Case challenging Prime Minister borussia else in suspension of parliament and whether his advice to the queen to do so was justifiable. Critics claim the Prime Minister did this to avoid opposition to his brexit plan. The British Parliament is scheduled to return on october 14, roughly two weeks before the deadline for the u. K. To leave the European Union. Milady, milord. Issue was nonjustifiable because of what was political. It was political for two reasons. One was that it trespassed on the proper province of the executive and the other was the lack of judicial or manageable standard. Be charm. T could i paraphrase, of course, from case. Inion in another much reference has been made to constitutional principle. Constitutional principle may embrace legal rules, but it may also embrace convention. Convention that is not amenable to enforcement in a court of law , and an example of that was reference tor 1 in the convention which was expressed in reform but nevertheless remained the convention after that event. Proceed receive under the heading of constitutional principle, there has to be an element of legal , and if you take the example that was cited in the unison case, one could clearly identify that the legal right of access to justice, and therefore rely upon that in order to determine the declaration of a right and the enforcement of a right. Here, we have reference to what is termed parliamentary accountability. What legal content does that concept actually embrace . Practicalt from its and factual content . Ultimately, what this court is being invited to do is to control the length of the pro edition of parliament, as exercised under the prerogative. Length of the session of parliament and the frequency between sessions is regulated by constitutional convention, not by the law. Of course, that was not always the case, because very early on, thatament enacted an act notrmine parliament could be furloughed within 50 days of it being summoned. In that triannual active 1664, that prohibition was repealed, expressly on the basis that it was in delegation of the exercise of the prerogative of which we are concerned. Since then, parliament has not sought to legislate generally in respect of prorogation. Overg had an opportunity more than 300 years to do so. Of course, it has legislated in order to determine that in certain locations at certain oroged it should not be pr but should be recalled. The most recent example was Section Three of the Northern Ireland executive formation. Efforts tobeen oftinguish the exercise dissolution from that of prorogation. Dissolution has been repeatedly identified as forbidden territory further court. It is not justifiable. Distinctions that have been drawn between that and apparenton become more than they are actually real. In respect of dissolution, of , it cannotparliament be recalled, and there will ultimately be an election. Following that election, of by the it is provided act of 1694 that parliament might not be summoned for a period of up to three years. Fromin the period dissolution to election, and i will commend in the moment to look at that, the the executive would remain in place and would remain in place during the period when parliament had not been summoned following an election. Of course, we now have a decision by parliament to regulate a solution dissolution by primary legislation, the fixed Term Parliament act. Under the terms of that act, and the periods are quite betweenive, the period dissolution and an election must or 35working days calendar days. During which time the executive will clearly not be accountable to parliament. Executivel be for the , in their exercise of prerogative powers to determine when parliament will actually be summoned. Prorogation, it is that political purposes may very well prevail over any formal purpose or requirement for prorogation of parliament. We see many instances of that over the years. Prorogation,ent of Parliament Takes exception to that course of action, it has a very clear route to adopt. It may, following the prorogation to which it took exception, or in anticipation of the prorogation which has not begun, because that would be the instant case, at the beginning of september of this year, move a motion of no confidence in the executive. And such a motion, if moved by the leader of the opposition, would be heard. If it has notice, as it did have, that it was to be prorog ued for a period it took exception to or a time that it took exception, it was perfectly free to move a vote of noconfidence. This it would concede that not to its political advantage . That is the point i am coming to. I keep anticipating your question. Forgive me. That is precisely the point. It is then a determination of political advantage as to whether or not such a motion is made, and indeed the same can be said about the ability of parliament to move a motion in terms of the fixed Term Parliament act, such a motion was of course moved in anticipation of prorogation, but the opposition chose to abstain. Again, an entirely political act. They did not wish to go to the country. They did not wish to go to the people. We have heard the suggestion that dissolution is different because the executive is answerable to the people. By way of prorogation, again, the executive may very well be answerable to the people if Parliament Takes exception to the prorogation that has been proposed. I respectfully suggest that the attempt to draw some distinction ofween the justify ability the dissolution of parliament, which of course prior to the Parliament Act would be determined as a political act essentially, and that of the exercise of the prerogative of prorogation, is simply not worthy of any detailed examination. The results may very well be the same. The Political Considerations of all sides of parliament are bound to be very similar, and the act of the executive can always has always been the subject of scrutiny ultimately by the people in the form of a motion. Should parliament choose to adopt that route, they may decide that it is not politically convenient to them to achieve that consequence. So that is where we stand so far as the issue of justify ability is concerned, whether it be dissolution or whether it be the prerogative of prorogation. This is for bid and territory. Forbidden territory. It should be between parliament. Parliament takes exception. They have the tools available to address the matter. Employ theseot to tools and that is a political matter, and it is entirely up to them. I will just add this one further point. How, in the context of that political minefield, is the court to opine on the issue of purpose or improper purpose or legitimate political purpose or illegitimate political purpose . How are these concepts to be defined and applied in this context . The applicants and the petitioners are inviting the court into for bid and territory , and into what is essentially a minefield, and illdefined minefield an illdefined minefield. The courts are not properly equipped to deal with this. I turn from there to some of the particulars of the appeal in the the case at hand. The first point i wish to make is simply this. It may have been noted by the court already. In his submissions, the Prime Minister new and made no attempt whatsoever to respond to criticisms that i have made of the reasoning of the inner house or indeed, to defend a particular and inconsistent approach taken by the inner house, in the determination of that case. ,n my submission, the reasoning the reasons i set out before, is unsustainable and it must follow the the issues in that case are for this court to determine. Which they may do properly by reference to the documents. I should also note, the suggestion from mr. Oneill that a concession was made in the inner house about justify tifiability. I have spoke with mr. Webster and lookednston, and i have at mr. Websters notes. They do not consider any sick concession was made, but if it was, it is hereby withdrawn. If i can make that clear with the permission of the court. Thank you for that clarification. We will proceed on the basis that if something is starkly obvious, a concession is not required and if it is not starkly obvious, a concession is not appropriate. They suggest that if a concession was made as to the justifiability, i take exception to that but if primary parliament by primary legislation sought in any way to determine when or whether the prerogative of prorogation should be exercised by the executive, then of course, this court is entitled to interpret and apply that primary legislation. But i suggest that is no doorway into the general issue of justice ability in the power of prorogation. Point, seek to put that made by sir james, into proper context. To the issuesy that arise if this court now has in hand the appeal itself, i simply urge this court to do as lord reed suggested yesterday, and that is to consider fairly and as a whole the documentation , the contemporaneous documentation, the authentic contemporaneous documentation that has been produced in this case. Im not going to go back to the comments i made about affidavits in the context of the process. I simply noticed that the president was certainly satisfied that the affidavit was not the circumstances required and that is consistent with lord walker, where he felt that the documents spoke for themselves, and it wouldnt be required. The language of the document is important. That the letter from mr. Oneill used discourteous and indeed inendiary language describing ministers, advisors, and civil servants. That language is wholly unwarranted and it does reveal an error in his approach. If you approach the documents with a preconceived belief and mindset that they are a sham, then of course, that will leave a particularou to conclusion with regard to the construction of some passages in those documents. If, on the other hand, as i would submit, to read them fairly and with an open mind, and they are obviously authentic documents, and you realize that they are considered advice to a formal minister for cabinet meeting, i see a different picture appearing. I simply commend that approach, that interpretation to the court. There was a complaint, of course, that somehow, prorogation prevents accountability. It is a fact that for a period, prorogation will affect accountability in parliament. But it doesnt prevent accountability beyond parliament, where again, the executive will be questioned and held to account further by the public, media, or during a Conference Season at each of those conferences, no doubt. But prorogation no more intrudes accountabilityf than what then would dissolution. Even underpoint that the fixed Term Parliament act, there will be no accountability of the executive of Parliament Days afterd of 35 dissolution and nothing can be done then because parliament couldnt be recalled. There are a series of mechanisms that may be employed for that purpose, and according to particular circumstances. If one was to fall back on the comparison to dissolution, i would suggest that in fact, prorogation is so clearly a matter that is political in nature that it falls within the forbidden territory. And number of questions were raised, including one from lord sayle, about control. In a sense, the same arises with regard to dissolution. If there is dissolution and the government goes to the country and it is reelected, it may be held accountable the grounds upon which it sought to dissolve for political purposes at a particular time. There is no greater or lesser degree of control. Of course, the ultimate political control, whether it be dissolution or prorogation, is the ability of parliament to express no confidence in the government. And the ability to take the Government Back to the country. When looking at all of this, we mustnt forget that one of the primary aims of the opposition in parliament is to replace the government. They are not just there to hold them to account area they are there to replace them. Has as the government political imperative to pursue its own policies, so the opposition has a political imperative to seek to pursue their policies. That is all part of the political ground that the court should not be. Ofpassing, towards the end the submissions, the letter from mr. Oneill asserted the United Kingdom could not leave the European Union without a deal a must that was authorized by firmer further primary legislation. That was apparently because departure would impact upon individual rights. I dont want to dwell on this point. It arose in the inner house but not before the outer house. Our argument in the inner house address this in paragraph 6670. I should add that mr. Oneills case was directly rejected by paragraph 110 of the opinion. A relevantcted as challenge to prorogation in paragraph 71. Rejected thedent prorogation could have any effect on individual rates, that individual9 rights, that is paragraph 59. Admissions we learned from mr. Oneill do not take where he would wish to be and the appeal should be sustained on the unchallenged grounds that i sought to advance in the opening before the court. The court will be aware if we produce more notes, it is appropriate i should make couldnce to these, if i [indiscernible] with the effect of the notes on prorogation to the legislation. There was some discussion of this yesterday and we have addressed the fact on a legal position in the notes we produced this morning. In short, the government is and has for a considerable time and shared that the statute is for exit from the eu and has taken extensive steps to achieve that result. Most of that work was done earlier in the year in anticipation of an exit on march 29. Further Statutory Instruments are required to address changes in eu law since march. Technicallargely of a nature. The 2018 act advises of an urgent process, and in the small number of instances where such things need to be in place for exit, they can and will be in place. Should be debated within 28 days. The government will consider if there is an opportunity to debate all of these before october 31, and it wont be a case of addressing a debate on these instruments after that date. Thisk to reassure them on point. In these circumstances, we expect there will be there wille requiredeal with all primary legislation. In that context, i should stress that some of the brexitrelated primary legislation that has by the dlp, are not an exit date. We seek to give explanation for that. There are issues that will be addressed after 31st october. Requirednot actually on the day itself. There is some element of confusion in the minds of some about what bills were being referred to. In paragraph three of our note, we say in paragraph five of the second witness statement, the public law project suggests all havet related bills fallen, that is not correct. With fiveem passed remaining. I should add with fairness, if you go back to paragraph 37, he to totality. There i think there has been a misunderstanding on that point. On the subjecter of a further note is the matter of relief. We have thought to explore why this might be more complicated than it first appeared. What i would observe is this. While we go in detail through these matters and we do maintain very strongly that the prorogation of parliament did take effect understanding the complaints made by the applicants and that parliaments prorobes in that the impugned,n cannot be standard article nine of the bill of rights, there is course for the court to make a declaration if it comes to the the advice was unlawful. That is all that would be required in the context of this case. Declaration a would be essential for parliament and the executive in particular to decide how to respond to that. Considering the reasons that may be given by the court if it comes to that determination. Is your position that if such a declaration were made, the order in council, the prorogation affected by missioners would remain would be legally effective . Lord keen yes. It be that it would be for parliament to respond . Parliament would not be there. It would be for the executive to respond. Act, e 1794 it seems very strange article nine would protect parliament against the executive and the crown, but then have the lord keen i do not accept the proposition. It appears to me the question he has given six reasons why it must be the case. Article nine. N why should one start at the other end and see whether they were properly charged . On the other side, the answer is they were not. Lord keen ultimately that would mean impugning the proceedings of parliament have taken place. The consequence would be farreaching. First of all, we see the hasring counsel itself leaked the proceedings. More particularly, the declaration by the commissioner, prorogued parliament. Secured by some means that was not appropriate, it may be thegned on the basis of advice that was given was unlawful, but the sovereign made that decision on the advice of the Prime Minister. The declaration of the proceeding in parliament. If the advice given to her majesty the queen was unlawful, the relay of instructions to the commissioners was also unlawful. Lord commissioners may be entirely really entirely unfair. Unaware. I appreciate that. They could only act on instruction from her majesty, the queen. If the advice she has been given is unlawful, the instruction she under thehem to act great seal or otherwise seems to me to be unlawful, is it not . Let me respond in this way. Yes, her majesty, having received the advice of her minister had entered parliament and prorogued it. Prorogation would be amenable to challenge in this court. The circumstance is she wish, letsiased say for the sake of discussion. It is nothing to do with the queen, of course. She is performing her constitutional function. Goes it was based on unlawful advice. At the stage before he gets near parliament, there would be an attack. Is that right . The attack which was made in these applications does not go beyond. Cracks if the advice was unlawful, would it not follow the counsel was liable to be crossed the echo to be quashed . It is incidental to the proceedings in parliament. Is that pushing the cart before the horse . Lord keen we should start by recognizing that the prorogation falls within article nine of the bill of rights. Mi right in understanding no undertaking is being offered . Indicated to the court in opening that the Prime Minister would take all necessary steps to address any decision of the court that determined the advice was unlawful. Somethingunds like the articles are saying. Lord keen exactly so. It is not for the executive to give undertakings. The executive does obey the law. The courts tell us what the law is. Clear, are you saying the word impeached in article nine covers a case where the consequence those from an order of the court . Im saying the proceedings themselves are protected. By article nine. So they would not have consequence. Unless there are further matters you wish to raise, having adopted these additional notes, i would rest my permission. Thank you very much. I suspect mr. Oneill may be correct saying this case is unique having three members of the house of lords addressing it. Advantage that is an but perhaps appreciative. Ladies and lords, i gratefully adopt the submission this morning from the lord advocat. The court has received comprehensive oral and written submissions over the last three days. I therefore wish in my reply to emphasize what we say with the central areas in the arguments advanced by my friends lord keen and sir james. May i Say Something about the facts and then the law, and then can i address the remedy as my friend lord keen dead . On the facts, we see the central issue is, why was it appropriate to prorogue for five weeks . Longer, as the court knows, than any occasion in the past 40 years. Lord keens response when this question was put to him was that prorogation was not in substance for five weeks because three weeks of the period would have involved the recess of parliament for the Conference Season. Therefore the prorogation is for seven, he said, working days of parliament. Our response is that does not explain, far less justify, Closing Parliament for five of the seven and a half weeks prior to the 31st of october. Having regard of course to the adverse effects on the ability of Parliament Performance scrutiny functions at this critical time. Why do i say that . Keen bothes and lord parliament, not the executive, which decides whether for thea recess conference period. Parliament may or may not have decided to have a three week recess this year. The 31st of october is fast approaching. The Prime Ministers decision took that matter out of the hands of parliament. Secondly, even if there was a conference recess this year decided upon by parliament, parliament would still, during those three weeks, have been in therefore, written parliamentary questions could have been asked and would have needed to be answered. Parliamentary committees could report. And would report. The court knows it has been a regular feature of the past few months, at least the last few months. Parliamentary committees have been have reported urgently on all aspects of the brexit process. Degree ofnt parliamentary scrutiny would still have been available. Prevented anyon parliamentary scrutiny for that period. Keen isd answer to lord by ladyt put to him black. Your lordship in your leadership asked lord keen to explain why there was any need for a prorogation prior to the seventh of october or thereabouts. What was the reason . There was in my submission no answer to that central question. Prior to which date . Lord pannick the seventh. A week or so. Not precisely, but the seventh of october. If i understood correctly by him my lord and by my lady. I say there was no coherent answer to that question. The documents in which lord keen relies in relation to this matter include, let us not forget, the note dated the 16th primeust in the ministers own handwriting. Yesterday by my friend mr. Oneill and i dont asked the court to go back, but it is in the bundle, tap 39 tab 39. It is the one where the Prime Minister says the whole september session, these are her his words, is no more than a mpsarole to show the public earn their trust. To happy for the courts follow lord keens approach he articulated a few moments ago. Read this document fairly and with an open mind. There is no need to adopt any. Ncendiary language the document speaks for itself. What does it show . It shows the Prime Ministers failure to understand that parliament has the sovereign body will wish to ask questions of the executive. Possibly enact more legislation. Do soish to do show during the september weeks concerning the negotiations with our European Partners and the planning for no deal. Asked by myi was lady about the bills that were lost because of the prorogation on the ninth of september. The court now has the answer, detailed answer to that question. There is no dispute. The Government Note except that a number of important bills have been lost. They include the courts and tribunals online procedural. Tirelesslyorked through the house of lords. One of many bills that had been lost. Sir james points out, indias and height, it is is absolutely right, it is inherent in prorogation, but my question asthe important because it provides a further answer for the Prime Ministers suggestion in his handwritten notes that i mentioned a few moments ago that parliament has got no business to transact during this period. What is the fuss about . The bills, some of them very important bills, that were being ,ebated, going through stages both the house of lords and the , demonstrateons the error in the Prime Ministers analysis. Our factual submission made in opening that this fiveweek prorogation has prevented parliament from carrying out its scrutiny functions over the executive. For a period of exceptional length, longer than any prorogation in the past 40 years, for no rational reason and at a time when the constitutional principle of the executive being answerable to parliament is of vital importance. Conflicts, with the constitutional law principle that the executive is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is enough for our case to apply as the Deputy President put it to me, the principle that a minister can be shown to have exerciseawfully in the of discretionary power because of the effect of the decision. My friend mr. Fordham was absolutely right this morning to emphasize that my lord the Deputy President s judgment in the unison case is based again on impact, not based on there being any need for a malign motive. On i add if necessary, and my case, it is not necessary, i would go further if necessary and invite the court to draw the inference that the length of the prorogation was motivated, or at least strongly influenced, by the Prime Ministers wish to prevent scrutiny by parliament because he regarded parliament as a threat to the successful implementation of his policies. Fore is no rational reason a fiveweek prorogation, giving the Prime Minister for his possible margin of discretion. If that is right, the court is entitled to draw an inference that there was an improper reason. I remind the court that in opening, i referred to two interviews given by the Prime Minister himself on the 30th of august. Bundle tabs 54l and 55. A bbc interview and a sky news interview. The Prime Minister himself stated that parliament was a threat to the implementation of his policies. Neither of my friends, lord keen, lord sir james, addressed that evidence. The documents on which the government relies our of limited assistance to the court. Because there is no witness statement telling the court they for an the only reasons fiveweek prorogation. May i turn to the law . The argument advanced by my friends has two main labs. Limbs. They see the issues are not just civil, and second, they dispute there is any relevant principle of constitutional law. Points go that those together. Is as we submit, there relevant principle of that is theal law, supremacy of parliament in the inferior status of the executive and its accountability, it is a question of par for the course whether in the light of that principle this decision is outside the proper scope of the legal power to advise on prorogation. James accepted and properly said in answer that it is for the court to decide the proper to of a prorogue prorogative power. We maintain the submission that parliamentary supremacy is a principle of our law. It is as fundamental as the rule of law and access to justice. It is not a mere convention. Jamesnot confined, as sir submitted, to an obligation on the executive and the courts to comply with enacted statutes. Consequence, an important consequence of parliamentary sovereignty. Another feature of the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty is that the executive is answerable to parliament. Say,erefore follows, we that the executive, the junior partner, cannot claim the legally unfettered power to close down the senior partner for as long as the executive likes. ,or whatever reason it likes and however substantial the damage to the ability of parliament before its scrutiny functions. Said for then court to intervene would breach the principle of the separation of powers. Our answer is that the court is being asked to intervene in order to uphold the separation of powers. That is, to ensure that the executive cannot, by its own acts, escape from scrutiny by parliament. Says there are no. Udicially manageable stance he points out directly that any prorogation involves a limitation of parliamentary sovereignty. He asks, how many days of prorogation is lawful . What reasons may justify prorogation . Courtswer is that the will in this case carry out precisely the function it performs in other public law cases. Applies the relevant legal principles here of the supremacy of parliament and the answerability of the executive to the circumstances of the case. Looks at the length of the prorogation. It looks at the reasons given. It looks at the adverse impact on parliamentary scrutiny. It looks at any inferences the court thinks it appropriate to draw. Having done all that, the court asks itself whether in light of all those circumstances, i except a generous margin of discretion in favor of the Prime Minister. Whether his decision, his advice, is beyond the proper scope of his powers. This is standard business in judicial review, in all other context. Was this reasonably necessary to further illegitimate objective conferring a broad margin of discretion . Say with Great Respect it is not the function of the courts to identify all the circumstances in which prorogation would be lawful. The court does not need to standard,right line for allithm circumstances. The fees charged by the lord chancellor for those wishing to bring proceedings in the employment tribunal were unlawful and they were unlawful impactsof the adverse on the constitutional principle of access to justice and they were unlawful, even though it would be lawful for the lord chancellor to charge some fees. The court was not identified. How could it . Where the divining law the dividing line would fall. Sir james then referred to various acts of parliament including the recent Northern Ireland. I say, none of them assists in this exercise because none of them can be said to involve a parliamentary intention to remove the obligation on the executive. Powers in acise its manner lawful under the relevant principles. Finally, sir james relied on the fact that the authorities have suggested the power to dissolve parliament is unreviewable. I respectfully agree with what the lord advocat submitted this morning. This serves a vital constitutional function in ensuring democratic accountability. Factor prior to the abolition of this prorogative power. It was unreviewable because it was a personal prerogative of the crown. The miller authorities volume five, tab 81. The relevant passage starts page 85 and continues to address this question pages 79 to 80. The lord asked sir james whether it was his submission that her majesty does enjoy a personal prerogative in relation to prorogation of parliament. Ir james is very clear he said, i am not making any such submission. That answer, the court will recall, is sick is consistent with what happened in this case. I showed the radio interview with the council. We did not make any positive submission to that effect. I am not making any such submission. Argument is to the contrary. I say it is entirely understandable why sir james did not make a positive submission that her majesty does enjoy a personal prerogative in relation to prorogation. The reason, i respectfully submit, is that given an argument by my lord, it would be in aundly unsatisfactory constitutional democracy governed five the rule of law court rule of law if the ruled there do not need to be legal controls because any abuse can be addressed by her majesty. That would place her majesty in a quite impossible position. Seek is a we declaration that the Prime Ministers advice to her majesty was unlawful. We would respectfully ask the court, if it is in our favor, to make such a declaration as soon as possible. No doubt for reasons to follow. As soon as possible, because time is of the essence. Accept the argument advanced by my friend lord keene that article nine of the bill of rights immunizes the order in council or any action that was taken in reliance upon it. That is because the order in council was based, if our submissions are correct, unlawful advice. The order in council is not a proceeding in parliament. It precedes the proceedings in parliament. Therefore, if necessary, we would argue the court is able to give further relief. Inever, we would expect light of a declaration that the Prime Minister will ensure Parliament Resumes as soon as possible next week. The appropriate way forward is for these matters in the light of declaration to be minister,by the prime politicians, and by the parliamentary authorities. Investment is necessary to do so. This court will understandably be reluctant to grant further relief. The court understandably would stepsious not to take any that may be seen as trespassing on the exclusive right up by the houses of parliament to ofermine the regularity their own internal proceedings. Pagete from lord simon at 799. Have ament needs to in your scenario, it needs to have the opportunity. To meet thed soonest possible to decide what its going to do next. Emphasize while we are seeking only a declaration, it is an important declaration. We would ask the court to give an indication if the court thinks it is appropriate. For parliament urgently to meet so that parliament can decide what happens next. Bills seem to be lost. In my submission, parliament would have power to do what it thinks appropriate in this most unusual situation. Were it to decide that by reason basedrogation having been on unlawful advice, from the ,rime minister to her majesty it would then in the view of parliament to be appropriate to treat the prorogation in parliamentary terms as null and void. That decision could not be challenged in the courts because that decision would undoubtedly was aecision that decision concerning the regularity of their own internal proceedings. The appropriate way forward in this unusual and difficult circumstance is to let parliament sort out the problem. If, first, theso court grants a declaration that the advice was unlawful and if the court with Great Respect thinks it is appropriate, encourages the Prime Minister to ensure parliament meets as soon as possible next week. Does the Prime Minister have to do anything . It may be the speaker of the house of commons and the lord speaker in the house of lords, if this court were to declare speedily that the advice was unlawful, this court is not going to give any further remedy , that the lord speaker and the speaker of the house of commons will take action to ensure parliament reopens as soon as possible. Then parliament can debate, parliament will decide exactly how it wishes to proceed. That is the appropriate way forward. I respectfully submit to become involved in those matters unless it really has to. The court understands. Declaration of advice is given, it does not require intervention by the Prime Minister. That would be some my submission. It would be a matter for the speaker of the house of commons to decide how best now to proceed. They would know. In that contingency, they would know that the Supreme Court had ruled that the Prime Ministers advice, which led to the prorogation, was unlawful. They would know if the court were prepared so to indicate that the basis of that declaration was that the court that theview parliamentary scrutiny was required for legal reasons, and no doubt politicians and others would be asking the speaker of the house of commons and the lord speaker to reassemble parliament so that parliament can decide, as soon as possible, next week, how they think how parliament thinks it best to proceed. This court would have done its job and it would then be back to parliament. All they could stand in the way of that would be if the Prime Minister, i very much hope this is unrealistic, that the prime indications,s of says im some point not going to take action in those circumstances, we would submit it would be open to the speaker of each house to reassemble parliament. Thejust wondering possibility this might lead to a further constitutional clash. Keanescation of lord submissions, even if this wished to declare the advice was unlawful, parliament would nevertheless stand prorogue. Because of prorogation, which is nonetheless executive. Following that logic, parliament could not meet again unless there is a proclamation to be made under the 1797 act, which would have to be initiated by the Prime Minister. If the court gave a declaration, even if the court is im suggesting gave further remedy, it would be implicit in that. Advicellowed from the was infected by the illegality and lawful nature of the advice. Appropriate, called appropriate by the lord speaker in the speaker of the house of commons to reassemble, there could be no legal challenge. Parliament would be deciding how best to proceed. There would be no legal challenge to any decision that as made by parliament itself to what to do next. Thats my submission. People dont need to have a clearer view, whatever the outcome, were everyone is left . Appeal, it isour going to be a very important, not least because of the time constraints. Clear who wasy the person from whom further steps are required. Is the Prime Minister if parliament is prorogue, or the speakers, which if parliament they seem togue, know more clearly than you are indicating. Our concern is that time is passing. If this court is going to make the ruling on these questions, it will inevitably, we fear, take this court longer than if this court simply decides to declare illegality. Just make an assumption that whatever this court thinks the answer in substances to these proceedings, the court will produce as soon as it humanly can. Make that assumption. I am very grateful. I have made my submissions. It is selfevidently a matter for the courts, how it thinks it best appropriate to proceed. My submission is governed not just by questions of time. It is also governed by the Standard Approach when we come to remedies. Only does what it needs to do. It does not do more than it needs to do. Helpful. Probably would be helpful for the court to say as much as it speedily as possible. Clarity is important so everyone knows where they stand. Im trying to think of the point my lord is making. If the advice is unlawful, has there nevertheless been a prorogation . Court not adjusting the docs it. I am politelys adjusting to the court that it does as much as it can as quickly as it can if it is with us on the merits. Thatanger, the concern is it takes a lot longer to resolve that question than simply to give a declaration and an indication that time is passing. We have already lost, effectively, two weeks of the five weeks. Is unlawful,ice any action taken through it cannot be valid. It is my submission. Order inis an proceedings to the effect that prorogation is of no effect. We are being asked by lord to report. Ord keen i am anticipating the court is going to give an answer as soon as possible, as soon as humanly possible. It is going to give a recent decision reasoned decision. Make no assumption whatsoever. [laughter] i make no assumption. We are asking the court to do whatever it thinks is appropriate in the circumstances. I have made my submissions. I take my lord the Deputy President s point. You. May have misunderstood does that extend only to the advice . We have asked for only for a advice ofn that the the Prime Minister was unlawful. As it is put to me, it is inevitable, a consequence of a conclusion to that effect that the order in council was also unlawful if article nine cannot protect proceeding in parliament. That is how i put it. A two state solution. What you are so jesting might s so jesting uggesting, it is the court that parliaments prerogative. Court werent giving no ication, that is what i was submitting to the court when i started this submission of remedy, that the appropriate way forward may be for the court to give declaration on the merit to give an indication what we think now want to happen over to necessary ut if the court would have to deal with a thorny constitution question, or whether further relief is appropriate. That may be unnecessary. It may be in the light of a declaration and indication, this can be resolved in parliament. Im sure mr. Oneill would say he is asking us to uphold the interlocutor of the house. I am reminded, president paragraph 17, the note the Prime Minister and the advocate general for scotland presented to the court this morning paragraph 17. It does say the court may find it would be unlawful for parliament to remain prorogue for any further period. The meeting of parliament in 1797 is the only option lawfully opens the Prime Minister in that event a declaration is sufficient on the basis the Prime Minister would comply with the terms of a judgment having that effect. As i understand it, if the court were to indicate that that is the only option open to the Prime Minister, the meaning of parliament provides the answer. Then all the bills would have fallen. Subject to parliaments deciding that in these exceptional circumstances, a different approach ought to be taken. Decide whatave to the answer is. We will have to decide one way or another. What the consequences of that none of this is easy. No, i dont suggested is, and that may be why this addition of my lady which is what i was grappling toward when i was opening the suggestions may be the best forward. In stages. That is a matter of course for the court. Limited declaration in the meantime would apply. Then indication of what court hopes and suspects will happen next. If it does not happen, the court will need to grapple with the question of whether to grant further relief, which we hope will not be necessary. Submissions. The unless i can seek to assist the court further. Thank you thank you very much. And thank you to everyone who has been involved in the preparation and presentation of these cases. A great deal of work has gone on behind the scenes to ensure a large number of documents, the relevant materials, the authorities, could be made available to us in an organized form under a very short time. We appreciate that. We are grateful to the council who have addressed us for that largelyon and for keeping to the timetable the court has set. Recognize the demands placed on court staff and everyone else involved. I must repeat, this case is not terms the and on what United Kingdom leaves the European Union. The result of this case was not determined. We are solely concerned with the lawfulness of the Prime Ministers decision to advise her majesty to Prorogue Parliament on the days in question. It is not a simple question. We will now consider carefully all the arguments which have been presented to us. We also know this case must be resolved as quickly as possible and we hope to be able to publish our decision early next week. All. You, again, one and the court is now adjourned. Announcer cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning, a discussion on whistleblower law, applied to the telogens community, with the National Whistleblower center. And the California Democratic congressman ro khanna shares the latest on President Trumps call with the ukrainian president , and the subsequent dni whistleblower complaint. We will also talk about travis weber, director of the Family Research Counter Center for religious liberty. Watch cspans washington journal, live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern this morning. Join the discussion. Announcer live tuesday on the cspan networks, President Trump makes remarks at the United Nations General Assembly in new york city. Our coverage begins at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. At noon eastern, the u. S. Health returns for general speeches. Up2 00 p. M. , the house takes several bills looking at humanitarian aid. A. M. , the at 10 00 u. S. Senate continues debate on executive nominations. The House Oversight subcommittee examines the outbreak of lung disease among ecigarette users, with testimony from a senior cdc official. Thats at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. Ater at 2 30 a. M. Eastern, Senate Foreign relations subcommittee looks at u. S. Policy toward syria. Announcer campaign 2020. Watch our live coverage of the president ial candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. 2020, yourmpaign unfiltered view of politics. Announcer democratic president ial candidate and mayor of south bend, indiana, food held a townieg, hall in wester city, iowa. Its about an hour. [laughter] [applause]
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.