What happened at the supreme court?

Believe it may be next week when a ruling is made, yet we will have no end of it til then.

The judges deserve praise for staying awake during the presentation by Gina's  QC.

But it is very encourage for newcomers to our society.  A grate example. A very fine plaice to settle. No wonder people are streaming to us from across the globe.  When they finnish playing politics it will become a fine country to trade with.

It was live on both BBC News and Sky for most of the two sessions, live stream available direct from the Supreme Court, further streams available from numerous sources that also provided running commentary, yet the OP starts by stating that nothing was available from the media

Tomorrow will be a further two sessions of evidence.

Possible that an initial verdict will be delivered before the end of the week.
Full written summary will not be available until next week some time.

Sica Dan 
The judges deserve praise for staying awake during the presentation by Gina's  QC.


Best QC  in his field by a country mile, think Boris may lose this one.

Lord Jonathon Sumption, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, appeared on Newsnight last night.
Emily Maitlis interviewed him, asking a series of questions on two main topics.

Those topics were the ongoing court cases that were raised to challenge the legality of the proroguing of parliament, and the robustness of the Benn Bill.

Proroguing of Parliament
Q. Would it be odd for you if Scotland and the Supreme court weren’t on the same page?

A. The law is exactly the same in both Scotland and England, there may be a difference of opinion between the Scottish courts and the English courts as to what it is but we’ve had the same parliament and the same monarch for 300 years and there cant be a difference , a different law in Scotland and in England about what the relations between them are.

Q. How do you explain the divergence of outcomes?

A. One of the two courts is wrong.

Q. Which one do you think it is?

A. Well, I’m not going to be dogmatic about this, the situation is too novel.
My own view is the orthodox opinion is the one given by the English courts, but one has to accept that if you behave outrageously and defy the political culture on which our constitution depends , a lot of judges are going to be tempted to push the limits out, and the problem is that Boris Johnson has taken a hammer and sickle to our political culture in a way that is profoundly provocative to people who believe that there ought to be solutions consistent with our traditions.

He went on to say:

The essential issue is whether there are any legal standards by which you can distinguish between good political reasons for proroguing parliament and bad political reasons for proroguing parliament. If it’s all politics, it’s hard to see how the courts can decide between the two without taking an essentially political view. But we are in an extraordinarily unusual situation and undoubtedly government has behaved disgracefully and that is a situation which is going to be very difficult to predict what happens.

Q. So, you would accept then the judiciary does have to become, to a degree, politicised?

A. No, I wouldn’t, I think if they’re wise, they’ll take the same view as the divisional court did in the High Court in England. But if the government loses, in a sense, it will serve them right, but serve you right is not really a very good juridical principle.

Benn Bill
Sumption stated that "It’s  a very tightly drafted act, it’s obviously been professionally drafted and the courts interpret legislation so as to give effect to its obvious purpose unless there is something in the language that makes that absolutely impossible."

Q. Do judges look for loopholes?

A. No, they look for ways of closing loopholes, they look for ways of saying that the purpose of the act is actually achieved.

That would be the likely remedy. However, Lord Keen was unable to answer when asked if Boris would prorogue parliament again. He also introduced precedents where political motive had been used to frustrate the scrutiny of parliament.

and undoubtedly government has behaved disgracefully That one line tears up all the other lines

Lawyers always use precedents Angoose

the hulk angoose

Boris may become Unwell for 8 days  , Doctors Note

how is it a point of law if there is no precedent?

Parliament could have chosen to cancel conference season.

By proroguing on Monday last week, Boris avoided both PMQ”s and an appearance before the liaison committee.
To date, this clear avoidance of scrutiny has not been mentioned.

The evidence submitted from the office of No.10 provides a trail that points to a motive other than the officially stated one.

no idea bap

That is a good defence against the precedent argument...the world has moved on? Angoose

HGS

you mean Parliament would have cancelled conference season; so Bozo got in 1st & did what any PM in his position would have. They've moved enough goal posts with the unbiased Bercow & then cry when a move is made to scupper him, & slither to the courts

a severe lack of police presence was noticeably evident. I wonder how many Euros that mob cost? Probably a lot less than than Bray & his rent-a-mob

The judges must decide whether the advice Boris gave to the Queen about prorogation was lawful