It is 'remarkable' Boris Johnson hasn't explained why he suspended Commons, Supreme Court told

Boris Johnson was accused in the Supreme Court today of ducking a cross-examination over his motives for suspending Parliament.

The suspicion was aired by Lord Pannick QC in the opening session of the historic hearing into the Prime Minister’s decision to ask the Queen to send MPs away from Westminster for five weeks at the height of the Brexit drama.

The lawyer spotlighted the “remarkable” fact that Mr Johnson had not supplied a witness statement to the court explaining what he told the

Queen and why he wanted a prorogation for the “exceptionally long period of five weeks”.

“It is a remarkable feature of these proceedings that the Prime Minister has not made a witness statement explaining why he decided to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for a period as long as five weeks,” said Lord Pannick, who is representing the businesswoman and campaigner Gina Miller.

http://players.brightcove.net/1348423965/default_default/index.html?videoId=6086962208001

Gina Miller arrives at Supreme Court for appeal over Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament

He invited the court to consider why the Prime Minister should choose to withhold his account from scrutiny.

“The legal consequences of such a statement would have been almost inevitably an application to cross-examine,” he said, implying Mr Johnson did not want to be quizzed in court.

He then suggested Mr Johnson might have been nervous of being accused of saying something untrue: “The legal consequences would also be that it would be a contempt of court of course for such a witness statement not to tell the truth.”

Eleven Supreme Court justices will rule on whether the Prime Minister’s decision to ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament was lawful or not.

A crowd of about 40 protesters gathered outside, holding signs saying “Defend democracy”, “Reopen Parliament” and “They misled the Queen”. Three days of detailed argument will be heard following two challenges brought in England and Scotland, the latter of which found the Government acted illegally. It came as:​

• The Prime Minister declined to say if he would recall MPs to Westminster if the court sought it, telling the BBC: “I think the best thing I could do is wait and see what the judges say.”

• Justice Secretary Robert Buckland refused to rule out a second suspension, or prorogation, of Parliament, and suggested the Queen’s Speech on October 14 might be called off.

• It emerged that Sir John Major will give oral evidence to the court on Thursday — the first time a past Tory prime minister has attended the highest court to criticise the actions of a current one.

• A leaked report claimed that 8,500 lorries could form a 150km (93mile) long traffic jam from Dover to Guildford after a no-deal Brexit. The Department for Transport document said delays would average a day and a half, said the Financial Times.

In an electrifying opening session of the Supreme Court hearing, Lord Pannick said the prorogation was recommended by Downing Street to the Queen for an “improper purpose” of preventing Parliament from challenging the Government.

Lord Pannick said: “This case cries out for an answer in a witness statement to the allegation that was made against the Prime Minister and, in the absence of such a witness statement and the willingness of the Prime Minister to submit to potential cross examination, we say the court should infer that there is no answer.”

Earlier, in comments made ahead of the hearing, former attorney general Dominic Grieve said: “The Prime Minister should stop trying to find ways of slipping around the law and just obey it.”

Asked twice by the BBC if he would recall MPs to Westminster if the court sought it, Mr Johnson replied: “I think the best thing I could do is wait and see what the judges say.”

http://players.brightcove.net/1348423965/default_default/index.html?videoId=6086775338001

Boris Johnson can 'see the shape' of a Brexit deal

Ahead of the hearing, Mr Johnson told the BBC he had the “greatest respect for the judiciary”, and hailed an independent judiciary as “one of the glories of the UK”. But he would not give an advance promise to recall MPs if the court ruling suggested it.

Mr Buckland, the Government’s most senior law officer, refused to rule out a second bid to prorogue Parliament during October.

He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Harold Wilson said a week is a long time in politics, it seems like an hour is a long time in politics at the moment, and for me to sit here and imagine what might happen at the end of October, I think is idle.

“What I do know is if we are able to, we will have a Queen’s Speech in October, there will be debate during that time and a vote as well, perhaps a series of votes, and I think Parliament has already shown its power.”

The words “if we are able to” indicated that the Government thinks the Queen’s Speech could be cancelled or moved after the court rules.

Asked if Parliament will be recalled if the Government loses, Mr Buckland said: “It would be wrong of me to speculate as to what might happen with regard to the Supreme Court’s judgment. Let’s let them get on with their job.”

Challenged on whether there was a contingency plan, he replied: “We need to see precisely what the terms of the decision were, as to what the effect of that would mean.”

Asked if the Government would abide by any Supreme Court ruling, he said: “We will abide by the ruling of the courts. That’s what this government will do… we respect the rule of law.”

Questioned on whether the Government regarded as “watertight” the cross-party “Benn Act” which requires a Brexit postponement if there is no deal, he said: “It’s yet to be tested.”

Hammersmith MP Andy Slaughter, a former barrister, said: “The Government is playing with fire. They are setting out deliberately to undermine the highest court in the land and sow seeds in advance of their judgment that they (the Government) may not follow the decision that the court makes. It’s unprecedented, outrageous and showing utter contempt to the Supreme Court.”

During a round of interviews, Mr Buckland stressed that Britain’s judges were “world class”, adding: “We must let them do their job. I want to make sure that whatever the decision is of the Supreme Court that we respect the robust independence of our judiciary.”

Read more

PM 'saw MPs as an obstacle to Brexit' Supreme Court told- LIVE

Tories round on Luxembourg PM for attack on no-show Johnson

Swinson: A no-deal Brexit would be like burning your house down