this is bbc news. i'm ben brown at the supreme court in london, where judges will begin to consider whether the prime minister acted lawfully in suspending parliament. the uk's highest court will review two cases which led to differing judgments on whether the suspension by borisjohnson was motivated by brexit. i think the best thing i can do is wait and see what the judges say. we'll bring you the latest as the hearings get under way in 90 minutes‘ time. i'm annita mcveigh, our other main stories at nine: victims of stalking, harassment and child sexual offences in england and wales will now be

able to challenge sentences they think are too lenient. patient safety is at risk because the rise in hospital nurses in england is being dwarfed by a jump in patients, according to a study. an american swimmer dives into the record books by swimming the channel four times nonstop. and coming up in sport, liverpool bossjurgen klopp says last season's champions league win doesn't make them the best team in europe. they'll start the defence of their title this evening. a very good morning to you.

11 judges in the uk's highest court will begin hearing two appeals this morning to decide whether borisjohnson‘s decision to suspend parliament in the run—up to brexit was legal. it was a controversial decision. let me show you the scene here outside the supreme court, the highest court in the land, several dozen demonstrators here are angry with the decision to prorogue, or suspend, parliament. demonstrating pretty quietly, i had to say. placards saying reopen parliament, they misled the queen, defend democracy. that is the scene outside the supreme court. the suspension has so far been challenged in two separate cases, with each resulting in different judgments — london's high court said it was not a matter for the courts, but edinburgh's court of session said the parliament shutdown was unlawful. here's our legal affairs

correspondent, clive coleman. first, edinburgh's court of session accused boris johnson first, edinburgh's court of session accused borisjohnson of changes tiny parliament are misleading the queen. here's our legal affairs correspondent, clive coleman. constitutional law, dry and dusty? not a bit of it. a prime minister stands accused of misleading the monarch and undermining parliament. the supreme court will have to resolve two dramatically contradictory judgments. scotland's higher civil court ruled that the prime minister's advice to the queen to prorogue was motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing or frustrating parliament during critical weeks before brexit, but the high court in london ruled that proroguing was a political matter and there were no legal standards against which a court could judge it. so the supreme court will have to decide firstly whether proroguing or suspending parliament is a matter for the courts and if it is, they'll have to give a ruling as to whether that advice given

by borisjohnson to the queen was unlawful or not, and that will determine whether parliament can sit again in the days leading up to the 14th of october when the suspension was due to be lifted and during that period, therefore, whether they can legislate and consider brexit matters. we will talk to clive live outside the supreme court at a moment, that first... former supreme courtjustice lord jonathan sumption told bbc newsnight that an orthodox interpretation of the law should see a government victory — but thatjudges may be so outraged by borisjohnson‘s actions that anything is possible. my own view is that the orthodox opinion is the one given by the english courts, but one has to accept that if you behave outrageously and defy the political culture on which our constitution depends, a lot ofjudges

are going to be tempted to push the limits out and the problem is that boris johnson has taken a hammer and sickle to our political culture ina way that is profoundly provocative to people who believe that there ought to be solutions consistent with our traditions. that was jonathan sumption, formerly a supreme court judge. that was jonathan sumption, formerly a supreme courtjudge. clivejoins me now. what will happen over the next days has huge, legal, constitutional implications? we have to remind ourselves what is happening, we are through the looking glass as far as constitutional law is concerned. we have a prime minister of the uk who stands accused of misleading the monarchy and undermining parliament, a sovereign body in our constitution

just across the way. that is extraordinary. the 11 justices here have to grapple with two completely conflicting rulings, the scottish ruling that ruled that this is a matter that the courts can adjudicate and let it be that the prime minister's advice given to the queen was unlawful because it's improper purpose was to frustrate the workings of parliament and some of those weeks leading up to the uk leaving the eu. but from the high court in london a completely differentjudgment which court in london a completely different judgment which said court in london a completely differentjudgment which said this isa differentjudgment which said this is a matter of politics, under our constitution the courts cannot get involved, there are no legal against which tojudge the involved, there are no legal against which to judge the proroguing of parliament. —— there are no legal standards against which to judge. there are 11 judges, that is because then nobody can say that if a different panel sat there would have

been a different result. the 11 justices have to reconcile, they have to say one of the rulings is wrong. first they had to decide if it isa wrong. first they had to decide if it is a matter for the chords and if they think it is, they will need to give a definitive ruling on whether boris johnson's advice give a definitive ruling on whether borisjohnson‘s advice was unlawful. it literally could not be more dramatic. if they decide boris johnson acted unlawfully, can they effectively say he has to recall parliament? one of these challenges has been brought by the business woman gina miller who famously brought and won a challenge here also in relation to parliamentary sovereignty, she challenge the power of ministers to trigger article 50, the process by which the uk leaves the process by which the uk leaves the eu. ministers were full to vote in parliament. gina miller's side are asking for an order effectively quashing the proroguing. if they get that, quite what the mechanics are

for parliament being recalled, whether mps just file in all the prime minister, the government has to formally recall parliament, interestingly, with the scottish ruling, the government did not apply for a suspension order to suspend the scottish ruling pending this, which technically meant mps could have filed back into parliament. the speakeroffice issued have filed back into parliament. the spea keroffice issued a have filed back into parliament. the speakeroffice issued a statement saying it was for the government to recall. quite how the recalling of parliament will take place is a little uncertain, but if they get better order quashing the proroguing then,in better order quashing the proroguing then, in one way or another, parliament be recalled. thank you, clive coleman, a legal correspondence who will be watching it all hesitant. the supreme court. —— who will be watching it all as it unfolds at the supreme court. let's go to westminster now to speak to our assistant political editor norman smith about the political implications of this decision.

we might get the judgment early next week when the prime minister is at the un in new york? it would be an astonishing rebirth for boris johnsonjust as he is astonishing rebirth for boris johnson just as he is trying to talk to eu leaders in the margins of the un summit to hear he would have to backtrack and recall parliament, i think that would fuel a sense among eu leaders that borisjohnson cannot get any deal through parliament given the clear opposition he faces. that said, talking to ministers privately, they are very confident that thejudges will privately, they are very confident that the judges will strike down the edinburgh court, in other wyatt's they will not order parliament to be called back and i think that is because they have taken the view that this would be such a massive step for the supreme court to intervene in that way in what ministers clearly believe is a political decision, that they will not go that far, it was interesting listening to boris johnson yesterday, the very dismissive tone he adapted to those suggesting that

parliament is being muzzled, he said they were talking claptrap, mumbo jumbo, so he is pretty defiant and dismissive, but when asked if the decision goes against you, will you bring back parliament, he remains rather ambiguous. have a listen. obviously i have the greatest respect for the judiciary, and the independence of the judiciary is one of the glories of the uk and of our constitution, one of the things for which we are admired around the world, and i think the best thing i can say, having said that, is to wait and see what they say. but would you be ready to recall parliament if that's what the supreme court says you ought to do? i think the best thing i can do is to wait and see what the judges say. what gives this an added dimension is the fact that the prime minister could already be heading to another titanic legal tussle with parliament over the no deal legislation passed by mps seeking to forge boris

johnson from taking us out without a deal if he can't get an agreement. number ten has indicated they intend to get around that legislation, lots of people are asking how on earth you can do that without breaking the law, so there could be another legal tussle looming, although it is striking the language from number ten and senior ministers has changed. that is in the initial aftermath of the edinburgh court ruling. there were suggestions that they were pretty dismissive of the edinburghjudgment, they were pretty dismissive of the edinburgh judgment, saying people for thejudges were edinburgh judgment, saying people for the judges were biased. justice secretary robert buckland today went out of his way to say how far he respected the independence of the judiciary, although he was asked whether he backed the decision to prorogue parliament and this was his response. as a member the cabinet that supported it, of course i do, and the

government will be arguing over the next few days that it was an entirely proper course to take. i now want to say this about ourjudges. they are world class, they are world leading and we must let them do theirjob. and i want to make sure that whatever the decision is of the supreme court, that we respect the robust independence of our judiciary. labour have welcomed the intervention of the courts. this was shami chakra barti this intervention of the courts. this was shami chakrabarti this morning. is the court entitled to be referee when there's a dispute of this kind between parliament and government? i say, of course, in a 21st—century constitution with parliamentary sovereignty, not executivedomination its heart. —— sovereignty, not executive domination its heart. once you've dealt with that hurdle, you go on to decide whether, on the facts of this case, borisjohnson and his chums were abusive, whether they abused their power, the prerogative power, to suspend parliament, to shut it down in this way. if you thought the boris johnson

premiership wasn't turbulent and an orthodox enough, now we have this extraordinary unprecedented legal challenge which comes notjust from gina millerand challenge which comes notjust from gina miller and some other mps but from the former conservative prime minister sirjohn major as well. we have had success of parliamentary defeats for mrjohnson, we have had him effectively sacking some of his mps, we have had those extraordinary scenes in luxembourg yesterday. now we have an utterly unpredictable, unforeseen coui’t we have an utterly unpredictable, unforeseen court battle between the prime minister and briton's tom court. thank you very much indeed, norman smith. let's explore a bit more about the forthcoming legal battle which will in full dover the next three days at the supreme court. —— which will unfold over the next

three days. i'm joined now by barrister and legal commentatorjeremy brier, and professor alison young from cambridge university. jeremy, will thejudges had to explore the grey area between the law and politics? galba absolutely, this is about the key issue of the prime minister's advice to the queen, whether it is just. it means it is the threshold of where the courts intervene. is it a matterfor judges or are some things in a purely political domain, high policy that the court simply say it is not for us to get involved in, there is no threshold by which we can measure this. this is not what the scottish court of session said and that is why today is so interesting, the supreme courtjudges will have to look at two different judgments supreme courtjudges will have to look at two differentjudgments on the same issue and come to one of you. allison, do you have a best guess, will they decide this is a

matter for them to consider. this guess, will they decide this is a matterfor them to consider. this is within the realms of theirjustice ability? | within the realms of theirjustice ability? i think it has become a buzzword. when we talk about proroguing parliament, suspending parliament, we are talking about political issues, and he's holding the prime minister to account for the prime minister to account for the prime minister to account for the prime minister to decide when he prorogues and for how long. —— mps holding the prime minister to account. but the scottish decision says normally this is about politics but look at what is going on, we have a huge issue which will have huge legal and social constitutions no consequences. huge legal and social constitutions no consequences. and if he will use this for the wrong purposes than the cultured intervene and it is really

ha rd cultured intervene and it is really hard to balance those arguments. i think we will understand more about how the supreme court is those up when we see the questions that the justices at the supreme court put to the barristers. as part of the reason we're having this because we do not have written constitution? yes, three years ago we were all talking about the first miller case, testing out whether article 50 could be triggered by the executive alone and whether parliament needed to vote on that, and three years later we are talking about another constitutional point. our constitutional point. our constitution evolves through the decisions of the court, there is nothing codified, some people have said this week maybe it is time for a written constitution, but when they try to codify things like the fixed—term parliaments act it causes more problems than it solves and we end up with more court cases. it is

good news for lawyers, the same lawyers are head—to—head once again, similar justices lawyers are head—to—head once again, similarjustices on the bench, all to play for. i think alison has my guess is as good as mine. it was interesting listening to lord sumption who was a judge not so long ago, and he was saying what the government did in suspending parliament was disgraceful, that they took a hammer and sickle to the political culture, but even so, he said this was a political decision and not a matterfor the said this was a political decision and not a matter for the courts. said this was a political decision and not a matter for the courtsm gets back to this understanding of if we are just talking about who decides what the purposes or how long, you can understand how that is so political, something that if the court started to get involved they would take a step back and say they are not democratically accountable or elected. parliamentary should be

holding the government to account for these political issues, but as lord sumption also said, when you have a situation where you have a government which is taking a hammer and smashing down aspects of the uk constitution, as he said, he needs to take a step back. they are undermining constitutional standards, if so, that is something for the courts to look at. jeremy, if they find the prime minister acted unlawfully, what do they do? do they say you have to recall parliament? they did not do that after the scottish court of session is found it was unlawful, you didn't see mps fighting back into the chamber. what is quite interesting as these court cases are constantly superseded by events, because perhaps the legislation recently passed has already made this a constitutional academic point of interest to lawyers but not affecting what happens in reality.

jeremy, alison, thank you for being with us. at around 10:30am, proceedings will start, they should last for three days and we might have to wait until early next week forjudgment, but have to wait until early next week for judgment, but the judgment have to wait until early next week forjudgment, but the judgment at the supreme court, the highest court in the land, will have enormous legal, constitutional and political implications. back to you in the studio, annita mcveigh. studio: thank you, ben brown. we will see you again very soon. people convicted of stalking, harassment and child sexual offences in england and wales could see their sentences increase under changes announced by the government today. ministers are adding 14 offences to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which allows anyone to ask for a review of a punishment if they think it should be tougher. around 100 sentences were increased last year, as a result of the scheme. and i'll be speaking to solicitor general michael ellis qc mp shortly about the scheme

and why it's being extended. a 21—year—old man has been arrested along with three teenagers who have been re—arrested over the death of pc andrew harper. the police officer died after he was dragged along a road by a vehicle in sulhamstead, berkshire, on 15th august. jed fosterfrom burghfield has been charged with pc harper's murder and is due to appear in court in january. patient safety could be put at risk because of a shortage of nurses in england — that's according to the royal college of nursing. it's calling on the government to follow scotland and wales by introducing a new law to ensure safe staffing levels. here's our health reporter katharine da costa. too many nursing posts in england are vacant. there is a shortfall of around 40,000, or ii%, a point of the royal college of nursing wants to highlight with these cardboard cutouts. the rcn says it's a national that's putting patient safety in danger.

this is a crisis that everyone knows exists, but it's really not being dealt with as if it's a crisis, and there's a real urgency to it. patients are not receiving the best that they deserve, and we want the public to be able to say that in safety and knowing that someone's going to listen to them. the number of nurses working in hospitals in england is increased by nearly 10,000 over the last five years, but that figure's dwarfed in comparison to the number of admissions, up by 1.5 million over the same period. that means admissions are rising nearly three times faster than the nurse workforce. the rcn is calling for england to follow scotland and wales in introducing a law on safe nurse staffing levels. it wants a national body to be created to plan for the future nursing needs, and it's asking for £1 billion of investment to boost student nurse numbers. the government says nhs staffing is a key priority, and that extra training places and investment will ensure high quality care. katharine da costa, bbc news.

lawyers for cardinal george pell have filed a new appeal to australia's high court against his conviction for child sex abuse. cardinal pell is the most senior catholic cleric to be convicted of sexual abuse and is serving a six—year sentence for assaulting two choirboys in the 1990s. energy suppliers have been given four more years to complete the roll out of smart meters. every uk home was supposed to get one by next year but companies will now have until 2024 — and the cost of the roll—out will rise from £11 billion to {13.5 billion. the government says smart meters are vital to ensure the uk's energy is greener in the future. a medicine used to treat men with enlarged prostates may also slow down the progress of parkinson's disease, according to researchers.

terazosin relaxes the muscles of the prostate and bladder but scientists from the us and china say it also prevents bra i n cells from being destroyed. they plan to start clinical trials. current treatments for parkinson's only manage the symptoms but do not stop its progress. the uk's food supplies could be at risk because of a failure to act on climate change. that's the warning from mps in a report published today. the environmental audit committee also says that the nhs will need to prepare for a rise in health problems caused by our warming planet. our correspondent charlotte gallagher reports. going to a supermarket and buying ourfood shopping is something most of us take for granted. an almost endless choice and array of products from the uk and around the world. but now a group of mps say our food supplies could be at risk because of a failure to act on climate change. they say the government should be promoting more sustainable diets that are lower in meat and dairy. mps warned that rising temperatures could affect agriculture

here and spread livestock diseases, as well as imports from other countries. we are used to a choice in the types of fruit and vegetables we buy, but these mps say nearly 20% come from countries at risk of climate change, meaning that in the future our shopping baskets could look very different. in a statement, the department for environment, food and ruralaffairs said it recognises the threat climate change poses, adding that the uk already has a highly resilient supply chain, and that the national strategy is looking at the challenges of climate. the report also raises concerns that the nhs and pharmaceutical industry don't have enough resources to cope with environmental changes and the challenges they will bring. as global temperatures continue to rise, it is feared they will have more of an impact on our daily lives.

israelis are voting in an election for the second time in less than six months. the prime minister benjamin netanyahu is fighting for a fourth consecutive term after failing to form a coalition government during the summer. bibi, as he's known, has been pulling out all the stops to hang on to power, issuing a calculated stream of warnings, accusations and promises to rally his right wing base. barbara plett usher reports. chanting: bibi, bibi, bibi, bibi! yelling. campaigning, israeli style. it's a bare—knuckle fight for political survival. with the prime minister facing possible corruption charges, he'll do anything to win. these are the die—hard supporters of benjamin netanyahu. they're as determined as he is to get out every vote and he really needs them. benjamin netanyahu shouts in hebrew. he's definitely got their vote. the powerful ultra—orthodox parties have been flexing their muscle

under his watch, protecting their exemptions from the military draft and shutting things down on the sabbath. again this election, they're showing their strength. if you don't want to keep a sabbath and all of the holidays, you can go to america. but many israelis are fed up with this vision of the country. mr neta nyahu's rivals are using that, dangling a prospect of a secular government without him. netanyahu has also grabbed attention with his pitch tojewish settlers. he made a rare official visit to the divided city of hebron and has promised to annex large swathes of territory in the occupied west bank. members of his audience were sceptical. do you think this means that mr netanyahu is siding with the jewish settlers who live here? mr netanyahu, in my opinion, is someone that goes back and forth according to the polls, so i hope that this time his coming means he is having a change in attitude and he's

going to keep his word. outside the settler security zone, palestinians watched the visit with solemn resignation. there was only token resistance. the boys took a chance to lob stones at the soldiers. "all of this is because us as people and our leadership can't stop netanyahu", he says, "and we can't stop what's happening". an independent palestinian state is no longer an israeli campaign issue. for many israelis, the election nearing is getting tiresome — some are looking for a change. i want bibi go home, enough. what has he done, ten years? he don't do nothing. enough, go home, enough! no chance of that. this election is about the fate of bibi netanyahu, and he'll fight to the finish. barbara plett usher, bbc news, jerusalem.

the body of former zimbabwe president robert mugabe has arrived in his home village after a weekend state funeral. the coffin was taken back to murombedzi, near mr mugabe's rural home village of kutama. hundreds of people had gathered to walk past the body. before the cortege arrived, there was anger as mourners were handed shirts with pictures of president emmerson mnangagwa, who turned against robert mugabe in 2017. in brazil, firefighters are still tackling a number of blazes in the amazon region. the fires have been raging through the night and firefighers have been struggling to stop them from spreading. government policies are being blamed for an increase in forest fires in brazil — presidentjair bolsonaro will face scrutiny when he makes a speech at the united nations general assembly next week. coming up, a 37—year—old american woman becomes the first person to swim the channel four times nonstop. we have the remarkable story of sarah thomas,

who completed treatment for breast cancer a year ago, and dedicated her incredible achievement to people living with the disease. astonishing achievement. now it's time for a look at the weather with simon king. it has been a rather chilly start to the day but for many of us, it isa fine and dry start to the day with lots of sunshine out there as well. high pressure moving on from the west at the moment. this will become a key feature of our weather for the rest of this week. it is going to settle things down very nicely, lots of dry weather around. a few showers in the far north of scotland, clouds thickening up into the afternoon. elsewhere, some cloud floating around, making the sunshine hazy from time to time but still plenty of dry and bright weather to be found and maximum temperatures will be getting up into the mid to high teens, perhaps 20 or 21 celsius in the south. still some thick cloud across scotland and some rain affecting the far north. for most of us into tomorrow morning, another

chilly start. temperatures down into fairly low single figures. throughout wednesday, more sunshine expected. temperatures 17—19. goodbye for now. hello, this is bbc news with annita mcveigh. the headlines.

supreme courtjudges will begin to consider whether the prime minister acted lawfully in suspending parliament, after two cases led to differing judgments on whether the suspension was motivated by brexit. victims of stalking, harassment and child sexual offences in england and wales will now be able to challenge sentences they think are too lenient. patient safety is at risk because the rise in hospital nurses in england is being dwarfed by a jump in patients, according to a study. israel's prime minister calls on voters to turn out in high numbers for the country's second general election this year. and an american swimmer becomes the first person to cross the channel a record four times non—stop. we are going to have the briefing for you in we are going to have the briefing foryou ina we are going to have the briefing for you in a few minutes, a little

later than usual. sport now and for a full round—up from the bbc sport centre, here's sally. good morning. liverpool will begin their defence of the champions league tonight. that came around quickly, didn't it? they face a tough match in italy as they take on a napoli side who beat them in the group stages last season. frank lampard will manage in the champions league for the first time when his chelsea side take on valencia. austin halewood looks ahead. tottenham's dramatic comeback against ajax. manchester united stunning paris saint—germain in france. liverpool coming back from the dead against barcelona on their way to lifting the title. after three months away, the champions league is back and the holders are ready to go again. we want to be as consistent as last year, but play our football of this year. last year, we were really good. i'm not sure we were the best team in europe, but we were really good at the right moments. liverpool's title defence begins against napoli, a familiarfoe. the italians beat them in last season's group stage,

but with five wins from five already this season, klopp's side are filled with confidence. on the other hand, chelsea's start has been a mixed one. still mourning the loss of their star man, eden hazard, they've brought back a club legend as manager and frank lampard has been there and done it before. it is the ultimate in club football. there's something about nights at stamford bridge. there's something about the champions league music. there's memories that i have and we have here as chelsea people, and i want to experience it on this side of the fence. because of a transfer embargo, chelsea have had to promote from within. young academy prospects tammy abraham and mason mount have already blossomed in the premier league. now we'll find out if they can do it on the biggest club stage of all. austin halewood, bbc news. the wsl champions arsenal have started the season with two wins out of two. they beat manchester united 1—0 last night. it took 85 minutes but they finally got the goal they deserved through danielle van de donk.

united have lost both of their opening matches in the top division. it was goalless in last night's premier league match between aston villa and west ham. no goals but a bust—up between villa team mates tyrone mings and anwar el ghazi. the pair got into a heated exchange trying to keep a west ham attack at bay. the video assistant referee looked at it to see whether either should be punished, but decided not to. let's have a look at some of this morning's back pages. and the image of that clash between villa team—mates el ghazi and mings is what is on the back page of the guardian. the times contains a great picture of australia's steve smith donning a pair of glasses in a picture with english cricket's most famous spectacle wearerjack leach. and the telegraph features a picture of the england rugby team being formally welcomed injapan. we are just three days away now from the start of the rugby world cup.

a little longer to wait for the home nations to get their campaigns under way. new zealand have won the last two and even though their form has dropped this year, they remain favourites. former wales and british and irish lions captain sam warburton believes half a dozen sides have a realistic chance of winning it. you have got to new zealand, south africa, england, very realistic chance of getting to a final. if ireland and wales can recapture the form they have shown in the last 12 months, they can get to the final. i think for viewers, months, they can get to the final. i think forviewers, normally, months, they can get to the final. i think for viewers, normally, rugby has been like you've blatantly had two frontrunners, it is not like football where it's very competitive but i think this is the most open world cup we have ever had. england arrived injapan a few days ahead of the rugby world cup. plenty of great pictures already appearing on social media. i love this. the reaction of some local fans to meeting joe marler has taken our eye — look how in awe they are.

look atjoe marler‘s face as well! that little boy doesn't quite know what just happened to that little boy doesn't quite know whatjust happened to him! now we've been hearing the wales squad loosening their vocal cords upon their arrival in japan. here are england's opening world cup opponents tonga getting into the spirit of things as they fly in for sunday's opener against eddiejones's side. singing. did you spot the lady, there, not entirely sure about what is happening? i don't think she knows the words. that's all the sport for now. victims of stalking, harassment and some sex crimes will be able to challenge sentences they think are too lenient, under an expansion of a government scheme in england and wales. 1a offences are to be added to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which examines crown court punishments.

let's speak now to the solicitor—general michael ellis qc who joins us from westminster. good morning. would you begin by telling us what you have decided to add these offences to the scheme? this is in the interests ofjustice. the unduly lenient scheme has been in place for some 30 years now. but we are adding some 1a offences which are relatively new offences in some cases to the list of offences that are capable of being reviewed as unduly lenient by the court of appeal. a range of offences including child sex offences and indecency offences, harassment, stalking, those types of offences will be added. at the moment, we can deal with offences like murder, rape, robbery and the like but we are expanding the list of offences so they can be dealt with. and if necessary , so they can be dealt with. and if necessary, have their sentences increased by the court of appeal.

typically come what percentage of these appeals are successful and have their sentences increased? the bar is pretty high for the appeal, isn't it? the bar is quite high, we have to givejudges isn't it? the bar is quite high, we have to give judges of course some latitude. there will be varying sentences that will be passed. in order to be dealt with by the court of appeal, these will have to be sentences that are unduly lenient. they fall well outside of the scope of the range of sentences that we would expectjudges to give. lawyers will look at these. the court of appeal will look at these. and at the moment, we are seeing about 100-150 the moment, we are seeing about 100—150 cases per year, bearing in mind, that there are some 80,000 cases that go through the higher courts in this country, it is a relatively small number. ourjudges are extremely adept at getting this right. but we do have to have a mechanism in place in the interests of justice and mechanism in place in the interests ofjustice and in the interests of victims, to make sure that where a

judge gets it wrong, on those few occasions, that we can have those sentences increased so that they are appropriate for the crime that has been committed. how do you respond to the howard league for penal reform which is somewhat critical of this, calling it penal populism?” don't agree with howard league on this matter, the reality is this is something that the general public expect us to do. they want us to have confidence and faith in the justice system. it is right of course that those people who are sentenced in a manifestly excessive way can have their sentences reviewed by the court of appeal. we also have a system in place where those who are sentenced in an unduly lenient way can have their sentences reviewed by the court of appeal. but why, then, if! reviewed by the court of appeal. but why, then, if i may interact, to ta ke why, then, if i may interact, to take one example, not add death by careless driving to this list, when death by dangerous driving is already included in the scheme? the

relatives who have lost loved ones will feel just as aggrieved, relatives who have lost loved ones will feeljust as aggrieved, whether their loved one has been killed by someone convicted of dangerous driving or careless driving. of course, we are looking very strongly at the whole sentencing regime and the whole area of criminaljustice asa the whole area of criminaljustice as a priority for this government under boris johnson, and considerable investment is going into the criminaljustice field, including, of course, 10,000 more prison places, £2.5 billion more investment into the justice system, including in prisons, and we are also seeing 20,000 more police officers. this is a government that is focused on improving crime and justice statistics, getting it right. what we are expecting is of course a justice system that works for victims and works for the general public. that is what our achievement has been and what it will continue to be. finally... we are always looking at the list of

offences and that is why these 1a new offences have been added to the scheme. we will continue to keep an open mind about other offences that can be added to this. but let's bear in mind we have increased sentencing for death by dangerous driving offences and those sentences have gone up considerably in recent yea rs. gone up considerably in recent years. just finally and very briefly ifi years. just finally and very briefly if i may ask you about our top story today, the supreme court hearing. if the supreme court finds that the prime minister acted unlawfully in suspending parliament, would you urge him to abide by that ruling and recall parliament? well, i'm not in the business of hypotheticals at the moment. the court case is about to start. i don't think it would be helpful at this moment to speculate... but hypothetically, mr ellis? what do you think?” speculate... but hypothetically, mr ellis? what do you think? i don't think it would be helpful to be hypothetical about this. let's wait and see what happens and let's cross that bridge when we come to it. you would urge him to abide by the law,

though? welcome of course, this is a government that respects the rule of law, respect the independence of the judiciary and that is something that we always have done. there is no controversy about that. i'm afraid we are out of time. michael ellis qc, the solicitor general, thank you for your time. let's go back to the supreme court and ben. i'm ben brown at the supreme court, where 11 judges will begin hearing two appeals this morning to decide whether boris johnson's decision to suspend parliament in the run—up to brexit was legal. to discuss this, i'm joined byjolyon maugham qc. he is one of those that brought the case in scotland at the court of session, where the judges decided that what the prime minister had done was not lawful? are you confident you are going to win at the supreme court this week?” confident you are going to win at the supreme court this week? i am confident because there is a really stark and simple proposition at

sta ke. stark and simple proposition at stake. we know parliament cannot itself control whether it is suspended. the government says the judges can't control it, either, and the consequences of that proposition are remarkable. that would mean that the prime minister could suspend parliament today after a general election and suspend it until the day before the next general election, substantially for five yea rs, election, substantially for five years, and no one can do a thing about it. that is an absolutely remarkable proposition for an unelected prime minister to be putting to the supreme court. we have been hearing from lord sumption, a former justice have been hearing from lord sumption, a formerjustice at the supreme court, who said, ok, this was disgraceful, the suspension of parliament, but in the end, it was political. it might have been bad politics but it was politics and it is not a matterfor the politics but it was politics and it is not a matter for the courts or the law. of course, anything that lord sumption says has to be treated with the greatest of respect but to call it political is really not an argument, analytically. what does he mean when he says it is political?

the way in which i look at it, it is for ourjudges to secure the continuation of an absolute cornerstone of our constitutional democracy, and that cornerstone is the supremacy of parliament. how can the supremacy of parliament. how can the supremacy of parliament. how can the supremacy of parliament continue in circumstances where, with whatever motive, the government can suspend parliament for as long as it wa nts ? suspend parliament for as long as it wants? thank you forjoining us. i know you are heading into court right now. in the meantime, more from our legal correspondent clive coleman, who has got more details about what the judges are going to be deciding this week and how they are going to be deciding it. a prime minister accused of misleading the queen and parliament, has all ended up here in the high court in the land. two contradictory ru ns court in the land. two contradictory runs having appeared, one from the scottish court which ruled that the prime minster‘s advice to the queen to prorogue or suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful, and one

from the high court in london, which ruled that the entire matter, the prorogation of parliament, was political, and not a matterfor the courts at all. it is not really like the kind of criminal court we see in tv dramas. there are no witnesses, juries or cross—examination. it is all a bit more like an academic seminar, with brilliant lawyers arguing points of law in front of some of the best legal minds in the country. there are 12 justices, some of the best legal minds in the country. there are 12justices, but they normally sit here in panels of five, seven, nine, but forthis they normally sit here in panels of five, seven, nine, but for this case on the suspension of parliament, and for only the second time ever, they are sitting at 11, so that no one can say if there had been a different panel, it would have been a different result. the prime minister said the suspension of parliament was needed to prepare a queen's speech setting out a new government agenda. the business woman gina miller argues it was to

silence parliament during critical weeks in the lead up to brexit. this is where the government lawyers appealing the decision from the scottish courts will seek to persuade the justices that the prorogation of parliament is really a matter of politics and not one for the court to interfere with at all. at the end of this case, the justices are sitting here will give a definitive ruling on whether the advice given by the prime minister to the queen to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful or not. and that will determine whether parliament can sit again in the days leading up to the 14th of october, when the suspension was due to be lifted, and during that period, therefore, whether they can legislate and consider brexit issues. clive coleman with that assessment. let's talk about what is going to be happening at the supreme court, the highest court in the land.

i'm joined by drjoelle grogan, senior lecturer in law at middlesex university, and robert craig, from the university of bristol law school. is this difficult for the judges? this is a grey area between the law, the constitution, politics. as with everything to do with brexit, we are in unprecedented and uncharted legal territory. i can't imagine, well, not since last gina miller case three ago, when we are asking the fundamental, constitutional questions, what should parliament do, what should the government do, what are the limits on those powers, and very importantly, what is the place of the supreme court in deciding and determining these questions? if you are one of those 11 supreme court judges, questions? if you are one of those 11 supreme courtjudges, what would your decision be? do you haven't heard the case yet of easy but what would be your inkling. the starting point has got to be the court decision in english law, —— at the divisional court decision. it was

blistering, a thundering endorsement of the orthodox constitutional position. and that is that this is not a matter for the courts. absolutely, it is saying that just disability, a bright red line which has been in case law for a long time, applies here, so that this is not something the judges are able to look at because it is so political. if you look around you, there is pretty strong evidence that this is a political issue that the judges should stay away from. what has raised the stakes is the result of the scottish in—house session. before that, this case did not have the same interest in the public and this has completely changed and raised the stakes in this situation. ifi raised the stakes in this situation. if i was one of the 11, i would be starting with a blistering judgment of the english court, which was really very senior judges of the english court, which was really very seniorjudges but the scottishjudges were really very seniorjudges but the scottish judges were also senior, it is very balanced up so really, they have the referee, the supreme court here, the 11 judges have the referee between these two contradictory rulings from the english court and a scottish court? very simply, they

have to make the final decision, what is the answer to this question of whether or not the advice was lawful? going to this, it will be the two central questions, is this just a shield, which means, can they -- is just a shield, which means, can they —— is this justicial. just a shield, which means, can they -- is thisjusticial. is just a shield, which means, can they -- is this justicial. is this just a shield, which means, can they -- is thisjusticial. is this a matter for the courts, essentially. is there a standard ignore by which we canjudge is there a standard ignore by which we can judge this lawfulness question what do we have to reach the foundational principles of the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty, to say that there are limits on powers, and what those limits on powers, and what those limits are and what they should be. if the supreme court says boris johnson was wrong and acted unlawfully, what does it actually then do? does it recommend or tell him he has to recall parliament?” got a him he has to recall parliament?” gota paper him he has to recall parliament?” got a paper out today on a website which talks about the difficulties and remedies, it is extremely challenging to see what they could do. if they were to say it was unlawful, does it mean they have to

revoke in some way the original prorogation procedure or do they have to start again with a new session? it is difficult to say that because if it is unlawful from the beginning, does that mean the commissioners who did the ceremony did not have any legal power to do it in the first place? if they don't have the legal power, how can the judges look at that? that is within parliament, and article of the —— article nine of the ben wright 1689 says, anything that happens as proceedings in parliament is absolutely outside the jurisdiction of the courts. if you put the remedies issue on the table, it gets even more complicated. who is going to win? we will find out in about a week! let me put the same question i asked robert, if you are one of the judges, how would you be going?” might dramatically disagree with robert and go back to foundational principles which for me are the rule of law. for every legal power, there isa of law. for every legal power, there is a limit. we must see those limits. if this was established, if it is proven to be done for an improper purpose, to frustrate the very point of parliament, the very

foundation of parliament and democracy and the rule of law, then thatis democracy and the rule of law, then that is a difficulty, but i need to echo robert, i mean, even if this is unlawful, by the judges' echo robert, i mean, even if this is unlawful, by thejudges' estimation, we are in very difficult constitutional territory in terms of remedies. good to talk to both of you. we will be talking to you again i'm sure throughout the week but thatis i'm sure throughout the week but that is the latest from here at the supreme court, the case is getting under way at about 10:30am. we will bring you live updates through the day. ben, thank you very much. a woman from colorado has become the first person to swim the english channel four times nonstop. sarah thomas set off early on sunday and finished in kent this morning after more than 5a hours in the water. let's have a look at how she did it. she set off near dover in the early hours of sunday morning, arriving at calais some 11 hours later. on sunday afternoon she headed back, arriving in dover early on monday morning.

battling on, she continued her return to the french coast all morning. and then she turned around for one last crossing, arriving on a beach near doverjust after six o'clock this morning, after swimming for an incredible 5a hours and 10 minutes non stop. she spoke to the bbc shortly after finishing. i'm really tired. and i'm losing my voice from all the salt water. my crew was really great about helping me out and helping me stay strong. i knew what to expect from the currents and the weather and the cold, so i was very prepared for the amount of time that i was going to be in the water. i use a maltodextrin product called carbopro that my team throws me in a water bottle, mixed with electrolytes, and that's what i ate most of the way. the channel's actually pretty clean, so i didn't see a lot of garbage or trash, just fish and a lot ofjellyfish. hopefully, i can sleep

the rest of the day. i am pretty out of it and pretty tired right now, for sure. i was reallyjust pretty numb. there is a lot of people on the beach to meet me and wish me well and... ..that was really nice of them, but i feeljust mostly stunned right now. ijust can't believe that we did it. sarah thomas, and remember, she finished breast cancer treatment a year ago. kevin murphy was on the boat as one of the official observers. he's also swam the channel 3a times himself. kevin joins us now from dover. what was it like to be a witness to this awesome feat? it was inspirational, it really was. she pushed the boundaries of endurance. way, way beyond what the normal limits are. in fact, it could not have been physical. it must have been just have been physical. it must have beenjust a sheer act have been physical. it must have been just a sheer act of will to continue. everything would have

hurt. she just ignored continue. everything would have hurt. shejust ignored it. what was even more surprising was the fact that she kept up her pace all the way through. she just didn't flag. there was one period where she started being sick but she got through that and came out the other side and was happy as larry. how much assistance and back—up was she allowed to get from her team? she's not allowed to get assistance as such, inasmuch as nobody is allowed to touch her. as she said in the little clip, they can throw a bottle of high carbohydrate drink at her and she can tread water and take that down. but she can't hold onto anything. she can't get any assistance from anybody. even at the turns, nobody is allowed to touch her. she had to restart swimming

within ten minutes of touching the far side. it isjust her against it, basically. and you well know, as we described in our introduction, the challenges of a task like this, a feat like this. did you ever doubt that she could complete this, to swim nonstop for times. she is the only one, other swimmers have come along and said they wanted to do it four times but she was the only one i thought had a chance because of her past record. bear in mind that her past record. bear in mind that her past record. bear in mind that her past swims have been before she suffered from breast cancer. in actualfact, suffered from breast cancer. in actual fact, you suffered from breast cancer. in actualfact, you said suffered from breast cancer. in actual fact, you said that the treatment had finished a year ago. in fact, it hasn't. she is still undergoing treatment for breast cancer now. at one point, during the swim, when she was being sick, the anti nausea drug that was being

given to her was the one she had when she was having chemotherapy. that is astonishing and makes their achievement all the more astonishing. kevin, thank you very much for giving us that insight into what sarah managed to achieve. thank you very much for your time. time now for the morning briefing. it will be brief because of the events of this morning. we are bringing you up—to—date on some of the stories people are watching, reading and sharing. as you might expect, sarah thomas is trending on social media this morning after becoming the first person to swim the channel four times nonstop. as we've been hearing, the 37—year—old ended up swimming more than 130 miles because of the currents. most people are simply in awe of her achievement. the endurance swimmer and ocean campaigner lewis pugh has tweeted, "extraordinary, amazing, super—human!!! just when we think we've reached the limit of human endurance, someone shatters the records.

huge congratulations to sarah thomas on swimming the english channel four times continuously! ! !" and the writer and broadcaster, and sea swimmer himself, charlie connelly is full of admiration for sarah. he's tweeted, "the sun rose over the channel this morning just as sarah thomas completed her four—way english channel swim, which has to be one of the greatest feats of mental and physical endurance in human history." a quick look at what you are reading and watching on the bbc news app, number one on the most read is on the supreme court, expect more coverage of that throughout the day on bbc news. sarah thomas' swim is at number two, on bbc news. sarah thomas' swim is at numbertwo, and on bbc news. sarah thomas' swim is at number two, and the story of the world's biggest amphibian was at number one until recently, the giant salamander is at number five. on the most watched, at numbers two and three, a couple of very interesting films. they all are, i have to say, but number two is very striking, 100

days of protests in 100 seconds, the 100 days of protests in hong kong over the extradition bill. and also this story at number three, a woman who is training under a special scheme in ethiopian to carry out emergency operations, it normally ta kes te n emergency operations, it normally takes ten years to train a surgeon but she is being taught injust three years. i recommend you have a look at that. that's it for today's morning briefing. now it's time for a look at the weather with simon king. you may have noticed it was rather chilly this morning but we have been compensated with lots of sunshine so far this morning, and we can keep a lot of sunshine not only today but through the next few days as well because high pressure is moving in from the west at the moment and that is really going to settle things down. plenty of dry weather to talk about today. there will be a bit of cloud here and there and the cloud is thickening up across scotland this afternoon. otherwise, lots of

sunshine, maximum temperature is getting into the high teens, about 19 or20. getting into the high teens, about 19 or 20. through tonight, we keep clear skies and tomorrow morning, it could once again be quite chilly but more sunshine to come.

hello, it's tuesday, it's ten o'clock, i'm victoria derbyshire. welcome to the programme. britain's most seniorjudges will start deciding today whether the prime minister broke the law by suspending parliament in the run up to brexit. obviously i have the greatest respect for the judiciary, and the independence of the judiciary is one of the glories of the uk and of our constitution, one of the things for which we are admired around the world, and i think the best thing i can say, having said that, is to wait and see what they say. that court case is due to start at10:30. we'll bring it to you live. the bbc‘s highest paid presenter, gary lineker, says he'll take a pay cut. he says, "i love myjob at the bbc and i'm volunteering to take less." we will bring you reaction. and after 5a hours and ten minutes,