Brexit news latest: Judges reject Gina Miller and Sir John Major's battle to prevent Boris Johnson shutting down Parliament

Katy Clifton6 September 2019
WEST END FINAL

Get our award-winning daily news email featuring exclusive stories, opinion and expert analysis

I would like to be emailed about offers, event and updates from Evening Standard. Read our privacy notice.

A legal challenge brought over Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks has been rejected by leading judges at the High Court in London.

The case was brought forward by anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller and joined by former prime minister Sir John Major after the Queen approved Mr Johnson's request to prorogue Parliament.

Rejecting Mrs Miller's case on Friday, Lord Justice Burnett said: "We have concluded that, whilst we should grant permission to apply for judicial review, the claim must be dismissed."

The judges have granted permission for the case to go the Supreme Court for an appeal, which will be heard on September 17.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the ruling, Mrs Miller said she was “very disappointed with the judgment”.

AFP/Getty Images

“We feel it is absolutely vital that Parliament should be sitting," Mrs Miller added. "We are therefore pleased that the judges have given us permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, which we will be doing, and they feel that our case has the merit to be handed up.

“Today, we stand for everyone. We stand for the future generations and we stand for representative democracy.

"To give up now would be a dereliction of our responsibility. We need to protect our institutions, it is not right that they should be shut down or bullied – especially at this momentous time in our history. My legal team and I will not give up this fight for democracy."

A Number 10 spokeswoman said: “We welcome the court’s decision and we hope that those seeking to use the judiciary to frustrate the Government take note of it and of the Court of Sessions ruling earlier this week and withdraw their cases.”

A legal challenge against the PM's Parliament shutdown has failed
PA

Lord Burnett said the reasons for the court throwing out the legal challenge will be given in writing as soon as possible

Representing Mrs Miller, Lord Pannick QC had argued that Mr Johnson's advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament was an "unlawful abuse of power".

The action was contested by the Prime Minister, whose lawyers argued that the advice given to the Queen was not unlawful and that Ms Miller's claim was in any event "academic".

During the hearing, Lord Pannick told the judges: "The Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament is contrary to constitutional principle and constitutes an abuse of power."

He argued: "There is no justification for closing Parliament in this way and, accordingly, it represents an unjustified undermining of parliamentary sovereignty which is the bedrock of our constitution."

Lord Pannick said the Prime Minister's decision to advise the Queen to suspend Parliament was "extraordinary" - both because of the "exceptional length" of the suspension and because Parliament will be "silenced" during the critical period leading up to the October 31 deadline.

Business owner and anti-Brexit activist Gina Miller
AFP/Getty Images

In submitting that the judges should reject Ms Miller's arguments, Sir James Eadie, on behalf of Mr Johnson, said: "The exercise of this prerogative power is intrinsically one of high policy and politics, not law."

Arguing that the claim was "academic", he pointed out that each House of Parliament will sit before the UK leaves the EU on October 31 "and may consider any matter it chooses".

He told the court: "The prorogation does not prevent Parliament from legislating on any matter it wishes. Parliament is capable of legislating at pace if it chooses to do so."

Anti Brexit campaigner Gina Miller makes a statement outside the Royal Courts of Justice
PA

Legal action was brought by a cross-party group of 75 parliamentarians who argued that the Prime Minister had exceeded his powers.

But Judge Lord Doherty ruled there had been no contravention of the law by the UK government.

He said that the issue of prorogation was for politicians and voters to judge, not the courts.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in

MORE ABOUT