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,

this woman, sarah thomas, has become the first person to swim the channel nonstop four times. and she only finished treatment for breast cancer a year ago. it is the most incredible achievement, she is absolutely amazing. i was reallyjust pretty numb. there was a lot of people on the beach to meet me and wish me well. that was really nice of them but i feeljust mostly stand right now. ijust can't believe that we did it. we'll hear more from sarah thomas, and talk to a member of her support team. hello. welcome to the programme. we're live until 11 this morning. today those supreme courtjudges will decide whether the prime minister was wrong to suspend parliament ahead of brexit. the outcome could have huge ramifications for boris johnson's future as pm. it will not be known until possibly

three orfour it will not be known until possibly three or four days. what do you think aboutjudges getting involved in politics? should they? or should that kind of decision be left to mps? do get in touch on all the stories we're talking about — use the hashtag #victorialive. if you text, you'll be charged at the standard network rate. first annita mcveigh has the news. that is our top story today. 11 judges in the uk's highest court will shortly begin hearing two appeals to hear whether boris johnson's decision to suspend parliament in the run up to brexit was legal. the hearing is scheduled to last until thursday. thejustice secretary robert buckland says the government has great respect for the judiciary, and will be arguing that the decision to suspend parliament was lawful. 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. 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. a liberal democrat government will revoke article 50 and stop brexit on day one, leaderjo swinson is to vow. in her first speech to the party's conference as leader, ms swinson will reiterate its policy of overturning the law ensuring the uk will leave the eu. the east dunbartonshire mp will also appeal to scottish voters to reject the snp and join a bigger movement for change across uk to stop brexit.

an american woman has become the first person to swim the english channel four times nonstop. sarah thomas started her swim on sunday morning and finished at around 6:30 today. the route should have been 84 miles long but strong currents mean the 37—year—old, who had treatment for breast cancer last year, swam 130 miles. a newly—identified amphibian is possibly the largest on the planet, according to dna from museum specimens. reaching nearly two metres in length, the south china giant salamander is critically endangered in the wild. scientists say renewed conservation efforts are needed if the animal is to be saved from extinction. previously considered a single species, analysis of specimens living and dead suggests there are, in fact, three species found in different parts of china. the south china salamander is the largest of the three, which researchers suspect it is the largest amphibian alive today.

a woman from california has had surgery to remove an engagement ring after swallowing it in her sleep. jenna evans dreamt she swallowed the ring to protect it while she and her fiance bobby were being terrorised by villains on a speeding train. when she woke up she realised she had actually taken it off herfinger and gulped it down with a glass of water. soi so i guess her dream came true, but not in the usual way. so i guess her dream came true, but not in the usualway. she is so i guess her dream came true, but not in the usual way. she is all right, and so is the ring, which is the most important element of that story. sarah toms, what a woman. what a woman. she is the first person to swim the english channel 4 times nonstop.

and she only finished her treatment for breast cancer last year. 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 ten minutes non stop. let's hear what she had to say to bbc breakfast when she finally finished. and she was knackered. 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 dextrin 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. let's speak to sarah's friend elaine howley, who was on the boat alongside her during the channel swim and is also an occasional training partner. hello, elaine. what an amazing achievement, my god. it was pretty incredible. how is she? 0k. tired,

obviously, a little sore but in good spirits and resting comfortably upstairs. why did she want to do it? it isa upstairs. why did she want to do it? it is a really good question that i am not sure i had a great answer for. it is just kind of what sarah thomas does, she is an ultramarathon swimmer, a once in a generation of who redefines a sport. i think after having gone through the breast—cancer stuff last year, i think may that heightens the need to prove to herself that she could come back and behold again, and be an ultramarathon swimmer. and she has done that. in a big way. i don't think any of us on her team ever doubted she could do it, she put together one wonderful piece of swimming and we are so pleased for

her. she swam 134 miles and it should have been 84, how? this is one of the cruel ironies about marathon swimming, you only get credit for the straight—line distance. so officially it will be recorded as an 84 mile swim, but the changing strong currents and tides in the channel pushed the swimmer and the boat around, so in actuality we have travelled about 130 miles that it will not be recorded, if that it will not be recorded, if that makes sense. it does. tell the audience how she takes on food, what are the rules about eating? how did she cope with the cold and jellyfish? the feeding is a pretty regimented science at this stage. we use primarily a mulch rejection

project —— a maltodexrin product, she treads water and six it down as quick as she can then we get the bottle back to the boat. occasionally she does some solids, things like oatmeal or cooked rice. she complained to couple of times about being stung byjellyfish, a p pa re ntly about being stung byjellyfish, apparently there was a big bloom of them congregating near the french show. i was in there at one point, they are not the worst jellyfish show. i was in there at one point, they are not the worstjellyfish in they are not the worstjellyfish in the world that it is not the most fun when you are hit with them, there is not that you can do, it is there is not that you can do, it is the living room, we were just passing through. were there any points when you were in the boat and you thought you might be on the verge of quitting? on this swim, i would swim in at each turn to bring her some water and some extra lanolin, because chafing is a real issue. when i caught up with her at

the second time she had swim 24—hour is already, she had really had her had set on landing on a beach somewhere, she wanted to feel gravity for a minute or two again, and she couldn't because we got to ac wall and there was no point of egress. she was a little disheartened but she did not quit. i saidi disheartened but she did not quit. i said i knew she could do it, she kept going. as somebody trying to support her as she is swimming for this length of time, what kind of things argue calling out from the boat? stay strong, you look good, sometimes we would tell her (inaudible) i (inaudible) ,if (inaudible) , if your arms are clicking at the same rate as usual then that can be good. occasionally trying to shed

directions. she can't hear a lot because it is noisy. it is a noisy place, the boat is making a lot of noise, she has earplugs. lots of cheering and clapping. i have some amazing messages for her. one of you are on twitter says thank you sarah thomas. passing what we previously thought was possible, you are amazing. vanessa says it gives hopes to millions around the world going through chemo and radiotherapy. i was going to do a swing in august, sabotaged by weekly chemo, i was going to do it next year, hopefully. another person said eiffel tower is doing well to manage three miles in the same situation as sarah. —— another person said i thought i was doing well. june says how can someone doing well. june says how can someone be so strong? how can you a nswer someone be so strong? how can you answer about, elaine? someone be so strong? how can you answer about, elaine ?|j someone be so strong? how can you answer about, elaine? ithink it is her determination, her physical

strength, her mentalfortitude. she is one of the strongest, greatest people i think i have ever met. she is incredibly resilient. she has it, whatever it is. thinking so much, elaine. as on our congratulations. still to come: the uk's highest court is about start hearings which will decide if boris johnson's decision to suspend parliament in the run—up to brexit was legal. we'll be live at the supreme court — and explain what each side will be arguing. at the next general election, the women's equality party will fight in five areas where the current mp has been accused of sexual harassment or aggressive behaviour towards women. the party has already selected two candidates, serena laidley and jenn selby. ms laidley is standing against kelvin hopkins in luton north, who was suspended by the labour party after allegations of sexual harassment, and is still under investigation.

he denies the claims and says he wants to "clear his name". ms selby is standing against mark field in the city of london and westminster seat. he's the conservative mp who was filmed grabbing a female greenpeace activist by the neck during a protest. mr field apologised to the woman; the police and the cabinet office investigated the incident and closed inquiries without further action. that was the incident captured on camera. with me isjenn selby and serena laidley. good morning. iwill ask good morning. i will ask you at the end but equal pay, high salaries and the fact gary lineker is volunteering to take a pay cut, but first let's start with why you are standing. serena, why are you inspired to stand? i want to speak for the victims of domestic abuse, and it is about time that we as a

women's equality party, as a survivor and a candidate, speakfor legal rights, better pay and gestures. what about you, jenn? i am standing on behalf of all other women who have yet to access justice, particularly because the men we are standing against have unanswered allegations of alleged harassment and assault. parliament has failed to help in to account, i think you said in your blood beforehand think you said in your blood before hand that maxfield think you said in your blood beforehand that maxfield has been properly investigated, that is not true. the investigation was dropped by borisjohnson true. the investigation was dropped by boris johnson and the police true. the investigation was dropped by borisjohnson and the police did not investigate because the greenpeace activist did not take it further, so he can still stand and investigated properly. but the cabinet office and the police closed their inquiries, whatever the reasons. they have been

uninvestigated, they have gone no further than that. so we are standing to help them to account. serena, you say you were gang raped asa serena, you say you were gang raped as a teenager. tell our audience has something like that changes your life and transforms your approach to issues like this? it transformed my life. i was a light, bright young woman, ready for the world, life. i was a light, bright young woman, ready forthe world, it turned my world into darkness. u nfortu nately, turned my world into darkness. unfortunately, i wanted to commit suicide because i felt like there was no hope. my world was turned upside down. access to health care, mental health care, was very, very limited. i was just given six weeks of counselling by the nhs, however, that was not enough. i remained silent for many years. because i was

told even by the police that it was less likely that it would end in a conviction. unfortunately that stands true today, with only 3.3% of rape reported to police being convicted. that leaves many, many vulnerable people, women and children, that have been violently abused, to remain silent. jen, i understand you are also a survivor of rape. your case hasjob by the cps because they were not confident ofa cps because they were not confident of a successful prosecution, what impact does that have? a huge impact, it was dropped about four

days because i bet before i was set to take to the stand. it was devastating. it is strange because that access tojustice devastating. it is strange because that access to justice leaves a huge hole in you, you do not have a point to move on from, there is no burial, no way of grieving and moving on with your life. with that very negative energy and the disappointment and shame that comes with that, you have nobody saying that what happened to you was wrong, you don't have anyone saying that, so you don't have anyone saying that, so you had to carry that in your own head and move forward. with that energy, that is why we are sitting here today, i started campaigning for women's rights and survivors. i can't getjustice for women's rights and survivors. i can't get justice for what for women's rights and survivors. i can't getjustice for what happened to me but i can get it for other women, which can start in clearing out some of the very old policy is

failing to hold mental accounting parliament right now. on the subject of kelvin hopkins, for example, he has been suspended by the labour party but its standing as an independent. he denies the allegations, at one point he was accused of texting a young woman, accused of texting a young woman, accused of texting a young woman, accused of inappropriately hugging one woman and sending inappropriate texts including saying young men would be lucky to have you as a girlfriend and a lover. were i to be young... buti girlfriend and a lover. were i to be young... but i am not. investigation of the labour party is continuing and he denies any ongoing toe wrangling. should you not wait for the investigation? gulp it has been over 20 months now, that poor woman is still reeling from the effects of that alleged text message. no, it needs to be done now and i urge

borisjohnson to deal with the domestic bill now. he has said he is committed to it being in the next queen speech, but we will see. we have waited so long, how many more women have to die? it is great to hear him make these promises and claims andl hear him make these promises and claims and i am glad the domestic violence bill, the domestic abuse bill, will be coming back in parliament at some point, but it has been pushed back for too long. there are 173 women who have died in the la st are 173 women who have died in the last year at the hands of their partners, it is really overdue and we are fed up of waiting. we are also fed up of sitting in a parliament where he is perfectly ok to suspend 21 mps for voting the wrong way but will not suspend one mp for allegedly committing a violent act on a peaceful protester. we are standing to make that point

clear. was there any part of your brain where you thought, why should ibe brain where you thought, why should i be the one to stand? did you doubt yourself vital? it is a big step. lots of times if you can't see somebody like yourself doing a job like that or sitting in parliament, it is hard to envision yourself, but isn't that the problem with parliament anyway? so many people can't see themselves there and it should be a body of people who have been elected who represent people in their constituencies, who are able to give them a mouthpiece. we have far too many people from the same background who went to the same schools in charge, i don't see why they should not have a few more survivors, it is clearly an epidemic problem and it does not seem to have anyjustice at the moment. why not us? it is a five year high that

domestic abuse is continuing, so with us being elected we know about the problem, we know what access we need for the women to make sure they are better treated, they get the right to treatment and justice served. in terms of being elected, kelvin hopkins has a majority of 15,000, quite a decent majority to overturn. mark field has a majority of about 3000, you might think it is potentially more achievable. although by standing you will spot the votes of people opposing him. kelvin hopkins is standing as an independent, i kelvin hopkins is standing as an independent, lam kelvin hopkins is standing as an independent, i am sure the labour party will field somebody against him. ithink party will field somebody against him. i think his majority might be whittled away quite quickly. in terms of my seat, in the city of

london westminster, it will be a three—way marginal seats. we might not be one of the bigger parties but we are still commanding at least 5% or 10% of the vote share, we could be the make or break. what we are hoping will happen is we will be extending a hand to other pro remain parties, chuka umunna is in the lib dems per row seat and you have seen — — steven dems per row seat and you have seen —— steven sykes be in the labour seat, we are in negotiations with them. you might not stand at all? a blood if they agreed to take on our policies, the main thing being to amend the recall act of 2015. at the moment, constituents cannot sack their mps if they are found guilty bya their mps if they are found guilty by a third independent party of harassment or assault against women, they can recall them if they have a custodial sentence but we know how rare that is. if you sold someone in

parliament and an independent body might not go to the police, it is up to the survivor to make that decision, whether they want to go to that or not. so that is what we want. gary lineker, you will know there has been a huge row at the bbc and many other places about equal paper between men and women, he is the bbc‘s highest paid presenter and has told daily mirror he is volunteering to take a pay cut. your reaction? garbage should not be volunteered, it should be a policy in all corporations wherever you are that equal paper between men and women in the same decision, it should be given, it should not take gary lineker a voluntary pay cut.|j think gary lineker is a great example, we need as many allies as we can get, but i think the bbc, the promises they have made, until 2020,

you have three months, we had better crack on with it and it should be a structural policy, it should not be done to an individual man. one viewer says whatever rejection does not amount to a much —— enough. another dealer says the bbc is overstaffed and overpaid. thank you both very much for coming onto the programme. what lay behind borisjohnson's decision to suspend parliament? judges at the highest court in the land, the supreme court, begin to decide today. there has been one ruling in scotland that the prime minister was trying to stymie or obstruct parliament, another in england that judges shouldn't get involved in politics. we'll bring you the start of those proceedings live in just a few minutes. but first, here's our legal eagle clive coleman, to explain what's happening. he will take you inside the supreme court. a prime minister accused of misleading the queen and undermining parliament. it's all ended up here,

at the highest court in the land. two contradictory rulings are being appealed, one from the scottish courts, which ruled that the prime minister's advice to the queen to prorogue or suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful, but one from the high court in london, which ruled that the entire matter, the proroguing of parliament, was political and not a matter for the courts at all. it's not really like the kind of criminal court you see in tv dramas. there are no witnesses, juries or cross—examination. it's 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 but they normally sit here in panels of five, seven, nine. but, for this case on the suspension of parliament, for only the second time ever, they're sitting at 11 so that no—one can say, "well, if there'd 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 businesswoman 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 proroguing 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 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 october 14th, when the suspension was due to be lifted, and during that period, therefore, whether they can legislate and consider brexit issues.

we'll be live at the court when it begins its session in a few minutes, but first we have two of the uk's top legal brains. jessica simor qc, who campaigns against brexit, and clive thorne, who's a solicitor and vice—chairman of the pro—brexit group lawyers for britain. welcome, both. what is the key issue? whether or not the prime minister acted lawfully enclosing parliament for five weeks on the 9th of september, that is the key question, and the issues will be whether the court can determine that legality and secondly did he pursue an impermissible purpose or a purpose other than the purpose he said he was pursuing. in terms of whether the court can pursue this, thatis whether the court can pursue this, that is the argument about whether it isa that is the argument about whether it is a purely political decision? indeed, the results of another issue. this is not about brexit, per

se, it is simply knowing whether the government of the day, the prime minister, has the powerto government of the day, the prime minister, has the power to prorogue parliament. and i think he has, yes. he certainly has the power to do it, but all governmental powers had to be exercised lawfully, that is exercised for the purpose they were intended and not exercised for a purpose other than the purpose claimed. i would agree, purpose other than the purpose claimed. iwould agree, but purpose other than the purpose claimed. i would agree, but the purpose itself, iwould claimed. i would agree, but the purpose itself, i would say, claimed. i would agree, but the purpose itself, iwould say, should not be reviewable in the courts, because it is essentially a political matter. well, it is very interesting looking at the scottish judges, they took the view in the court of session that if you exclude any governmental decision from judicial review, there is no constitutional protection, so the scottish court took the view that

justiciability is not something that can justiciability is not something that ca n p reve nt justiciability is not something that can prevent legality being reviewed when there are sufficient facts to indicate illegality, as they found was the case here. do your views on brexit influence how you think about this case in the supreme court, ie you are in a pro—brexit group, so you are in a pro—brexit group, so you think boris johnson you are in a pro—brexit group, so you think borisjohnson has the rights to do this and it doesn't matter what reasons he gives. i have to remind myself, you campaigned against brexit, so do you think the court should rule on this and the motivation for suspending parliament matters? yes ina yes in a sense but in another sense and perhaps more importantly, the power to prorogue exists and has a ways existed for political purposes. we have a situation where this current session of parliament has

beenin current session of parliament has been in operation for basically two years. oh, i know, let's... and borisjohnson is doing no more than saying now is the time to prorogue parliament, i saying now is the time to prorogue parliament, lam saying now is the time to prorogue parliament, i am a new prime minister, i have a new government and i'm entitled to a queen's speech. the general procedure is once the new government come into effect, there will be a prorogation of parliament pending that queen's speech. i think we can show the pictures of thejudges speech. i think we can show the pictures of the judges walking in. there we are, the 11 justices. seated around the table. good morning, everybody, before we start i would like to mention a few matters. while we are working out what the format is, we will go back injusta what the format is, we will go back injust a moment, what the format is, we will go back injusta moment, let what the format is, we will go back injust a moment, let me ask what the format is, we will go back in just a moment, let me ask you, jessica, which way do you think it is going to go? i think it is a very difficult one to predict and i think there could be a split, 55 and six,

either way. too close to call? both judgments, the court of session judgments, the court of session judgment and the divisional court judgment and the divisional court judgment are very convincing, reading them as lawyers. the english judgment is very formalistic. judges don't interfere with how the executive relates to parliament. the scottish court takes a much more constitutional approach, and it says you cannot close down parliament for the purposes of presenting it scrutinising the government, and that means questions to missing —— to ministers, select committees, all the things that would have happened. let's go back to the court. it is important to emphasise that we are not concerned with the wider political issues which form the context for this legal issue. as will be apparent when we hear the legal arguments, the determination of this legal issue will not determine when and how the united

kingdom leaves the european union. as is usual, we shall hear arguments from each side in each appeal, first, the appellants, and then the respondents. we also have a small number of interventions from interested parties, including one from northern ireland, where the courts have not considered the prorogation issue, at least, not yet. for obvious reasons, these appeals have had to be heard at very short notice. we are grateful to eve ryo ne short notice. we are grateful to everyone involved, the parties and their legal teams, and in particular, the court staff, for their hard work in preparing for this hearing, for the written materials so promptly delivered, and for the cooperative way that eve ryo ne for the cooperative way that everyone has worked with one another. as usual, these proceedings are being live streamed, so that anybody who wishes to do so and has access to a computer can watch the arguments as they unfold. this is a

very important aspect of open justice, and we hope that it will enable many people to understand what these appeals are all about. and just as importantly, what they are not about. lord pannick? good morning, my ladies and lord. mayl on behalf of all of us thank the court and the court staff for facilitating so speedy an appeal on these important matters. the court has a list of counsel appearing in these appeals. on behalf of mrs miller, i want to make a submission on what we see as the three main points which arise from these appeals. may i please identify these issues and then develop my submissions on each of them? the

first of them as we say on the facts get the prime minister advised her majesty to prorogue parliament for a period as long as five weeks because he, the prime minister, wished to avoid what he saw as the risk that parliament, during that period, would take action to frustrate or to damage the policies of his government. and on this first issue, we will adopt the substance of the reasoning of the inner house of the court of session, and briefly add some further points, in particular, on the relevance of the failure of the prime minister to produce a witness statement, either by himself or by the cabinet secretary, responding to the allegations as to

his motive. the second matter i will seek to address is that we will say is that it is elementary in public law that power only be exercised for a proper purpose. and we will say that that principle applies to prerogative power as it does to statutory power. we say it is an improper purpose for their prime minister to use the power of prorogation because he wants to avoid the risk of parliament undermining the policies of the executive during the relevant period. and that is because, under our system of constitutional law,

parliament is sovereign and the executive is accountable to parliament. for the executive to use a prerogative power to seek to evade control by parliament stands the basic principles of constitutional law on their head. it conflicts with the basic principle of our constitutional law, stated by lord browne wilkinson, i'll take the court to the authority later, but let me give the citation, it is in the fire brigades union case, authorities volume three, tab 42, page 552, e — f, mayl authorities volume three, tab 42, page 552, e — f, may i quote, "the constitutional history of this country is the history of the

prerogative powers of the crown being made subject to the overriding powers of the democratically elected legislature of the sovereign body". we will say that the arguments for the prime minister and the advocate general asserts the constitutional novelty that the powers of the democratically elected legislature are subject to the desire of the executive to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. and our third submission will be, with great respect, that the divisional court was wrong to conclude that the issues in this case are non—justiciable. identifying whether a power has been

used for a valid purpose is a legal question. it is not a political question. it is not a political question. it is a question for the courts and the rule of law so demands. this court is not being asked to identify a list of purposes for which prorogation would be lawful. nor is this court being asked to specify what would be a valid period of prorogation. the court is being asked to answer the legal question of whether it is within the scope of the power conferred on the prime minister for him to exercise it for the purpose alleged. my understanding is that

lord keane, my learned friend lord keane, is going to address the facts of this case and my learned friend sirjames eadie of this case and my learned friend sir james eadie is of this case and my learned friend sirjames eadie is going to address the legal issues, that is issues two and three. there may be some modification of that, but in substance, that is what it amounts to. cani substance, that is what it amounts to. can i also say, i am not abandoning their various other ways in which the claim has been put in the written submissions and in the points made by the intervenors? we are very grateful for all of the interventions and i have... much of my submission is derived from the points that are made in them. but i wa nt points that are made in them. but i want to focus my oral submissions on what we see as the three main issues. my ladies, my lords, before i develop those three points, may i also indicate by way of introduction

why we are going to say that the three points which are highlighted in the introduction to the written case of the prime minister and the advocate general, at paragraph six through to nine, have no substance. they make three essential points. first, they say, that there are no legal rules, only conventions, governing the frequency with which parliament sits and the length of time between parliamentary sessions. i emphasise, we are not inviting the court to specify any such rules. our case is that when the prime minister exercises his admittedly broad

discretionary power to advise her majesty of prorogation, it is an improper purpose for him to be motivated by a wish to avoid parliamentary control. — — motivated by a wish to avoid parliamentary control. —— control over the policies of his government. the length of the prorogation in this case is important, but it is important not because a prorogation may only be for one week or three weeks. that is not our case. the length of the prorogation is releva nt length of the prorogation is relevant because the exceptional length of the prorogation in this case is strong evidence that the prime minister's motive was to silence parliament for that period

because he sees parliament as an obstacle to the furtherance of his political aims. the second point emphasised by the prime minister and the advocate general, is that there are statutory provisions which regulate, to some extent, parliamentary sittings. most recently, as the court will have seen, the northern ireland executive formation act of 2019. our response to that point is that none of that legislation addresses or effects the common law power and duty of this court to ensure that a discretionary prerogative power is not exercised foran improper prerogative power is not exercised for an improper motive. and the third point that the prime minister

and the advocate general emphasise is they say that this complaint is academic, their word, because parliament was able to sit and did sit between the third and the 9th of september, and parliament will sit again on the 14th of october. they point out that parliament legislated between the third and the 9th of september, and if it wishes, it will be able to legislate again as from the 14th of october. our answer to this point is two fold. first, we say if we can sustain our complaint that on the 28th of august, the prime minister advised her majesty that parliament should be closed for

five weeks because he was concerned that parliament would or may damage the implementation of his policies, then that is an invalid purpose, and it is with great respect, not for this court to seek to assess what parliament would, may or will do during those five weeks. if, as we can the prime minister acted for an improper motive, it is not now open to the prime minister to say that his fear was mistaken. but in any event, it is very far from academic that parliament is unable to conduct such business as it thinks

appropriate for the five weeks. to put it at its very lowest, parliament may decide during the five weeks, now four weeks left, to enact further legislation, informed by the answers to parliamentary questions, informed by debates, informed by reports from parliamentary committees. parliament may, i don't ask the court to say more than this, but parliament may wa nt more than this, but parliament may want to keep a close eye on the negotiations, if any, with other member states during the period. parliament may wish to keep a close eye on planning for a no deal exit during the five weeks. in the light of parliamentary scrutiny,

parliament may wish urgently to legislate during that period. it may wish to impose further obligations on the prime minister, in the period leading up to the eu council meeting on the 17th and 18th of october. the issues in these proceedings are very far from academic. the prime ministerand far from academic. the prime minister and the advocate general say at paragraph 77 of their written case that there is no authority which supports the proposition that the exercise of a power to prorogue the exercise of a power to prorogue the legislature is amenable to judicial review. our response, which

i will develop, is that there are many precedents establishing the releva nt many precedents establishing the relevant principles of our constitutional law. there has hitherto been no need for any court to apply those principles in the context of the prerogative power to prorogue because no prime minister has abused his power... we are going to have a word with our guests now. just to sum up what we have been hearing so far, this is lord pannick, the qc arguing on behalf of the businesswoman, gina miller, who argue that parliament was suspended foran argue that parliament was suspended for an improper purpose, how do you sum up what we have heard so far? the key point lord pannick is making is that every executive or

governmental decision must be exercised for a proper purpose. here, what has actually happened is by proroguing forfive here, what has actually happened is by proroguing for five weeks, rather than the usual five days, in the context where there's only seven weeks, at the time, left for brexit, according to the prime minister, what the prime minister was really trying to do was to stop the democratic body, parliament, representatives of the people, actually scrutinising the government through questions, through potential legislation, through select committees, and that he argues is impermissible and unconstitutional. there was an interesting point that early on, which talked about the failure of the prime minister to produce a witness statement to give his reasons in the court of session in edinburghfor his reasons in the court of session in edinburgh for proroguing parliament. how unusual is that?” think it would be very unusual for the prime minister of the day to put

in evidence to oppose the application made against him. really? it would be. it may be that the cabinet secretary, this was alluded to during the argument, will be asked to do so. alternatively, the prime minister and the government advised by the cabinet secretary may well have taken the view that this is a matter for argument and can be dealt with on the basis of submissions. indeed, what is the prime minister going to say? he could say, "i intended to prorogue for political purposes", but that in a way supports the submissions that he is making, for political purposes, that he is entitled to baroque. ironically, he might be in a better position, had he actually stated the reality and a scottish court found that the claimed purpose which was for a new queen's speech was not actually true, because that could have been

donein true, because that could have been done ina true, because that could have been done in a four or five days. kevin says, "stand firm and ignore them, boris". nigel says, "sure there is no law to say how long the parliament can be prorogued, the supreme court cannot pass judgment. heidi says, "we'll know boris is dodging supreme sea because he does not have a plan". let's go to lord pannick. if the court has the trial bundle in the gina miller case. the court will see that at tab number 51... do we have court will see that at tab number 51. .. do we have this electronic league? yes, it is page 373, i hope the court also has it electronically. well, we have no less than... i'm sorry about this but there is always trouble with the documents in these cases. we need to sort it out. we have got five

different documents on a memory stick. is it the hearing bundle? yes, it is called the trial bundle for hearing on the 5th of september. i hope that is the same document as the president is referring to. it has 68 tabs, may be more? how many pages? 0h, has 68 tabs, may be more? how many pages? oh, yes. my volume goes up to pages? oh, yes. my volume goes up to page 518. well, mine goes up to 591. as does mike, i'm afraid. could i ask the court to ten to tab number 51, page number 373. we will see whether it works, yes. 373. that should be an interview on the today programme, an interview, john humphrys interviewing jacob rees—mogg. humphrys interviewing jacob rees-mogg. i'm afraid not. it isn't.

then it is a different bundle.” think it may be the same bundle but it isa think it may be the same bundle but it is a different page. i'm very sorry about this. of course it is not the president's fault. does the court have tab 51? i do, but nothing happens when i press on it. i'm terribly sorry but it may be that we try to sort that out a newspaper for the moment. it is page 436, i think, but nothing happens. nothing happens? yes 436. yes! excellent. does the president have that page? yes. maccabi i'm grateful, i don't know why the numbering is different, i'm sorry and it is very inconvenient for everybody particularly the court but if we turn to the second page of that document, which i have at 374, at

the end of that page, mrjacob rees—mogg explains that it is simply wrong, "the queen, her majesty had no discretion over this. there is no precedent for the queen refusing a request by her prime minister under the circumstances. this is a straightforward decision by the prime minister, giving formal advice to the sovereign, which a constitutional monarchy is obliged to follow". on the next page, for those members of the court using the paper williams, page 375, at the bottom of that page, john humphrys... bottom of that page, john humphrys. .. "when you bottom of that page, john humphrys... "when you have said the prime wishes to baroque... she will just say approve too much" prime wishes to baroque... she will just say approve too much'e prime wishes to baroque... she will just say approve too much" a brief word with jessica just say approve too much" a brief word withjessica who campaigns against brexit and was a candidate for chains uk at the european elections and the vice—chairman of the pro—brexit group tie to gait lawyers for britain, the question about not having the right paper and memory sticks, you made an editing point about the speed they've got

this case ready. usually takes months to prepare a supreme court case, there has to be special number stand aside and everything has to be electronic and paper form. stand aside and everything has to be electronic and paperform. it is quite complex and specific so this is exceptional to have done this in perhaps a week. do you agree? entirely, having done it myself. let's go back to the supreme court. ican be let's go back to the supreme court. i can be brief on this subject because we agree because of the analysis by the inner house of the court of session, in particular lord brodie, at paragraph 89, and lord drummond young at paragraphs 122 and 123. and the essence of their reasoning is that the prime minister had made clear that he is determined

this country will leave the eu on the 31st of october, deal or no deal. the prime minister does not have a majority in the house of commons for a policy of leaving if necessary with no deal. the prime minister has given no sensible reason, indeed, no reason at all, for the exceptionally long period of this prorogation. the prime minister, the evidence shows, sees parliament as a threat to the fulfilment of his policy. i want to emphasise two points, if i may, additional to those made by the in—house the first is that there is evidence in the form of statements by the prime minister himself that there is evidence that the prime minister shows parliament as a

potential threat to the inflammation of his policies. there are two interviews with the prime minister, the first is by sky news, and the court will find that that interview in the same trial bundle, i have it at tab 54, which is page 400. i hope the court will be able to tell me where, electronically, the court has it but in my bundle, it is trial bundle, tab number54, page 400. it is an interview... a sky news interview with borisjohnson by is an interview... a sky news interview with boris johnson by the journalist sam coates. if the court would turn to the

transcript... at the top of the page from mr coates asked the question, when people voted for brexit, they we re when people voted for brexit, they were voting for palmer to take back control but now you must buy ministerare control but now you must buy minister are trying to limit the ways in which parliament can expose it to you because you disagree with them, etc. mr johnson it to you because you disagree with them, etc. mrjohnson then responds and the court will want to read all of this but can i highlight at the bottom of the page, the final paragraph, the prime minister says this, "just to get back to parliament, which i bet you are going to ask me about, just to get back to parliament, i am afraid that the more our friends and partners think at the back of their minds that brexit could be stopped, that the uk could be kept in by parliament, the less likely they are to give us the deal that we need, and so that is why i really hope that mps will allow the uk to do a deal, get ready for a no—deal brexit, and that is the best way forward for our country, believe

me". this was immediately after prorogation, the 30th of august 2019. the electronic number, lord pannick is 464. yes. i am very grateful and i'm terribly sorry about this. it is 63 pages on from the number you have. maccabi about this. it is 63 pages on from the numberyou have. maccabi i'm sorry. i feel sure somebody can help you. so i add 63? he's up to it, i'm sure. it may test my abilities but the next page that is relevant, i have at tab 55, i have at page 400 408, so adding 63 to that takes us to 471. and this is a bbc report, page 408

or 471, on the second page of that, 409, the third paragraph up from the bottom, we see that mrjohnson is speaking to the bbc and on the final page, on the penultimate page of this document, 410 or 473, about a third of the way down the page, there's a paragraph, mrjohnson said, "the best way to leave with a deal is if our friends and partners over the channel don't think that brexit can be somehow blocked by parliament". as long as they think in the eu that parliament might try to block brexit, or might even succeed in blocking brexit, the less likely they are to give us the deal that we want.