A p pa re ntly apparently this is a problem within the Supreme Court although this is no consolation to you. Apparently it is related to the rain, would you believe . i think potentially unless you are inside the Supreme Court at the moment no one is able to hear what the baroness is saying. 15th of august, nikki da costa, director of legislative affairs at number 10 downing street sent a memorandum to the downing street copied seven people, Civil Servants and special advisers. Recommending that his parliamentary private secretary approached the palace with a request for prorogation to begin within ninth 12th a request for prorogation to begin within ninth 12th september and for a queens speech on the 14th of 0ctober. For a queens speech on the 14th of october. The Prime Minister take to that recommendation. 0n october. The Prime Minister take to that recommendation. On 27th or 28th of august, in a telephone call, he formally advised her majesty to pirogue parliament between those dates. 0n pirogue parliament between those dates. On 28th of august, mrjacob rees mogg leader of the house of commons and lord president of the privy council, mr mark harper, chief whip, and the baroness evans of bos park, leader of the house of lords, attended a meeting of the privy council and the queen at balmoral castle. An order in council was made that parliament be prorogued between those states and the lord chancellor prepare a commission for probing parliament accordingly. A Cabinet Meeting was held by Conference Call in order to bring the rest of the cabinet up to speed end quote on the decisions taken. That same day the decisions taken. That same day the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all members of parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced as miller began the english proceedings challenging its lawfulness. Parliament returned from the summer lawfulness. Parliament returned from the summer recess on lawfulness. Parliament returned from the summer recess on the 3rd of september, the house of commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact, the next day what became the European Union withdrawal two act passed all its stages in the commons. It passed all its stages in the house of lords on the 6th of september and received royal assent on the 9th of september. The object of that act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement on the 31st of 0ctober. 0n the 11th of september the high court of england and wales delivered judgment dismissing mrs millers claim on the ground that theissue millers claim on the ground that the issue was notjust visible in the issue was notjust visible in the court of law, that same day the inner house in the court of session in scotland announced that the issue was just visible the improper purpose of stymieing parliament and scrutiny of the government and that it and scrutiny of the government and that itand any scrutiny of the government and that it and any prorogation which followed it were unlawful and this void and of no effect. Mrs miller s appeal against the english decision and the advocate general to appeal against the scotus decision were heard by this court from 17th 19th september. Because of the importance of the case we convened a panel of 11 justices, the maximum number of serving justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister is advised to her majesty is justiciable. This court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the government for centuries. As long ago as 1611 the court held that and i quote the king who was then the government hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him end quote. However, in considering prerogative powers it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions, the first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so, its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power within its limits is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about. Some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the extent and limits of a prerogative power, all the parties to this case accept that. This court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise her majesty to prorogued parliament. The second question is therefore what are the limits of that power. Two fundamental principles of the constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is parliamentary sovereignty. That parliament can make laws which eve ryo ne parliament can make laws which everyone must obey. This would be undermined if the executive court through the use of the prerogative, prevent parliament from exercising its powers to make love for as long as it the executive pleased. Make law. The second is parliamentary accountability, in the words of lord bingham, law senior lord, and i quote, the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to parliament lies at the heart of westminster democracy. End quote. The power to pirogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict. For present purposes relevant limit on the power to termite three as this, the decision to prorogue or advise them ona decision to prorogue or advise them on a two prorogue would be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing without reasonable justification the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. Injudging responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward , justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution. If the prorogation has that effect without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister s motive or purpose was unlawful. The third question therefore is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Its constitutional functions without reasonablejustification. This its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run up toa not a normal prorogation in the run up to a queens speech, it prevented parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit today on the 31st of 0ctober. Perrot King Parliament is quite different from Parliament Going into recess. While parliament is prorogued, neither house can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither house can debate government policy zero may members ask written or oral questions of ministers ought meet and take evidence in committees. In general, bills which have not yet completed all their stages are have not yet completed all their stages a re lost have not yet completed all their stages are lost and would have to start again from scratch after the queens speech. During a recess on the other hand, there has does not sit but Parliamentary Business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances. The fundamental change which was due to ta ke the fundamental change which was due to take place in the constitution of the United Kingdom on the 31st of 0ctober. Parliament, and in particular the house of commons, as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. Now justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken as the memorandum from nikki da costa on the 15th of august. This explains why holding the queens speech to open a new session of parliament on the 14th of october it would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary Business to a halt for five weeks before that. When the normal period necessary to prepare for a queens speech is 4 6 days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess, it does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union with or without a Withdrawal Agreement on the 31st of 0ctober. It does not discuss what parliamentary time would be needed to secure parliamentary approval for any new Withdrawal Agreement as required by section 13 of the European Union withdrawal act 2018. The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise her majesty to prorogued parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is. And therefore what remedies the court should grant, the court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The inner house went further. And declared that any prorogation resulting from it was novel and of no effect. The government argues that the inner house could not do that because the prorogation was a quote proceeding in Parliament End quote which under the bill of rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in parliament. It takes place in the house of lords chamber, in the presence of members of both houses but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote, it is not the core or essential business of parliament which the bill of rights protects, quite the reverse. It brings that co re quite the reverse. It brings that core or its Central Business to an end. This court has already concluded that the Prime Minister s advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the order in council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the royal commissioners walked into the house of lords it was as if they had walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. It is for parliament and in particular the speaker and the lord speaker, to decide what to do next. Unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister but if it is, the court is pleased that his council had told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court. It follows that the advocate general s appeal in the case of chair is dismissed and mrs millers appeal is allowed, the same declarations and orders should be made in each case. Copies of our fulljudgment explaining these conclusions and a transcript of this summary, conclusions and a transcript of this summary, will be available immediately after the court rises andi immediately after the court rises and i urge you all to read them with care. The court will now adjourn. The uk Supreme Court bringing you that dramatic news that the decision by borisjohnson to suspend parliament was unlawful because it stopped parliament doing itsjob. The advice baroness hale said was unlawful, void and to no effect. And it should be quashed and therefore parliament has not actually been suspended. It never happened. And the speaker will decide what happens next. All 11 justices agreed, she told us at the beginning, it was a unanimous judgment. The breaking told us at the beginning, it was a unanimousjudgment. The breaking and very dramatic news this morning is that the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, has said that borisjohnson s the Supreme Court, has said that Boris Johnson s decision the Supreme Court, has said that borisjohnson s decision to suspend parliament was unlawful because it stopped parliament doing itsjob. We are going to bring the reaction of course from all sides and forever you are in the country watching this, the world, in fact, hello, welcome to viewers on bbc world news, let us know your reaction to this historicjudgment. News, let us know your reaction to this historic judgment. Lets news, let us know your reaction to this historicjudgment. Lets talk to meg russell, professor at the university of london constitutional unit, Stephen Doughty labour mp, julian malin is a parliamentary candidate for the brexit party, also happens to be a qc and andrew britain, conservative mp who is at westminster, supporting brexit and eight no deal brexit and the former conservative mp Dominic Grieve he was told he could no longer sit as a conservative after he voted to try and stop a new deal brexit. Mr bridge and, first of all, your Prime Minister has lost, how do you react . I think its devastating news. Im coming back ive got an echo coming back ive got an echo coming back, ill will come right back to you because we want you to be able to hear exactly what we are saying. Dominic grieve, former conservative mp, how do you react . Im not surprised by the judgment because of the gross misbehaviour by the Prime Minister. He is the one who has been pushing the envelope of our constitution to the envelope of our constitution to the point where he is prepared to preach it, it was perfectly obvious that the reasoning and the motivation for the prorogation, suspending parliament, was bogus and untrue and the reasons given and im delighted that the Supreme Court has stopped this unconstitutional act in its tracks. And what he should not be doing, the Prime Minister, is pausing and reflecting on the untold damage hes to our institutions by his reckless and relentless desire to achieve brexit on the 31st of october and actually start engaging with dialogue with the house of commons about how we get out of the hole into which we have succeeded into digging ourselves as a country. Julian murraylands, qc, how do you react to this unanimous decision . dont think this is particularly a brexit or not brexit issue, its a huge constitutional change. I dont wa nt huge constitutional change. I dont want to re argue the case but im astonished that the Supreme Court has decided that this is not cove red court has decided that this is not covered by the ninth provision of the declaration of rights, that is to say, it is not a proceeding in parliament. I mean, parliament consists of the commons, the lords and her majesty, its plainly a decision that took place as part of parliamentary procedure and to have the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful, lam the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful, i am astonished by that ruling. It will have extraordinary consequences in the coming decades, there will be endless litigation over a myriad of political activities. Stephen doughty, labour mp, shaking your head in disagreement. Defending the indefensible, the Supreme Court made a unanimous decision, borisjohnson lied to the queen, acted unlawfully, played fast and loose with the constitution and basic principles, the Supreme Court unanimously upholding the constitution and what he has done is preventing us as members of parliament for not doing ourjob and brexit but in so many other issues from pensions to Climate Change to health and education, thats whats happened. Let me go back to andrew britain, weve sorted out the technicals, it is the worst possible outcome for borisjohnson, should is the worst possible outcome for Boris Johnson, should he is the worst possible outcome for borisjohnson, should he consider his position . We need him to be strong, its the worst possible outcome for democracy. I am coming back again and its appalling sound. I think what weve got is a parliament that is completely out of step with sentiment in the country, they are holding our democracy to ransom, completely ignoring the vote we had in 2016 to leave the European Union theyrejust we had in 2016 to leave the European Union theyre just making we had in 2016 to leave the European Union theyrejust making a ruling about the suspension. What we are going to see is the speaker effectively ta ken control about parliament and playing to the remainers tune until the 31st of october when he resigns. We got a Zombie Parliament that wont go back to the people and be held to account for the way weve voted. apologise, i am going to push you. We can hear from joanna apologise, i am going to push you. We can hearfrom joanna cherrie, snp mp. Has agreed with scotlands supreme mp. Has agreed with scotlands Supreme Court that the prorogation was unlawful and therefore it is null and void. This is a huge victory for the rule of law and for democracy and its very much in keeping with the scottish constitutional tradition that neither that the monarch or above the law. As regards Boris Johnson the highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this parliament, the advice given to her majesty the queen was unlawful, his position is untenable and he should have the guts for once to do the decent thing and resign. Cheering decent thing and resign. When do you think mps should reconvene . Immediately or as soon as possible, many of us are here already, the holding of this undemocratic minority tory government to account must take precedence above all else, thatis must take precedence above all else, that is why we were elected to parliament to do that in the Supreme Court today have emphasised that the principle that the government and the cabinet are accountable to parliament is fundamental to the british constitution. Cheering the courts have decided, not a political decision as they emphasised, the courts have decided that it has long been the law in england and indeed in scotland that the government is subject to parliamentary scrutiny by members of parliament elected by the people and that for the government to Prorogue Parliament for a lengthy period of time means that parliament is unable to do that. So that is a decision in law, not a political decision, the politics takes place over there, the Supreme Court have simply made it possible for us to get back in there and hold this government to account. There are two possible outcomes on the table before the Supreme Court were not one is that the decision of the Prime Minister to suspend parliament was lawful and one that the decision of the Prime Minister to suspend parliament was unlawful, both of those decisions have political consequences and both engage a question which is a question of law which is whether whether it is the court was myjob to protect the sovereignty of parliament. There is no sensible way in which it can be said that the Supreme Court in choosing either one or the other was making a political decision. 0k, right, thank you. Cheering joanna cherrie, mp and her qc, meg russell, your reaction. I think it is the most powerful possible ruling against the government, not only have they ruled that this is justiciable, government, not only have they ruled that this isjusticiable, the decisions the judges that this isjusticiable, the decisions thejudges can make a decision, they have ruled the prorogation was illegal and they have ruled it should be immediately quashed and they have done so unanimously. There has been a lot of speculation as to what the court would say, a lot of people were expecting some kind of split judgment, this is such a powerful message from the Supreme Court. It isa message from the Supreme Court. It is a little surprising for its power but i have to say the fact that the government has lost does not seem surprising, those of us who, i was at the top of a letter to the times at the top of a letter to the times a few weeks ago from 22 constitutional experts saying prorogation was improper so that is a general view, it was an extraordinary thing to do to prorogue forfive weeks. Extraordinary thing to do to prorogue for five weeks. But, goodness me, im losing my train of thought, its terrible. Dont worry, i want to ask Stephen Doughty labour mp and Dominic Grieve, former conservative mp, the suspension never happened according to baroness hale, does that mean you go back to parliament today, tomorrow . hale, does that mean you go back to parliament today, tomorrow . I hope so, thatll be a matter for the speaker to advise, i have meetings booked in parliament this afternoon, i will be returning, we should be in there doing ourjob solving this government to account. Dominic . It may be that this afternoon isnt feasible but bringing us back tomorrow morning at the usual time is and normally we would have expected Prime Ministers questions ona expected Prime Ministers questions on a wednesday at 12 noon and the opportunity to question the Prime Minister about his conduct on brexit and his behaviour. I suspect we wont be seeing him tomorrow at lunchtime and its precisely illustrates why the behaviour of the government in provoKing Parliament was so government in provoKing Parliament was so fundamentally wrong. Sorry to interrupt but it doesnt stop Boris Johnson trying for a second suspension, he wouldnt rule that out in interviews last night. would have thought that any attempt at probing Parliament Following this judgment, for anything other than the four or five days to go between one session and another, would immediately attract another Court Application and this time in view of the Supreme Court judgment, application and this time in view of the Supreme Courtjudgment, there will be an immediate order that it is unlawful. One of the really dramatic things about this and i think it is a constitutional change but its one which seems to me logically from the role Parliament Place in a parliamentary free democracy, is that the idea you can play fast and loose with Parliament Just to nudge it to one side when its convenient for the executive to do so is dead and buried for good. Lets go back to the Supreme Court, caroline lucas, green mp and ian blackford, snp leader at westminster. This is a very serious matter, it is huge constitutional consequences, its a fantastic day for democracy and at last, the people of this country are taking back control, we are all fed up with brexit, we wanted to come to an end and the only way to resolve it is to have that peoples vote and get it back to the british people. What we wanted to do was make sure we dont crash out on the 31st of october, that was the first priority, it is quite clear that this is a Prime Minister that does not have the dignity that is required for office, he is acted out with his powers, we wa nt he is acted out with his powers, we want to get rid of him, we will get rid of him, we want to make sure in the first instance we dont leave the first instance we dont leave the European Union on a no deal basis. I want to thank everybody, colleagues on a cross party basis that have come together, those that have brought the legal action, this isa have brought the legal action, this is a brilliant day for democracy, congratulations to everyone. is a brilliant day for democracy, congratulations to everyone. I think it shows people that this government is wholly incapable of solving the brexit crisis. There is a deal on the table, the british people are fed up with brexit, we are all fed up fed up with brexit, we are all fed up with brexit and there is a solution to the crisis and that solution to the crisis and that solution is to get this matter back to the british people by way of the people s vote, that confirmatory referendum, its the only way through it but i think it also shows this Prime Minister and this government is unfit to rule our country. I personally would like a government of National Unity and we know enough great politicians who could lead and do thejob know enough great politicians who could lead and do the job the british people are now crying out for, they want certainty, leadership andi for, they want certainty, leadership and i believe they want people s vote. 0k, thank you. Cheering julian may lance, parliamentary candidate for the brexit party, does borisjohnson have to resign . I dont think so. He took a decision which at the time he felt was a matter for parliament and its been ruled illegal. Ill return im interested in following this through, hes been found to have done something illegal for the reasons of stopping parliament scrutinising the government. Why does he not need to resign . The prorogation is unlawful therefore it never happened. Therefore it goes back to parliament to deal with. He lied to the queen. They have not found that. I am not here to defend borisjohnson. No, found that. I am not here to defend Boris Johnson. No, no, found that. I am not here to defend borisjohnson. No, no, you have to distinguish and dominic agrees with me on this, that this is a huge constitutional change. You say its one rule for him and one rule for anyone else. Dont interrupt me. The huge constitutional change, the merits may all be one way, everyone is very happy with this result we are going to go back to gina miller, one of the advocates outside the Supreme Court, im sorry, julian. Twice in three years to come to the Supreme Court to ensure that the government does not put itself above the law. The ruling today speaks volumes, this Prime Minister must open the doors of parliament tomorrow. Mps must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account. Hello from the Supreme Court, uk Supreme Court, highest court in the land in the United Kingdom which has just ruled with a sensational judgment, unanimous ruling that borisjohnson the Prime Minister of the uk did act unlawfully when he suspended or prorogued parliament for five weeks when he advised the queen, the monarch, that she should Prorogue Parliament. The president of thejudges, lady Prorogue Parliament. The president of the judges, lady hale, Prorogue Parliament. The president of thejudges, lady hale, said that this was a suspension of parliamentary democracy which took place in quite exceptional circumstances. She said on the health of the 11 justices here, parliament has a right to a voice and an effect of the suspension of parliament was on the fundamentals of democracy and had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of democracy. Already the speaker of the house of commons, john bercow, is saying parliament should resume because the courtjustices here say the order to suspend Parliament Never took place, wasnt void and therefore doesnt have any effect so that parliament can reopen right now. Lets hear what lady howe said a short time ago. This prolonged suspension of parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances. The fundamental change that was due to ta ke fundamental change that was due to take place in the constitution of the United Kingdom on the 31st of october. Parliament and in particular the house of commons as the elected representatives of the people has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. Nojustification on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from nikki da costa of 15th august. This explains why holding the queen speech to open a new session of parliament on the 14th of october would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary Business to a halt for five weeks before that. When the normal period necessary to prepare for a queen speech is for six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and research. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve in orderly withdrawal from the European Union with or without a Withdrawal Agreement on the 31st of october. It does not discuss what parliamentary time would be needed to secure parliamentary approval for any new Withdrawal Agreement as required by section 13 of the European Union withdrawal act 2018. The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise her majesty to Prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. That is lady hale, president of the Supreme Court justices. The speaker of the house john bercow is saying he wants parliament to resume its work without delay. We heard from joanna cherry from the Scottish National party and other mps saying that as a result of this, borisjohnson should resign. The Prime Minister should resign. The Prime Minister should resign. He is currently in new york at the united nations. Just to underline, this is not only historic judgment, it is also a surprise, the fa ct judgment, it is also a surprise, the fact this was unanimous that the 11 Supreme Courtjudges all fact this was unanimous that the 11 Supreme Court judges all came fact this was unanimous that the 11 Supreme Courtjudges all came up with a unanimous judgment. Supreme courtjudges all came up with a unanimousjudgment. It Supreme Courtjudges all came up with a unanimous judgment. It was thought there would be a dissenting minority. That did not happen. Lets hear from lady hale why it means that the prorogation of parliament is null and void and the council would which prorogued parliament is null and void. This court has already concluded that the Prime Ministers advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and had no effect. The council to which should also be quashed. This means when the royal commissioners walked into the house of lords it was as if they had walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 justices. It is for parliament and in particular the speaker and fought speaker to decide what to do next. This unless there is some parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each house to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary courts to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court. That is lady hale, president of the Supreme Court, with part of her judgment. I think it is fair to say that of all the legal commentators we have been talking to the last few days, nobody saw this judgment coming. People thought, yes, maybe the courts would say this was something they could rule on but the power of thisjudgment something they could rule on but the power of this judgment and the level of criticism of the Prime Minister and the government is extraordinary. Saying that the effect on parliamentary democracy and the effect on parliaments ability to scrutinise the government at this crucial time ahead of the projected brexit date of october 31 is extreme. Where do we start, norman smith . Extraordinary judgment from the justices, where does that leave the justices, where does that leave the Prime Minister . This is notjust a defeat, mrjohnson is in real difficulties, not just a defeat, mrjohnson is in real difficulties, notjust over parliament and brexit but his own survival. We have seen tom watson, deputy leader of the labour party, demanding he resign, ian blackford, snp leader. The unprecedented nature of this decision, in terms of parliament, mps can walk back in the chamber now if they want because they never left, according to the court. They can carry on as usual. The speaker says he wants parliament to reconvene as soon as the speaker says he wants parliament to reconvene as soon as possible. The great and all this is the government. Set. Borisjohnson is a new york so it could take some time. A rather rude alarm clock for him, about six oclock there, to be woken up and told what he has done is unlawful. We have never been here before. There are all sorts of ramifications, not just for weather parliament sits on knock but for this government, a resounding blow toa this government, a resounding blow to a government already battered by half a dozen defeats, one of them borisjohnson put down himself as a vote of confidence. It is hard to estimate how much damage it does to his standing, position, authority. I think it is hard for him just a breeze this off as another setback, another defeat. We are in totally uncharted territory. For the moment, norman, thank you. A few months ago, gina miller, the businesswoman who was so gina miller, the businesswoman who was so central to this case, who brought the article 50 case three yea rs brought the article 50 case three years ago and has been a real thorn in the side of the government for a number of years of a brexit, she came out of the Supreme Court victorious to loud cheers for her supporters. Good morning, everyone. Todayis supporters. Good morning, everyone. Today is not a win for any individual because, it is a when parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers and the independence of our british courts. Crucially, todays ruling confirms that we are a nation governed by the rule of law. Laws that everyone, even the Prime Minister, is not above. Do not let the government played down the seriousness of the judgment today. A unanimous judgment. They have spoken unequivocally. And what i say to the Prime Minister is to repeat lady hales words, the order was a blank piece of paper. Parliament was not prorogued. Mps should turn up for work tomorrow and get up with scrutinising this government. I would like to express my sincere thanks to my legal team, lord pannick, we have had twice in three years to come to the Supreme Court to ensure that the government does not put itself above the law. The ruling today speaks volumes. This Prime Minister must open the doors of parliament tomorrow. Mps must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account. Thank you. Cheering that was gina millerjust a few minutes ago on the steps of the Supreme Court here, the highest court in the uk, which had just returned that momentous judgment. I think it is fair to say pretty unexpected judgment, unanimous judgment that Boris Johnson, unexpected judgment, unanimous judgment that borisjohnson, the uk Prime Minister, acted unlawfully when he advised the queen to suspend or prorogued parliament. We have had some reaction in from the leader of the opposition, the labour party, Jeremy Corbyn. The Supreme Court has Just Announced its decision. Cheering and applause. And it shows that the Prime Minister has acted wrongly in shutting down parliament it demonstrates. Applause. It demonstrates a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power by him. Applause. The Supreme Court, therefore, passes the baton to the speaker to recall parliament. I will be in touch immediately to demand that parliament is recalled so that we can question the Prime Minister. Cheering and applause. Demand that he obeys the law that has been passed by parliament and recognise that our parliament is elected by our people to hold our government to account. A Labour Government would want to be held to account, we wouldnt bypass democracy. Applause. And i invite borisjohnson, in the historic words, to consider his position. Cheering. Chanting. And become. And become the shortest serving Prime Minister there has ever been. So, obey the law, take no deal off the table and have an election to elect a government that respects democracy, that respects the rule of law and brings power back to the people, not usurp it in the way that Boris Johnson has done. That was Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the labour party, at the Party Conference they are saying that borisjohnson should consider his position. Plenty of his opponents think he should resign as a result of this decision, the unanimous decision from the Supreme Courts 11 justices that he acted unlawfully when he advised the queen to suspend parliament. Anna subaru is here, for the conservative mp, leader of the independent group for change. And karen lucas, leader of the green party. Caroline lucas. Karen lucas, leader of the green party. Caroline lucas. Last night, groups of us were talking with joanna cherry, night, groups of us were talking withjoanna cherry, people like her brought the action up in scotland. And dominic greene, former attorney general, and none of us thought the court would go so far as actually to quash the prorogation. Parliament is not suspended, not even adjourned. Effectively, we are still sitting and the sooner we get back into the chamber, the better. It is extraordinary. I have already contacted the speaker on behalf of all the opposition parties that are here, we have said we are willing and ready to get into the chamber to hold the government to account and ask the many questions we need to ask the many questions we need to ask of this Prime Minister. I dont know what is going to happen, i want a peoples vote. I think the only way through the crisis is back to the british people. I understand the speaker has contacted Party Leaders and has suggested a meeting this afternoon to decide what happens next. Prorogation doesnt exist, thatis next. Prorogation doesnt exist, that is the outcome of the court case. Parliament is still sitting, lets go and resume, make that a practice, get back into ourjobs. I think the skill of the victory for us and defeat for Boris Johnson is beyond what anyone expected. I think it is absolutely right he does consider his position, i dont see we can carry on with a Prime Minister who has effectively been shown to have lied on such a big issue. And lying to the queen, for many of us this is unforgivable. I am conscious of what our own constituents and your viewers are thinking, people are fed up to the back teeth. Thinking, people are fed up to the back teeth. The justices did not say he had lied to the queen, acted unlawfully. The implication, but the effect was the same. As politicians we can draw the conclusion that it was misleading at the very least. I am glad the Supreme Court has upheld the position of parliaments 70. It should never have come to this. Sovereignty. I think we need a Citizens Assembly to look at our constitutional models again. This whole scene is shown they are way out of. This is a day. Thank god you took this action, thank goodness gina millerdid, thank you took this action, thank goodness gina miller did, thank goodness our judges, the most seniorjudges in the land stood up for parliamentary democracy and did not hold back. Ladyjustice hale democracy and did not hold back. Lady justice hale given democracy and did not hold back. Ladyjustice hale given both barrels. This is a very, very important day and a good day for our country. Im worried about British Business and the uncertainty, conscious that british people are fed up. Lets have the people spoke. A general election wont solve anything. To get it back to the british people, with remain on the ballot paper i think people will vote to stay in the European Union and get on with the things we need to do. For the moment, thank you very much indeed, lets get more. We can cross to brighton where the labour party conferece is taking place and speak to the shadow attorney general shami chakrabarti. I was always a believer when advising Jeremy Corbyn, my leader, i believed we would win because we had right on our side and they were on our side but goodness me, brenda hale, lady hale, president of the Supreme Court, she has given an amazing judgment this morning that will be read and remember up and down these islands, across the world for many years to come. No one is above the law. Not even Boris Johnson and his arrogant, entitled charms are above the law. They have behaved disgracefully, getting away with things all their lives. Today they have been called to account by they have been called to account by the highest court in the United Kingdom. Entitled chums. The highest court in the United Kingdom. Entitled chums. This has a positive step. Where does this leave the Prime Minister . Jeremy corbyn, your leader, said mrjohnson should consider his position. Absolutely. I mean, can you imagine, to be called out like that by the highest court in your country, to be called out shutting down parliament unlawfully . That is the kind of story we are used to hearing from other parts of the world, but not from the United Kingdom. He has behaved like a tinpot dictator and called out today by the Supreme Court, the highest court in these islands. He should be ashamed of himself, thoroughly ashamed. He knows better. He had an elite education, every opportunity in life, and he has behaved in the most appalling way and he has been called out. We teach our children to a by the police and to respect the local magistrates. How will we set an example to people up and down this country if the Prime Minister does not now reflect on being called out by the highest court in the land . And the highest court in the land has said that this prorogation, suspension order, is quashed, therefore parliament can resume its work when it wants to. Should mps go straight back to parliament . I cant actually, not sure if we have still got the wine, but i will the line. I dont think any of us saw this. You never my unanimous ruling by all 11 judges. The most significant and muscular example i have ever seen, judicial review of independentjudges being have ever seen, judicial review of independent judges being able have ever seen, judicial review of independentjudges being able to stop the government in its tracks. Because what the government, in this insta nce because what the government, in this instance the Prime Minister, has done is unlawful. It is Ground Breaking, extraordinary. The consequences politically, constitutionally, legally are absolutely seismic. This is a devastating, devastating defeat for the government and for Boris Johnson. If one looks at the wording of this, the actions taken by the Prime Minister had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. We should just take a step back, pause for a moment and consider, this is a ruling which says a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has unlawfully advised the queen, unlawfully prorogued these sovereign body in our constitution, parliament. That is really staggering. 0ne our constitution, parliament. That is really staggering. One has to pause and take that on. It is devastating. No one saw this coming asa devastating. No one saw this coming as a unanimous ruling from all 11. Staggering, no one saw it coming, institute of government. Parliament is across the square here, they could walk through the doors right now, couldnt they . They can absolutely. I think many of them will do exactly that. The speaker is trying to get a session in the chamberas trying to get a session in the chamber as soon as possible. The business of Parliament Continues as it was without interruption. Bills dont die, theyjust can interview. One of the odd thing is, the Prime Minister didnt need to do this. He bought himself some time, if you like, free from parliaments intervention. This doesnt really change what he is trying to do in brexit, doesnt change the timeline so brexit, doesnt change the timeline so far. But i welcome i would think, risen quickly. As clive was just saying, this takes a very broad sense of the will of parliament longer term. Parliament is notjust there to make laws, scrutinise government, challenge it and mustnt be frustrating in that role. That is pa rt of be frustrating in that role. That is part of what is really going to enhance his powers Going Forward. Borisjohnson, the enhance his powers Going Forward. Boris johnson, the supreme enhance his powers Going Forward. Borisjohnson, the Supreme Court says he has acted unlawfully. He said he respects thejudiciary says he has acted unlawfully. He said he respects the judiciary and law, he will abide by the law. Lots of people calling for him to resign. I think it is a big blow to his standing. He really has to somehow absorb it. It does not change what he is transitive. He will try to run the Party Conference as normal next week. It is an immense bow to his ability to act as Prime Minister. He has the unique distinction of being the only Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ever found by the highest court in the land before it was the Supreme Court, it was the committee of the house of lords of the why, to have unlawfully prorogued parliament, unlawfully advised the queen to Prorogue Parliament. That is not something you want on your cv. A word about thejudges, the past we have seen tabloid papers calling judges when they have had to rule, to what extent they have had to rule, to what exte nt d oes they have had to rule, to what extent does it require some bribery by the 11 Supreme Courtjustices, whatever you think of the decision, to come out with a clear cut, unambiguous judgments a day like this . I think it did require bravery because there were those who thought, they might want to bodice with this because of the intense Political Capital at stake here. Eight points arguably what is the great constitutional clash of burton, a powerful executive used to getting its way on things because it is the government on the one hand, and a small, independentjudiciary, no Big Civil Service backing it up, but through the mechanism of judicial review holds the government to account if what the government is seeking to do or has done is unlawful. That is, you know, a very critical constitutional battle. Some people dont agree, they think the judges throughjudicial people dont agree, they think the judges through judicial review they should not be making this decision. That is where they are, if you want to change the constitution, change the role of the judges. Lets hear from joanna cherry from the Scottish National party, one of the 70 or so parliamentarians who brought the case in the court of session in edinburgh, which was successful, but that was what the government appealed against here at the Supreme Court, called a session my court of session ruling the effects was to stymie or frustrate parliament. Joanna cherry has been watching it be upheld. This is a huge victory for the rule of law and for democracy, and is very much in keeping with the scottish constitutional tradition that neither the government, nor indeed, the monarch are above the law. As regards to mr Boris Johnson, the hegest court in the highest court in the United Kingdom has unanimously found that his advice to prorogue this parliament, advice given to her majesty the queen, was unlawful. His position is untenable. And he should have the guts for once to do the decent thing and resign. Cheering. When do you think mps should reconvene . Immediately, or as soon as possible. Many of us are here already. The holding of this undemocratic minority tory government to account must take precedence above all else. That is why we were elected to parliament, to do that. And the Supreme Court today have emphasised that the principle that the government and the cabinet are accountable to parliament is fundamental to the british constitution. That was joanna cherry from the Scottish National party. What did you think of the unanimous judgment, chuka umunna . What did you think of the unanimous judgment, chuka umunna . M what did you think of the unanimous judgment, chuka umunna . It is quite unprecedented, a damning judgment. This is not normalfor a Prime Minister to be declared to having had acted in an unlawful fashion. Minister to be declared to having had acted in an unlawfulfashion. In those circumstances, you would expect the Prime Minister to resign, thatis expect the Prime Minister to resign, that is what should happen now. That wont resolve the mess we are in, parliament should be recalled. Im ready to go back to the house of commons right now and start work. At the very latest, according to our Standing Orders, Standing Order nine, i believe, start sitting at 11 30am tomorrow. There should be Prime Ministers questions if the Prime Minister hasnt resigned at that point. Then we need, i think, to form some sort of emergency government because the one we have now is dysfunctional, not sustainable. A minority administration, a majority of 43. We have put forward ken clarke and harriet harman, mother and father of the house, people to lead the emergency government. We cant move on like this. We have to solve the exit mess, we are the biggest and strongest remain party, we are clear we have to stop brexit altogether. And leaving without a deal. We have to clear up the mess. The easiest way is for the Prime Minister to resign. Do you really think he will . This is a man who thinks he is above the rules. He said he would abide by the rules. He said he would abide by the law, the courts decision. He should never have tried to Prorogue Parliament in the circumstances in the first place. Lets be honest, i think most of us were expecting more ofa mild think most of us were expecting more of a mild mannered judgment against the government by the Supreme Court. This war is not mild, this was the strongest possible condemnation i think from our Supreme Court against the government. This was not mild. The government are very cognisant mild. The government are very cognisa nt as mild. The government are very cognisant as the judges are cognisant as the judges are cognisa nt of the cognisant as the judges are cognisant of the role as independent arbiters. To go this far says something about this government, which believes it is above the rules, that the usual norms dont apply to it. We sought when they we re apply to it. We sought when they were leading the vote leave campaign. This was the founding of the statistics authority. This is a parliamentary democracy, now, you have to reserve the rules just like eve ryo ne have to reserve the rules just like everyone else, was the ruling. Thank you for your perspective, chuka umunna, on the judgment we have just had. Lets cross to our royal correspondentjonny dymond. The court found the Prime Minister unlawfully advised the queen to Prorogue Parliament. It is the queens decision technically, the monarch who actually Prorogue Parliament. Is there any real action from a r0 perspective . The palace are been unsurprisingly tight lipped about this. When the we re tight lipped about this. When the were looking down from the Scottish Court of session ruled, the only word from the palace was at the queen has acted on the advice of her Prime Minister. There is a very little discretion for the queen when it comes to play regulation. The advise she is effectively being told to prorogued. I think that is probably one tiny sliver of good news in this judgment for the Boris Johnson, and thats that the court did not say that he misled the queen which would have been an even more embarrassing situation. But talk of embarrassment, having an order in council, and at about the sovereign, declared by the court unlawful, void and having no effect. I cant see any precedent for that, for the queen to have laid down an order in council, to be agreed by the sovereign, and claim to have that struck down by the court. You have talk about constitutional novelty here, it is astonishing times. It is a difficult time for the palace in its constitution it because there is a huge spotlight over the kind of discretion at the queen has or hasnt had. And as some of your guests have been saying, whether there is a need for some sort of written constitution, to codifyjust how much discretion there is and what the role of all the Different Actors is. This is an astonishing day and im sure there will be ruminated on very heavily by the palace. Im joined by ruminated on very heavily by the palace. Imjoined by two eminent members of the Legal Profession now. Steven members of the Legal Profession now. Steve n fro m members of the Legal Profession now. Steven from the first parliamentary counsel. And alex, qc, as well. Tell us, first of all, what your reaction to this because a lot of legal commentators did not expect a unanimous judgment . Commentators did not expect a unanimousjudgment . No, it is a magisterial and stinging rebuke for the government. It is a strong reaffirmation of parliamentary democracy. It reaffirms that the executive is accountable to parliament and that the executive is not above the law. What about you, steven . Not above the law. What about you, steven . Im shocked and disappointed, actually, because i thought this was a storm in a teacup and it turns out it has blown up the constitution more or less as we know it by involving the courts in the relationship between government and parliament. One reason i think brexit has proved so difficult is because the relationship between two by introduction of a third party. It started with the introduction of the referendum result into that relationship, now the courts have added themselves to this complication, that makes four. The relationship normally works well, the government does not giving that pole vote mac accept the government does not giving that pole vote mac accept and parliament accepts what the government is to do unless it really acts object. You introduce two more parties into and you get constitutional chaos. Introducing the law into politics is not a good idea either, the law decide things on the basis that there is the right answer given to you by a ruler. Politics works on the basis that the right answer is the basis that the right answer is the one that commands the widest degree of acceptance from the electorate. Back to me has always seemed a much way of resolving political question. Where does this leave our unremitting constitution, the balance of power between parliament, the government out the courts . If anything, it strengthens our constitution. It is often said we are in trouble because we dont have a written one, in fact, this is a strong affirmation that the Construction Works quite well. It is only chaos because the government tested these matters to the limit. The courts have respected parliamentary supremacy, have upheld accountability of the executive to parliament, that is a strong and sta ble parliament, that is a strong and stable constitution. There is no chaos at all and we need to end this game of constitutional cat and mouse where cases are going from across the square to hear, we need to get on with the business and let parliament and the people decide what is going to happen. parliament and the people decide what is going to happen. Ijust want to show viewers a picture from an mp who has actually set out a picture of him sitting on the green benches. As we head from the Supreme Court, thatis as we head from the Supreme Court, that is actually nothing to stop members of Parliament Sitting there at the moment because that prorogation has been quashed. The judges who had just said it doesnt exist, the suspension of Parliament Never happened because it was unlawful. Thats right, standing or nine of the house of commons says it meets at 1130 on tuesdays. It is just past 1130. All the mps could walk in now . That is what the Standing Order requires. Where do you think on the rating position goes from here . It would have been much simpler if the constitution said you can Prorogue Parliament for a time limit. I think the argument about a written constitution is a bit of a red herring, you can only have one if you can agree on what your self what is going to go in it and there is not much chance of that at the moment sol and there is not much chance of that at the moment so i think it is a red herring. I thought that this k showed that the unwritten political constitution was actually working. That this case. Much of the argument was not what the argument died but what it might have done. The fact is that the government did only find that parliament will always remain for the period it was expected to be removed anyway. I thought that showed a proportion of a response. The court has held that a prorogation is not proceeding and cannot be challenged. What is a proceeding in parliament is the running of the speak out. You can see that the government in some way was reacting to the fact that his rulings might have been exploited and at the time that was left. So instead of asking for a recess measuring which might have been exploiting for other purposes, they produce the same effect with a prorogation. I dont seem to me to bea prorogation. I dont seem to me to be a disproportionate response. The speakers rulings will not be challengeable. Thank you forjoining us. Im here outside the Supreme Court on a historic day in terms of british justice, whatever your perspective, huge legal, political ramifications. We can talk to richard from the brexit party. What is your reaction to what has happened here . What are an extraordinary day, it really is seismic, historic. They think now is to focus on what happens next. I soon as to focus on what happens next. I soon as parliament is recalled, borisjohnson is soon as parliament is recalled, Boris Johnson is probably soon as parliament is recalled, borisjohnson is probably going to have to offer his resignation, or there may well be a vote of no confidence was up what is absolutely clear is that the public needs to understand that we are not leaving the eu understand that we are not leaving the eu on october 31, there will have to be a request to the eu for an extension. I think when that penny drops, people are going to be increasingly angry across the country. Then there is the question of when there will be a general election, really and truly, that should be as soon as possible, probably meaning the first half of november. What if that say about the so called master strategist, Dominic Cummings . I trust he will be offering his resignation today. So you think it was it was a strategic mistake from the coming to us the green to suspend parliament in the first place . At the end of the day, the Supreme Court said that it was not only a strategic mistake but com pletely not only a strategic mistake but completely unlawful. You could not have got a more searing, damning condemnation of what the government has done. In a sense, that is not the issue. The issue is what happens next, how do we maintain confidence, how do we keep our Business Community investing, keep the country moving forward . Community investing, keep the country moving forward . People have to move in government very quickly to move in government very quickly to restore some confidence, which is probably at an all time low. To restore some confidence, which is probably at an alltime low. You mentioned Dominic Cummings, the Prime Ministers chief adviser, a controversial figure Prime Ministers chief adviser, a controversialfigure in Prime Ministers chief adviser, a controversial figure in downing street. Youre saying that you think he should resign . He has driven this whole strategy with a clear purpose to make sure that we were able to leave the eu on october 31. People across the country now need to really appreciate that is not going to happen, we are not leaving, we are going to have to beg for another extension. Because of the way the ad networks, it is completely in the European Unionmight gift it how long that should be, three months, six months, two years. They could even force a second referendum on us, all this is up for grabs. That is why we need a general election very quickly now so we can need a general election very quickly now so we can get need a general election very quickly now so we can get some need a general election very quickly now so we can get some clarity. Essentially, it will be a brexit election. We the brexit party made a generous offer to the Prime Minister, the conservative party, about a germanic and allianz, and that offer still stands. We need clarity and to get on with it. In terms of Boris Johnson clarity and to get on with it. In terms of borisjohnson was my position as Prime Minister, he is in new york at the un at the moment. Presumably, he has heard about this, it is pretty early in the morning there. What exactly are you he should as the result of the Supreme Court with their unanimous judgment saying that he was unlawful in his advice to the queen . Im quite sure he has been informed of the decisions. He will be flying back with great urgency and working out whether he resigns, trigger with great urgency and working out whether he resigns, trigger a with great urgency and working out whether he resigns, trigger a vote of no confidence in his own government, or whether he waits for the opposition to do that. The other key question for the opposition is whether they go for an immediate election, which would therefore not be in november, or whether they actually try and bring together some form of coalition and see if they can push an election further out in order to try and whod a referendum. Lets remember that they actually wa nt to lets remember that they actually want to stop brexit, and the only way they can do that is to have a referendum before an election. Thank you, richard. Lets just referendum before an election. Thank you, richard. Letsjust talk referendum before an election. Thank you, richard. Lets just talk about thisjudgment from you, richard. Lets just talk about this judgment from the Supreme Court a little bit further from a legal perspective. Robert, you have been following these sorts of events, there has never been an event like this any courts of this country. What did you make of it . I think someone has a camera on someones face, im not sure i should be on tv talking about it because i have almost no words for the level of shock i had there. It is absolutely unbelievable. It was 11 0 the fact that all 11 judges agreed with each other is extraordinary. You think they genuinely did or they think there was a feeling we had to show a united face . They signed the judgment, they signed the judgment. We cant go behind and say it was relu cta nt, we cant go behind and say it was reluctant, it was 11 0, it means something important that we should ta ke something important that we should take seriously. The strength of the words in the judgment, take seriously. The strength of the words in thejudgment, there take seriously. The strength of the words in the judgment, there was words in thejudgment, there was no hiding form that, lady hale talking about how the effect on parliamentary democracy was extreme by suspending parliament . That is the view of the court. There is one bit of the judgment were they say the view of the house of commons has been expressed few nations and the european withdrawal at number two but it has no confidence in the Prime Minister and his primary policy. Its an extraordinary thing to say i still completely cannot believe i read that but thats what they said. Jo, were you similarly gobsmacked when you heard lady hale . I was sitting in a room with academics, and everyone was shouting. To echo robert, im utterly speechless. No one expected thisjudgment, utterly speechless. No one expected this judgment, but especially at this judgment, but especially at this outcome. That parliament is not pro road nobody could imagine that. Ive lost all sense of eloquence the first hurdle the how to get over it was without this was even a matter for them to decide on, a matter for even a matter for them to decide on, a matterfor war, orjust politics . The governments lawyer saying this was forbidden territory, the court should not even go into this political minefield. In the summary of lady hale, we saw her take on a step by step of lady hale, we saw her take on a step by step approach, addressing theissue step by step approach, addressing the issue of whether at this as a legal question. And then saying that it is, the Supreme Court has supervisory jurisdiction, it is, the Supreme Court has supervisoryjurisdiction, it supervisory jurisdiction, it is their powerand supervisory jurisdiction, it is their power and nature to look at these powers. She called back centuries to do so. Then she took that next step of looking at the legal power and saying that you must have a reasonable justification for the use of this power, and we cant look at these fundamental principles. That examination of these fundamental principles of our legal system, parliamentary accountability. This calling to robert potts mack point of what is democracy in this country . A Ground Breaking judgment. Robert, do you think this changes are unwritten constitution, our balance of power switching parliament, government and the courts . I think so. I think this puts the judiciary the courts . I think so. I think this puts thejudiciary much the courts . I think so. I think this puts the judiciary much more interventionist, and the debates going on today, thats what they decided today. In the debate about the remedies in the actual oral argument there was no real discussion about the possibility of saying that the whole procedure start to finish was wide and therefore parliament could sit again. It was mentioned by lord pannick briefly. The point that it was not a preceding in parliament was not a preceding in parliament was something that lady hale said. It wasnt picked up by anybody, it was because the court has said that it was not even a preceding in parliament or something imposed upon it. This was something not really this crust, hasnt really been analysed, people will think about that you look carefully for a long time. Thank you forjoining us. Lets show you some live pictures of the house of commons now. There is the house of commons now. There is the chamber of the house at the moment. The order of counsel to Prorogue Parliament has now been quashed by the Supreme Court, so the immediate effect of that is that parliament can reopen pretty much anytime mps want to walk back into the chamber. We can how a little bit of reaction from blackford and anna soubry moments after that judgment was handed down by lady hale, president of the Supreme Court justices. This is a very serious matter, it has huge constitutional consequences. Its a fantastic day for democracy. And at last the people of this country are taking back control. We are all fed up with brexit, we wanted to come to an end, and he only now to resolve it is to have that peoples vote and get it back to the british people. What we wanted to do is to make sure that we dont crash out on the 31st of october, that was the first priority. It is quite clear that this is a Prime Minister that there does not have the dignity required for office, he has acted out with his power, he should go, we want to get rid of him, we will. We want to make sure, in the first instance, we dont leave the eu on a no deal basis. I want to thank colleagues on a cross party basis that have come together, those that have brought the legal action. This is a brilliant day for democracy, congratulations to everyone. brilliant day for democracy, congratulations to everyone. I think it shows people that this government is wholly incapable of solving the brexit crisis. There is a deal on the table, the british people are fed up with brexit, we all are. That isa fed up with brexit, we all are. That is a solution to the crisis, and at that solution is to get this matter back to these comically british people by way of that can cemetery referendum, its the only way through it. I think it also shows that this Prime Minister and his government is unfit to rule our country. I personally would like the government of National Unity. We know enough great politicians who can lead and do thejob know enough great politicians who can lead and do the job that the british people are crying out for, they want certainty and leadership. And i believe they want that peoples vote. That was on the mps as they emerged outside the Supreme Court just as judgment had as they emerged outside the Supreme Courtjust as judgment had been handed out by lady hale, that surprise unanimous judgment that borisjohnson had surprise unanimous judgment that Boris Johnson had acted surprise unanimous judgment that borisjohnson had acted unlawfully without advice to the queen to suspend parliament. A key figure in this case has been gina miller, the business women. She also emerged victorious from the court. She is now sitting in our westminster studio. What is your reaction, gina miller . It is an extraordinary judgment because of the line nature of this case and the ruling. Can i make the point it is not about brexit, its a really important to understand how constitutionally importing this ruling is. 11 judges have decided that a Prime Minister cannot step down neymar, they cannot close down parliament, our elected representatives, and they cannot prorogue for this length of time. This is not a new president of law, this is a constitutional moment of great significance. It is not about brexit. A lot of people who go to leave in the referendum would say that this is ultimately about brexit. And what you have been doing at the cost for the last few years has been all about brexit, that you are trying to thwart brexit in the courts. They may well say that, but my reply would be about twice in three years, i have had to bring a court case all the way to the Supreme Court to defend parliamentary sovereignty, which is the absolute pillar of our democracy. That is what anybody, everybody, irrespective of how you voted, irrespective of your cause, should be celebrating. That the rule of law has today defended our representatives in parliament, this has nothing to do with how anybody beauty. It is actually bigger than brexit, this is to ensure that a Prime Minister is not above the law. What do you think should now happen in the wake of this judgment . A lot of people are saying that Boris Johnson should resign. Also, should mps go straight back to work, get off to the house of commons and resume their seats in parliament . First of all, the ruling says that the order to prove was a blank piece of paper, as though it never existed. That was a unanimous ruling by 11 of the most seniorjudges in our country. So if he should turn up as soon as our country. So if he should turn up as soon as possible to do their jobs, the thing we pay them for, because prorogation doesnt exist. Secondly, when it comes to Boris Johnson, i would say that we now have a Prime Minister who is not above the law, who gave our queen in legal advice, and he should be considering his position. But that is up to the politicians and those who return to parliament, and i suggest that they could back to their as soon as possible. In your heart of hearts, were you expecting thisjudgment, heart of hearts, were you expecting this judgment, judgment . A heart of hearts, were you expecting thisjudgment, judgment . A lot of the legal commentators we have been within the last few days never saw a unanimous judgment where it was 11 0 from the Supreme Courtjustices. Unanimous judgment where it was 11 0 from the Supreme Courtjusticesm my first case, i was told it would never be heard, much less win. It was the same on this occasion. It was the same on this occasion. It was very was the same on this occasion. It was very nervous was the same on this occasion. It was very nervous up to the very moment. We got no notice, we all head of the judgment together. I just had to press forward with what i believe was right, which was holding the Prime Minister and government to account. There was very little guarantee we would it is a momentous win. You say you had to press forward, we know from what you have said before from your campaigns in 0tley courts, you have had Death Threats at times, you have needed bodyguards. At what personal cost has all of this come . Things that are easy to win are easy. Things that are important on the right thing to do tend to come at a cost, but from my point of view, it is a cost with pain because this is about ensuring that our parliament is not shut down. I would do anything to make sure that was defended. Thank you forjoining us. I have one of the petitioners in the original case. First of all, your reaction . Its a very important moment because whatever you think about brexit, you have to be very concerned to ensure that parliament can do itsjob. Parliament has a very importantjob to do whoever is Prime Minister, Jeremy Corbyn or Boris Johnson. We cannot have Prime Minister is putting aside the only democratically constitution when it suits them, democracy cannot function that way. We should all, whatever we think about brexit, be delighted by the outcome today. Lots of people want to be delighted, a lot of supporters of borisjohnson and the government. Some have been here demonstrating that they will not be delighted. We have a parliamentary democracy and its right that the court made the decision today to uphold our democracy, to hold the executive to account. No one is above the law. The people of this country, whichever side of the government they are on, want Prime Ministers and governments to respect the rule of law. This judgment highlights that the Prime Minister that has no respect of the law. He has been found wanting, and his position is untenable. It is unprecedented that a british Prime Minister they should have behaved like this in the first place. That these cases should be required in this country, in our democracy, it is bad for our representation and it is right that the Prime Minister that has been called out for his appalling behaviour. In new york nah, last night, he was saying that he fully respects the judiciary and the law and the government is voicing that they would abide by the courts decision . Well, lets wait and see. The judiciary decision . Well, lets wait and see. Thejudiciary has made isjudgment. Thejudiciary has made isjudgment. The proof will be in whether the Prime Minister respect start drilling or whether he continues to play politics and his people continue to attack the judges, politicians, 75 members of parliament were part of the petition i went to Scottish Courts and people have been harassed and intimidated. 0ur Prime Minister has proven to be utterly irresponsible and incredibly liberal with the truth. This judgment has shown him up, and its time he actually followed the law, and he needs to prove that he will. What do you think the Prime Minister that should be doing now . He should be reiterating the importance of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. In the statement that downing street made on sunday, it was indicated that the Prime Minister was that advised to add to double before parliament was suspended. That places the Prime Ministerundera very suspended. That places the Prime Minister under a very clear obligation to us the eu for an extension. The Prime Minister has said she will not do it so far, that is not respecting the rule of law. The numberten is not respecting the rule of law. The number ten source in the sunday times threatened judges if they opt how that law, that is an extraordinary thing for a Prime Ministermy office today. Thank you for joining ministermy office today. Thank you forjoining us. Lets get the reaction from stoke on trent. Forjoining us. Lets get the reaction from stokeontrent. Yes, stoke on trent was the city with the la rg es stoke on trent was the city with the la rges leave stoke on trent was the city with the larges leave majority in the country. I spoke to one gentleman who originally achieved leave, he said he is embarrassed by the government, he would change his mind and vote remain if he had a chance again. A lot of people asking where we go from here. Im joined by a Cross Section of the local community. Ryan, your grandfather go to remain, he said that he thinks everybody knew the law was being broken. You voted leave, what do you think of todays ruling . I agree with borisjohnson, we should stop parliament, sought this brexit out, and we should leave. Much of the ruling has found he has broken the law, what do you think of that . People should just get on with it. Just leave it. What do you make of todays ruling . It is unlawful, raises issues. Can we trust boris in the long run . I think obviously brexit has been going on forfar too long and it needs sorting out. Obviously, this isnt the way to go in general. Did you vote leave or remain . I was not old enough, i think now i would vote remain. mean, there is a split, a divide here in the group, chris, did you vote leave or remain . here in the group, chris, did you vote leave or remain . I did not have a dog in the fight, not a virtue, but we seem to live in a world where comedians are the intellects and politicians are just clowns who do not know what they are doing seemingly, acting unlawfully. They do not know the law applies to themselves, seems like a really weird world we live in. Sam, you voted to leave, you are a young voter in the city, if you had your voter in the city, if you had your vote again, what would you do . honestly dont know. If there was a re vote, kind of on the cards potentially, i would do a lot more research. To be honest, i have lost confidence in, you know, the people in charge and i think, Going Forward , in charge and i think, Going Forward, who do you