It within the judgement they have not actully ruled if BJ acted unlawfully as I quoted beforehand: what is actually being ruled on isif they have stymied Parliment from doing its job the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature, but there is nothing to say under different circumstances that parliament cannot be prorogued for that length of time either.
You said: "Looking at the judgement it’s interesting to note that they believe the length of time is being deemed unlawful not that BJ motive was unlawfull
The proroguing of Parliament was ruled unlawful because there was no reasonable justification for it. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/ ... dgment.pdf
61. It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence which has been put before
us, that there was any reason - let alone a good reason - to advise Her Majesty to
prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October.
We cannot speculate, in the absence of further evidence, upon what such reasons
might have been. It follows that the decision was unlawful.
So certainly not saying proroguing for five weeks was unlawful but proroguing for that long with no reasonable justification was. So Boris's motive for the prorogation was illegal.
They didn't rule that Parliament couldn't be prorogued for five weeks, but that reasonable justification was required. Boris and his cronies couldn't provide that. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in Parliament today. If he has an ounce of integrity, he'll resign along with his henchman Rees-Mogg.
Yes I have read the verdict when I posted prior.
Well actually there was justification for it and provided but the panel deemed that the reason and length of time for reason given was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions, throughout the verdict it details the prorogation dates summarises average time for previous parliamentary prorogued and questions the current prorogued time in either days or weeks, so by virtue the defining feature of the verdict is the length of time of prorogation
As there were no Legislative statute or precedents to guide for length of time of prorogation, the court recognised the circumstances for the court action has never taken place, but the side affect this ruling now has becomes the precedent for future Prime Ministers will be governed by when proroguing parliament
It also provides some glaring inconsistencies in how they reached the verdict;
58. The next question is whether there is a reasonable justification for taking action which had such an extreme effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy. Of course, the Government must be accorded a great deal of latitude in making decisions of this nature. We are not concerned with the Prime Minister’s motive in doing what he did. We are concerned with whether there was a reason for him to do it. It will be apparent from the documents quoted earlier that no reason was given for closing down Parliament for five weeks. Everything was focussed on the need for a new Queen’s Speech and the reasons for holding that in the week beginning the 14th October rather than the previous week. But why did that need a prorogation of five weeks?
If you look at the evidence provided by Sir John Major it provides the ground work on what happens behind the scene's and what Lady Hale presented within the verdict actually tallies with what Sir John present, in actual fact by siding with Gina Miller he is also passing judgement on his own use of the executive power where he also prorogued parliament for 20 day in the lead up to the 97 GE in the cash for comment report that was supposed to be presented, talk about a hypocrite
59. The unchallenged evidence of Sir John Major is clear. The work on the Queen’s Speech varies according to the size of the programme. But a typical time is four to six days. Departments bid for the Bills they would like to have in the next session. Government business managers meet to select the Bills to be included, usually after discussion with the Prime Minister, and Cabinet is asked to endorse the decisions. Drafting the speech itself does not take much time once the substance is clear. Sir John’s evidence is that he has never known a Government to need as much as five weeks to put together its legislative agenda.
And the Justification;
This had been the longest session since records began. Because of this, they were at the very end of the legislative programme of the previous administration. Commons and Lords business managers were asking for new Bills to ensure that Parliament was using its time gainfully. But if new Bills were introduced, the session would have to continue for another four to six months, or the Bills would fall at the end of the session.
Choosing when to end the session - ie prorogue - was a balance between “wash up” - completing the Bills which were close to Royal Assent - and “not wasting time that could be used for new measures in a fresh session”. There were very few Bills suitable for “wash-up”, so this pointed to bringing the session to a close in September. Asking for prorogation to commence within the period 9th to 12th September was recommended.
The Cabinet meeting minutes,
20. We also have the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held by conference call at 10.05 am on Wednesday 28th August, after the advice had been given. The Prime Minister explained that it was important that they were “brought up to speed” on the decisions which had been taken. It was also “important to emphasise that this decision to prorogue Parliament for a Queen’s Speech was not driven by Brexit considerations: it was about pursuing an exciting and dynamic legislative programme to take forward the Government’s agenda”. He also explained that the timetable did not conflict with the statutory responsibilities under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 (as it happens, the timetable for Parliamentary sittings laid down in section 3 of that Act requires that Parliament sit on 9th September and, on one interpretation, no later than 14th October). He acknowledged that the new timetable would impact on the sitting days available to pass the Northern Ireland Budget Bill and “potentially put at risk the ability to pass the necessary legislation relating to decision-making powers in a no deal scenario”. In discussion at the Cabinet meeting, among the points made was that “any messaging should emphasise that the plan for a Queen’s Speech was not intended to reduce parliamentary scrutiny or minimise Parliament’s opportunity to make clear its views on Brexit. … Any suggestion that the Government was using this as a tactic to frustrate Parliament should be rebutted.” In conclusion, the Prime Minister said that “there were no plans for an early General Election. This would not be right for the British people: they had faced an awful lot of electoral events in recent years”
As previously talked about at the start of the verdict by Lady Hale & Lord Reed and by the unchallenged submission from Sir John Major it was acknowledged that: " It arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely ever to arise again. It is a “one off”. and has acknowledge the governments agenda to pursue that either come the 31st October we will leave with or without a deal how long it would the judiciary know it takes the government to set out the required legislative agenda to be brought before parliament and Her Majesty speech, the judiciary has injected itself within the prerogative of the executive.
One can infer that from this verdict that any prorogation is unlawful in any situation as it will always interfere with parliaments ability to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive no matter how trivial the piece
Everyone knows the Supreme Court is supposed be to apolitical which doesn't mean they are not human which will and will have there own thoughts on Brexit and appears to be giving Parliament the benefit of the doubt on what action it may or may not have taken during party conferences season