments and decide (though the earliest we could hear a decision will be Thursday). It’s a high number of judges – usually it’s more like five.
But then, this is uncharted territory in terms of constitutional law, and analysts tell CNN that nobody really knows what to expect.
The hearing started at 5:30 a.m. ET (10:30 a.m. local) and day one we’ll be hearing from the appellants in the Scottish and English cases.
You can read the full timetable here
