Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament ‘not a matter for the courts’

The High Court has ruled that Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks ‘is not a matter for the courts’.

The case was brought to the High Court by businesswoman Gina Miller.

She was supported by former prime minister John Major and shadow attorney general Baroness Chakrabarti, as well as the Scottish and Welsh governments.

However, the case was dismissed last Friday, and today the judges gave their reasons for doing so.

The judges made clear that the decision of the prime minister to prorogue Parliament, which is the longest suspension since 1945, was ‘purely political’ and therefore not capable of being challenged in the courts.

They also added that there was ‘no legal standard against which to judge the decision’ to suspend Parliament and that it was ‘impossible for the court to make a legal assessment of whether the duration of the prorogation was excessive by reference to any measure’.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Master of the Rolls Sir Terence Etherton and President of the Queen’s Bench Division Dame Victoria Sharp delivered their ruling at a brief hearing in London today.

In their judgment, they stated: ‘We concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not justiciable (capable of challenge). It is not a matter for the courts.’

The judges also said that Ms Miller’s case had been undermined by the fact that Parliament had managed to pass recent legislation, requiring Mr Johnson to seek an extension to the current Brexit deadline of October 31 if no deal is reached with the EU.

The judgment stated: ‘The ability of Parliament to move with speed when it chooses to do so, was illustrated with clarity and at the same time undermined the underlying premise of the cases advanced by both the claimant and the interveners, namely that the prorogation would deny Parliament the opportunity to do precisely what it has just done.’

The ruling came after the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that Mr Johnson’s suspension of Parliament was unlawful.

The English and Scottish proceedings, along with a similar case being heard in Belfast, are expected to be considered together by the Supreme Court in London, with the hearing due to start on September 17.

At the hearing last week, Ms Miller’s barrister, Lord Pannick QC, had argued that Mr Johnson’s advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks was an ‘unlawful abuse of power’.

Lawyers representing Mr Johnson said Ms Miller’s claim was ‘academic’ and urged the court to reject it.

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the ruling last week, Ms Miller said she was ‘very disappointed with the judgment’.

‘To give up now would be a dereliction of our responsibility. We need to protect our institutions,’ she said.

‘It is not right that they should be shut down or bullied, especially at this most momentous time in history.

‘My legal team and I will not give up our fight for democracy.’