this is bbc news. lawyers give evidence at the supreme court on the first of three days of hearings to determine if borisjohnson broke the law by suspending parliament. the court is not equipped to decide what is a legitimate political consideration and what is an illegitimate political consideration. no pm has abused his powers in the manner which we allege in at least the last 50 years. feelings run high on both sides as some of those bringing their cases to court face the crowds outside. also tonight. at the lib dems conference the new party leaderjo swinson says

she would stop brexit immediately if she was in government. today, i am standing here is your candidate for prime minister. the court heard that the teenager who was fatally stabbed in east london earlier this year may have been the unintended victim of a drug turf war. the us reportedly identifies locations and iran from which drones and cruise missiles were launched against saudi oil facilities on saturday. cricketer hits out on the newspaper saying that its front story about his family is utterly disgusting. you must feel ecstatic. i feel a little sick. sarah just minutes after becoming the first person ever to swim across the

channel 4 times nonstop. good evening and welcome to bbc news. the supreme court the highest in the land has begun hearing a case that could make history, defining the relationship between parliament and prime minister. the question it's being asked to rule on is whether borisjohnson behaved lawfully when he suspended parliament, for longer than is usual. today that decision was described as an ‘abuse of power‘. but those arguing for the prime minister believe he was acting in a political capacity which has nothing to do with the law. let's have a look at how the rest of this week is likely to proceed. this morning the supreme court heard from the counsel for campaigner gina miller, who had lost her case

at the high court. this afternoon it was the counsel for the case in which scotland's court of session found mrjohnson‘s actions to be unlawful. tomorrow it's the turn of the respondents, the uk government in the gina miller case and the advocate generalfor scotland. and on thursday there will be interventions from the former prime minister sirjohn major whose lawyers will makes his submission to the court. our home editor mark easton looks back at the day's events. but the country voted, didn't they, to leave? where does power lie in this troubled land? how can you be so stupid? you tell us lie, after lie, after lie! with the brexit rift in noisy evidence outside the uk's supreme court today... all rise. ..inside, the 11 most seniorjudges in the land sat in courtroom number one to consider that question, and make it clear they were not there to judge the merits of brexit. the determination of this legal

issue will not determine when and how the united kingdom leaves the european union. a month after becoming pm, was borisjohnson‘s request to the queen that parliament be suspended for five weeks a ruse to silence mps opposed to a no—deal brexit? scottish judges did think it stymied the house of commons, ruling it unlawful. the high court of england and wales disagreed, arguing it was a matter for politicians, not judges. representing the remain campaigner gina miller against the government, lord pannick told the justices borisjohnson had acted unlawfully. no prime minister has abused his powers, in the manner in which we allege, in at least the last 50 years. without a written constitution, the relationship between the three pillars of uk governance is always evolving. you've got parliamentary power, of course, based over there.

then you've got the government's power, focused on 10 downing street, behind the walls of whitehall. and then you have the power of the courts, ultimately resting here, at the supreme court. and what we're seeing this week is that balance of power being tested. the geography of westminster reveals the triangle of power at the heart of the state. lord pannick focused on the relationship between parliament and government, describing ministers as the junior partner. he also argued the courts were entitled to rule on the legality of downing street's suspending, or proroguing, parliament. the prime minister's motive was to silence parliament for that period, because he sees parliament as an obstacle. lord pannick quoted from this bbc interview, to suggest borisjohnson‘s real purpose was not a queen's speech but achieving brexit by halloween. the best way to do that is if our friends and partners over the channel don't think that brexit can be somehow blocked

by parliament. i went to bed in a democracy, and i woke up in a dictatorship. you were pointing at parliament rather accusingly there. get rid of it! shut it down. move it to birmingham, out the way, lovely. this afternoon, it was the turn of the uk government, in the form of the advocate general for scotland, lord keen. the prime minister will take all necessary steps to comply with any declaration made by the court. he'd come with an undertaking from the prime minister, but he also referred to westminster‘s balance of power, suggesting the supreme court would be meddling in what were political matters if it ruled against the government. the court is not equipped to decide what is a legitimate political consideration and what is an illegitimate political consideration. the legal arguments may seem dry, but there are deep passions at play, asjudges unpick the complex

relationship between legitimate power and political ambition. from the supreme court, mark looks at how the prime minister might respond to anyjudgement undertaken. you heard me talk about the declaration, they with the prime minister is saying that he will do whatever is necessary to respond to the decision of the court. but the justice asked a number of questions saying with the us the queen to recall parliament, would you potentially prorogue, suspend parliament a second time and the lawyer to that said that i am not in a position to comment. at which point the justice set in that case, that undertaking, we would like that in writing, if you don't mind. it is also emerged today that the attorney general at the cabinet meeting this morning warned ministers and the prime minister that in these times,

it would be unwise for any politician to question the independence of the judicial. clearly, there is real concern at the highest level that some dangerous constitutional line may be crossed. and i'll be discussing today's events at the supreme court in more detail in half an hour with constitutional law experts drjoelle grogan and robert craig. indicating that the result is too close to call, the pole for the channel 12 station give the party of the prime minister 33 seats, that is one fewer than the blue and white alliance of x military commander.

this is the scene from benjamin's party headquarters in tel aviv, you are watching life pictures as i say, paul's close at eight o'clock our time and it is clearly very early on and it is a very close election, a fifth time that benjamin has been standing for power and it is only april since the last election in israel. i think we might have had in and both exit polls indicate at the moment that the prime minister's right wing party is virtually level with the centrist blue and white.

the israeli broadcasters had to go slightly ahead with benjamin, which could mean days or even weeks of wrangling over which candidate might form the next coalition government in israel but polls have onlyjust closed and it is still very early days. we do hope to be talking to oui’ days. we do hope to be talking to our correspondent within the next half an hour for our correspondent within the next half an hourfor more details, so stay with us for that. the liberal democrat leader, jo swinson, has closed her party conference by saying she has "no limit" to her ambition for the party. she told activists that if they won an outright majority at the next general election, she would move to stop brexit "on day one". our chief political correspondent, vicki young, reports from bournemouth. on the march, the liberal democrats have a new young leader, what they hope is a distinctive anti brexit message and a clutch of mps who have joined from other parties. jo swinson is taking

a relaxed approach to her first conference as leader but will she take the party in the right direction? cheering and applause there is certainly plenty of ambition. today, i am standing here as your candidate for prime minister. this is a party passionate about staying in the eu. its campaign for a second referendum for years but today there was no mention of that. we must stop brexit. applause and we are crystal clear, a liberal democrat majority government will revoke article 50 on day one. she promised a well—being budget, where all government policies measured by its impact on quality of life and an investment bank for green projects and protected spending on mental health. as for her political opponents, she didn't think much of boris

johnson‘s use of language. big girls blouse... girly swot. if he thinks being a woman is somehow a weakness, he is about to find out it is not! cheering and applause as for the others... nigel farage might be brexit by name but it is very clearjeremy corbyn is brexit by nature. and she is hoping other remain voters will agree with that. jo swinson wants voters to see the liberal democrats as the strongest anti—brexit party faster she thinks politics are so volatile, there is no reason why she can't be prime minister. here, they love the ambitious talk but too many it's sounding like an unrealistic message. so, in the places the lib dems want to win back at an election, is their

strategy hitting the right note? mid dorset is conservative and voted leave. among these choir members in wimborne, brexit is as desired divisive as everywhere else. i'm in two minds about the lib dems and what they actually want. they tend to say things just for the votes are not necessarily follow through on it. her husband steve backed brexit. i feel that, you know, we should leave because that's what we decided in the referendum. across the road, businesswoman linda is likely to abandon the conservatives because of brexit. i feel the only party that really does have a very clear picture is the liberal democrats and i believe that, as things stand today, that is what i would be doing, voting liberal democrat. if an election comes in, brexit will dominate and success for the lib dems will depend on traditional party allegiances shifting.

a public inquiry will be held to examine safety and wellbeing issues at the new children's hospital in edinburgh and the queen elizabeth university hospital in glasgow. the inquiry will determine how vital issues relating to ventilation and other key building systems occurred. edinburgh's royal hospital for children and young people had been due to open in 2017. the united states has reportedly identified locations in iran from which drones and cruise missiles were launched against major saudi oil facilities on saturday. a senior us official told cbs news that the locations were in southern iran, at the northern end of the gulf. iran denies involvement in the attacks, which disrupted global oil supplies. our correspondent gary o'donoghue is in washington

ina sense, in a sense, they have been edging towards us over the past few days, donald trump effectively pointing the finger to iran, not quite being absolutely categorical, but these briefings from unnamed officials of the at this stage where they believe these missiles and drones were launched and coincides with the satellite imagery that the us released over the days, the impact of the projectiles of the north the northwestern faces of the two installations that were hit, where is yemen was on the south side. but the rebels were backed by iran inside yemen are fighting that saudi coalition saying that they did it,

clearly they do not believe it and the americans do not believe it either. i have an official confirmation that what the view is releasing any evidence to support their view and then after that, will be looking at what kind of retaliation, if any, the president is thinking about. let's talk a little bit more about that because donald trump has said locked and loaded, is there any sense of the moment as to what the us might do next? it is unclear. mike pompeo, the secretary of state is travelling to saudi arabia to talk to their us ally there and they want to consult and confer but the president interestingly yesterday out loud when he was musing on this said that idid when he was musing on this said that i did almost attack iran before when they shut down one of our drones a couple of months ago, but that was a

direct attack on us and this was not. so i wonder if there was a hand there in his public comments that you may see this slightly differently. but saudi is a huge us ally in this as an attack not to start an ally but on the stability of the world economy and that is something that they will not take lightly because they are dependent ona lightly because they are dependent on a healthy world economy. we will see what transpires but so far, the administration saying nothing publicly, the secretary of defence was just minutes publicly, the secretary of defence wasjust minutes ago, publicly, the secretary of defence was just minutes ago, not confirming that briefing that the seniors are given private but very much attacking iran for giving us a very u nsta ble attacking iran for giving us a very unstable region and continuing to, if you like, disavowed the national norms. the headlines on bbc news.

lawyers give evidence at the supreme court on the first of three days of hearings to determine if borisjohnson broke the law by suspending parliament. at the lib dems conference the new party leaderjo swinson says she would stop brexit immediately if she was in government. following the murder of teenager jodie chesney in london in march four people have gone on trial. sport and for a full round up, from the bbc sport centre. john, feels like autumn is approaching with the english club beck and european action tonight. the start of the champions league, the group stays in action —— phase. it begins, liverpool played the italians last season, drawing at

home, the best chance of far has actually fallen to napoli which is ruled for off—site, that when all their league matches so far being a brilliant form domestically, hoping to ta ke brilliant form domestically, hoping to take that form into europe. leading the chelsea site in european football, it is still goalless at sta mford football, it is still goalless at stamford bridge inside the opening quarter. second the manager earlier, the big first two, one word for chelsea though is that they have gone off injured. manchester city beginning their campaign tomorrow, they are away and will be without johnstone some of the england defender will be out for up to five weeks of the muscle injury picked up in training. that leaves them with one fit recognised centre back now and nicholas. and as you see, he is not to please their prospect. yeah,

john injured himself in training. he will miss four or five weeks. plenty for him to ponder in defence of their premier league crown. band for their premier league crown. band for the insulting match officials the brazilian will still miss the opening championship league matches in madrid but will not be available for the trip to the club next month, criticise the officials after his side lost to manchester united back in march which he watched while out injured. woodcut preparations have been dealt a blow with the coach that has been sent home from japan foran that has been sent home from japan for an alleged breach of road rugby laws and antique, ——

anti—corruption. it can only be disruptive. the lead up to the world cup isa disruptive. the lead up to the world cup is a four year cycle and he has been there for more than two of those cycles, he has taken charge of the welsh team while the others have been away on sabbatical. he has been an integralforce been away on sabbatical. he has been an integral force and wash been away on sabbatical. he has been an integralforce and wash rugby been away on sabbatical. he has been an integral force and wash rugby we have not heard from him yet and his response these allegations but we know that the players have been informed, former team—mates of him saying that this was a bombshell truly unexpected and it will be what people will be talking about. on the former wells player was due to take up former wells player was due to take up the post of the coach after the world cup so that is being fast forwarded knees being parachuted in with only six days before having the first game against georgia and they

will have to look clear the game plan and take on some new ideas in this final week. they say they're disgusted and appalled at the sun newspaper talking about ben stokes. following its publication, he labelled the story a moral in the sun newspaper about a family tragedy 31 years ago as "immoral" years ago as "immoral" and the "lowest form ofjournalism". in a statement, he said the paper's decision to publish the story would have "grave and lifelong consequences for his mother in particular". for the first time, the event will ta ke for the first time, the event will take place on sunday the 15th of december at the new 10,000 capacity live arena in the city will also host the inaugural bbc festival sport over the preceding two days.

picture there was the public choices winner last year. descending on aberdeen this year. that is all from the sportscenter and you can keep up with all the champions league football this evening, liverpool and chelsea in action on bbc radio five live and on the bbc sport website, you can follow all of the goals as they go in. that is all for me. the england cricketer ben stokes has described a front page article in the sun newspaper about a family tragedy 31 years ago as "immoral" and the "lowest form ofjournalism". in a statement, he said the paper's decision to publish the story would have "grave and lifelong consequences for his mother in particular". the sun has told the bbc that the events it describes were a matter of public record.

here's our sports editor dan roan. from world cup winner to ashes hero, this has been a season to savour for ben stokes, butjust two days after the final test of the summer, test of the summer, english cricket's biggest starfinds himself embroiled in a bitter row with the sun newspaper over what he condemned as an immoral and heartless article about a family tragedy more than 30 years ago. in a statement today, ben stokes said, it's hard to find ben stokes' heroics here at headingley this summer, where he produced one of the greatest innings ever seen to win the third ashes test elevated him to the status of national hero. with that, of course, comes interest into every aspect of his life, but he clearly feels that this story

has gone well beyond what is acceptable. in a statement, the sun said it had the utmost sympathy for ben stokes and his mother but the story was told with the cooperation of a family member. added the tragedy is also a matter of public record and was the subject of extensive rampage publicity new zealand at the time. often what happens is an individual, they become high profile or become a celebrity. it becomes almost carte blanche that everything about them, their private life, their family, their old friends, anything from their history, almost becomes fair game and many would argue that is not fair and that the family and friends of that individual have a reasonable expectation to keep that information private. today, stokes received support from the ecb, his employer adding they were appalled and saddened by the story for some thanks to his performances with both bat and ball, the all—rounder has become one of the most famous faces in british sport.

now he's taken a stand off the field, too. the trial of four people accused of murdering the girl scout jodie chesney has begun. the 17—year—old was fatally stabbed in an east london park in march, while listening to music with friends. 20—year—old manuel petrovic, 19—year—old svenson ong a kwie, and two youths, aged 16 and 17, all deny the charge against them. dan johnson reports from the old bailey. jodie chesney was described to the jury as a talented, popular, fun young woman who judged no one and loved everyone. those words came from her grieving family, who were at the old bailey today to hear those tributes read out at the start of this trial, to establish why she was killed so suddenly and by who. but at times today, some of the details were just too upsetting. jodie was in this park in east london with a group of friends one friday night

back in march. one of them bought some cannabis from a local drug dealer and they were listening to music. cctv footage shows a car pulling up over there and two young men getting out, then heading across this field to the play area. one leapt this fence, one came through here. they went straight up tojodie and without exchanging a word, she was stabbed in the back. it was an attack apparently without motive. today, the jury heard the car belonged to manuel petrovic, who's 20. also on trial is svenson ong—a—kwie, 19, alongside a 16 and 17—year—old we can't show because of their age. even though the prosecution says only two of them left the car, they're all accused of and all deny murder. the prosecution barrister described jodie as an entirely blameless individual who got caught in a row between drug dealers. he said her murder was a terrible but predictable consequence of an all too casual

attitude towards knives. a woman who survived cancer has become the first person to swim across the english channel four times in a row. thirty seven year old sarah thomas began the challenge in the early hours of sunday morning and finished after more than 5a hours. the swim was due to be about 80 miles, but because of strong tides ms thomas ended up swimming closer to 130 miles. robert hall reports. exhausted but triumphant, as the first rays of the sun lit the shoreline ahead, sarah thomas reached out towards the end of her journey. here she comes. friends who had willed her to succeed during moments when her spirits ebbed were there on the pebbles to greet her. well done, sarah! what you've done is incredible. i was throwing up, i was sick. she said," you got this."

my husband said, "keep going." this story of determination and stamina began in the early hours of sunday morning. sarah thomas said she used swimming to cope with her cancer treatment. she dedicated this challenge to those who have survived the disease. 5a hours and ten minutes crossing the world of‘s busiest shipping lanes. the biggest blow was definitely when i turned around at the halfway point here in dover. i was expecting to land on the beach and we had to touch the wall instead. i was just totally devastated. ijust go to a really quiet place in my head. when i was struggling through the second night, i just kept repeating just over and over for hours, i can swim through this night, i can swim through this night, i can swim through this night. i almost didn't but ijust did, any i wanted to quit just that

affirmation, i can swim through this night. the four legs of the journey should have totalled 84 miles but the channel currents forced sarah to swim in a series of loops so the actual distance was closer to 130 miles. kevin murphy, a cross—channel swimmer himself, was one of the official observers aboard the sarah's support boat. he says this new record is an extraordinary achievement. you can train as much as you like but if you haven't got the power to withstand the demons, the demons in your head which say you do this, if you can't fight those you never will do it. sarah thomas has been known to sleep for 2a hours after her swims. the physical and mental effects of this one will determine whether she can set her sights even higher. let's talk now tojonathan cowie, the editor of the outdoor swimmer magazine, he joins us via webcam from south east london.

thank you so much forjoining us, no one else has done this, clearly quite an extraordinary achievement. it just give quite an extraordinary achievement. itjust give us your take on what she has gone and done. it isjust com pletely she has gone and done. it isjust completely amazing! epic. i was watching last night and the day before as she continued on her journey and yet, just an incredible feat of endurance. an incredible feat of endurance. an incredible feat of endurance. she made it look easy. how dangerous is it, is difficult and too many people attend to some the channel? it is definitely dangerous to swim that farand definitely dangerous to swim that far and that long. definitely dangerous to swim that farand that long. in definitely dangerous to swim that far and that long. in terms of people assuming the channel, just over 2000 people have swim the

channel so one way is a massive feat of endurance and 32 people and sarah waited her third lap yesterday and the six person to do that third and the six person to do that third and the only person to a fourth. so for the only person to a fourth. so for the history people summing the channel, it is not that many. it's a pretty impressive feat that not many people are going to attempt. help me get inside her head, what is the appeal of open water swimming, given the dangers that you have outlined? with sarah has achieved yesterday and today rather it's very different to what most people experience when they go swimming, i think they are very different beasts, on the endurance side, it's completely different to what i do and beyond

me. what she has done, yes. but she has been doing takes it a very deep and dark mental place where she has to deal with lots of demons and explained that, yeah. very impressive. for the enthusiastic amateur, pretty words in your mouth, you would describe that is more professional, what would compel someone to do this type of challenge? what prompts you to do open water swimming? to take on that particular kind of challenge is supposed to marathon running? the challenge is, for most people, a big challenge is, for most people, a big

challenge would be, a great challenge would be, a great challenge in itself, but sarah, do for english channels, pushing the limits of the human being is capable of and overcoming cancer, and proof of and overcoming cancer, and proof of the human body can do and what a human can do, i think that is what is driving her. i think for most people, with drives isjust is driving her. i think for most people, with drives is just a sense of adventure, a love being outdoors andi of adventure, a love being outdoors and i love the challenge and yeah, getting back to nature, that is what drives most people i think that we have seen sarah due today is a whole other level and it was just incredible. really good to talk to you and thank you so much. let's catch up with the weather. hello there. many september sunshine

and it looks like this year will stay for the next few days, into far northwest, clear skies through the night will allow the temptress to fall away into a chilly start for our wednesday morning that is certainly worth bearing in mind, but there will be a good deal ofjerry whether in the forecast in some spots of sunshine in england was the more in scotland and from that week with some showery outbreaks of rain into the far north. light winds generally in highs of around ten to 19 degrees. as he moved into thursday, that front eases away with a good slice of sunshine right across the country and if anything, across the country and if anything, a little bit warmer as well, as in moving to friday, the winds will swing around tomorrow at the southeasterly direction that would drive more warmth and the country. we keep that tray feed and temperatures 19 in scotland, 22 in the south.

hello, this is bbc news. the headlines: lawyers give evidence at the supreme court on the first of three days of hearings to determine if borisjohnson broke the law by suspending parliament. feelings run high on both sides as some of those bringing their cases to court face the crowds outside. at the lib dems conference, the new party leaderjo swinson says she would stop brexit immediately if she was in government. it is too close to call in the israeli election as the prime ministerfights to israeli election as the prime minister fights to hold israeli election as the prime ministerfights to hold onto power. so, let's turn back to the news from the supreme court today. evidence has been heard from lawyers on both sides of the argument over whether the prime minister's suspension of parliament was legal. in the first case, the businesswoman gina miller is appealing

against an english court ruling that the suspension was "purely political" and therefore not a matter for the courts. lord pannick qc, who's representing the appeal, said the move was done to "silence" mps in the run—up to brexit. meanwhile, the government is appealing against a ruling from scotland's highest civil court, which said the suspension was unlawful. lord keen, who's representing the government, suggested the court would be meddling in political matters if it ruled against the prime minister. what are illegitimate political considerations and how is the court equipped to judge the difference between a legitimate political consideration or an illegitimate political consideration? it starts, i suppose, by being told what the consideration is.

absolutely, and i'm going to come on that in a minute and deal with that in more detail if i may. but let us go back to the principles. the lord president accepts the principle of disability based on the subject test. and he says the tipping point is that applies where a decision is based on legitimate political considerations, and ijust underline the court is not equipped to decide what is a legitimate political consideration and what is an illegitimate political consideration. lord pannick, the counsel for campaigner gina miller who had lost her case at the high court, said the prime minister's advice over the five—week suspension of parliament was an unlawful abuse of power. there are 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 powers in the manner which we allege in at least the last 50 years. that is back to the development of modern principles ofjudicial review. my colleague ben brown has been in westminster all day gauging reaction to the proceedings. he's spoken to three experts in consitutional law outside parliament this evening to get their reaction to what happened in court. borisjohnson's decision to prorogue or suspend parliament for five weeks has led to this landmark historic case at the supreme court just across the road. and three legal commentators who have been watching it all unfold today, let's get their view

on how it has gone. professor young first of all from cambridge university, a public law professor. what did you make of what you heard today? i think we are dealing with a very controversial issue. we've had two very strong arguments, one saying this is all politics and should be decided by politicians and the other saying there are legal limits. there are legal purposes and there are constitutional principles you just cannot cross. it'll be interesting to see how this turns out later on. jeremy, a barrister and legal commentator, is this a matter for the courts? that is the first thing the 11 judges have to decide, effectively is this any of their business? it is a side of the times and the court are being asked to intervene in matters like this all the time and here we are standing right in between the houses of parliament and the supreme court.

absolutely representing where the justices find themselves, the battle between what is the realm of the court to find justiciable, able to be adjudicated on by the courts and what is the realm of high policy, of politics. things that should be left behind the cabinet office and the prime minister's desk. and that is what this is all about, the divisional court found this is not a matter for the courts and it was notjusticiable but as we know the scottish court of appeal said it was. they have to come to a decision one way or the other. and stefan from oxford, lord pannick this morning acting for gina miller said that effectively the prime minister had tried to silence parliament because it was in his way, it was a threat and an obstacle. i think that is a powerful argument to make, especially if you talk to more fundamental principles like parliamentary sovereignty and what lord pannick is inviting the court to do here is to basically

agree that parliament is a broader principle, not just about the legislative supremacy of parliament means it is the supreme lawmaker but also about the opportunity to make these laws and if the court goes with this, that could be a very interesting ruling for the uk. the government's lawyer said there has been plenty of times in history when parliament has been suspended. went back to 1930 and 19118. we went through a lot of case law and i thought of that case recently were someone tried tojudicially review the decision of the government to go into a pact with the dup and the court said no this is not a matter for us, this is a political matter and that line have to be drawn somewhere, it is a matter of where it will be drawn to come to this side or the other side. and any indication at this very early stage how the 11 judges are thinking? i think it is very difficult to tell. they are looking very carefully at the evidence, so early on we had lots of hiccups over where information was. it is really important. they are looking at the law and legal cases and asking important questions all way through.

and thinking very carefully about where the law ends, where politics begins and also thinking very carefully about is this about an improper purpose, the wrong reason or what the effect is. is it problematic the effect of this is to silence parliament and to effectively stop the constitution from working, so i think it is early days but they are asking all the right questions to think carefully about where the law leads and what the answer should be. many thanks to all three of you. well, the supreme court has been hearing the first of three days of legal argument. we are expecting the 11 judges to reach theirjudgement maybe at the end of this week or early next week. but it has certainly been a fascinating beginning to this historic case with such huge implications for the country — legal, constitutional and political. ben brown there. today, our legal affairs correspondent clive coleman has been taking a look how the hearings will be held over the coming days and what the legal implications could be. 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 have been 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, and 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 as 11, so that no one can say, well,

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 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 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 explaining everything we need to know about the supreme court there. let's discuss today's events in more detail now. i'm joined by drjoelle grogan, a senior lecturer in law at middlesex university london, and robert craig, who teaches constitutional law at the london school of economics. welcome to you both. if i might start with you, you have been watching the proceedings all day, what have you made first of all of what have you made first of all of what you have seen and heard in court today? we are certainly witnessing constitutional history. we are seeing these essential debates on what parliament is and what it should be and also what the powers of government are and what they should be playing out in front of us. robert, how do you think it has gone today? fascinating because the original panel was supposed to be nine judges and what happened was the scottish senior courts came out on the other side of the argument,

which was an absolute bombshell i think for many. because it meant to very senior courts, one in england and away and the most in your core into scotland to come out on opposite sides of the same legal issue in this created an increased the interest in the case and i don't know if it was connected directly but the supreme court panel went from nine to 11 but it looked like it was connected. that was fascinating. let's look at one of the key issues and that is should the key issues and that is should the supreme court be adjudicating on whether boris johnson the supreme court be adjudicating on whether borisjohnson was right to suspend parliament. it is a matter for the supreme court in your view? this is exactly where we are going to disagree. i go back to the very basic principles and my basic driving principle is the idea of the rule of law. that for every legal power there must be legal limits. it would almost be impossible to imaginea would almost be impossible to imagine a power could be without limits and used for any purpose, for any reason and this is something we

saw playing out today between what is the constitutional effect but more importantly what is the constitutional and legal purpose? now, it is going to be difficult and i think we both agree on that, it is difficult to establish that purpose because on both sides all we have is silence. but for me, the core and driving principle that driving reason for all of this is if there isa reason for all of this is if there is a legal power there must be limits. body disagree? we have a political and not a legal constitution. the starting point have to be parliament and there was a ten day gap between the announcement of prorogation and it actually happening in that period a vote of no confidence could've been brought in the government could've estopped from doing it. that is the primary remedy in the political constitution. the government has a mandate and people think we only elect our local mp but there are two elements. we vote for the local mp but also vote for a party in a manifest that which is the executive

function and they are which is means is not the local mp the gift a mandate but the party on the slate on the executive stay as well. they both have democratic legitimacy separately and normally they are in balance and these two helmets are together but the referendum has cut that apart because you have one site wanting one thing in the other one in the opposite. is provoking parliament not a legal power and therefore the court should decide therefore the court should decide the law has been broken—— provoking. only recently in the 1980s at the court decided they could even look at these powers at all. what is apposite then is that has been chipped away and more powers looked at but as a bright line is how controversial is this, how political is this? the more political it is, the non—elected judges very wisely go we are not going to get sucked into the political arena. this situation today concerns prorogation which is normally a mundane thing. these are normally monday but when

he gets political, that kind of crosses he gets political, that kind of crosses the redline. if you're not a danger that if you put lawyers at the forefront of this that you could see the supreme court becoming more political and that perhaps becoming a little bit more like we are used to seeing in the us. i see a lawyer looking very dangerously at me. very simply, less to core principles and the independence of the judiciary. one of the many reasons the uk courts are so celebrated is that independence, that independence, that staying away from anything political. one of the most realities of brexit is how i'm president of these questions are also the reason why there is such difficulty in the courts is what you have two little academics sitting before me right now is we are in uncharted territory. we have not been questioned this use of power. any of the situation, it is ordinary. so when we talk about the

politicization of the judiciary, i say it know we are celebrated for our independence and to celebrate that. but we also need to focus on why if the court getting involved here? they are not really protecting themselves, the question is not themselves, the question is not themselves, it is parliament and what is the point of parliament, what is the point of parliament, what is the value of parliament in these times of brexit?|j what is the value of parliament in these times of brexit? i do wonder if you have any inkling as to what thejudges might if you have any inkling as to what the judges might decide if you have any inkling as to what thejudges might decide on if you have any inkling as to what the judges might decide on the basis of what you have heard today or is it just too early to say?|j of what you have heard today or is itjust too early to say? i would echo almost everyone in it, which is we don't know. it is so difficult to us we don't know. it is so difficult to us sitting here because both arguments are so strong. i know that i favour the legality and decision ability but i'm driven by the rule of law. you were dealing with 11 judges who are highly motivated not to give away what they are thinking. because the actually cannot do that because it could move markets. so

when they ask, the deputy president and president soon i think in january, he almost seems to enjoy asking questions on the opposite side of every debate. so he will ask a viciously difficult question on one side and the next day the opposite and you go i will see you you do not get the hint and that is brilliant. many are careful not to give any thing away because they cannot and they should not and they really do not want to. to finish briefly, let's watch some pictures of all those legal boxes going into court today. we have talked about how this is historic and we have talked about how important all this is but i did want to ask you seeing all these boxes of legal papers going into court, how are they used in court, how do the lawyers keep track of them? what are the skills of being a barrister in the ability to repair what fate can find him as they are using notes very quickly.

this would be print offs of a lot of the ancient cases that go back sometimes hundreds of years so you will find file after file, there are scores of cases that could be, some judge could go what about this case? if they do not have it in the bundle, they look bad. teen people look at what possible case i could think of and print it all also 90% of it does not even get touched. the barristers so they have the core bundle in the back—up and they are working with a lot less and you think and that is what is really going on. thank you for that. let's leave it there. thank you so much for your thoughts and insights. our political correspondent nick eardley is in westminster. nick, while all the legal arguements have been taking place, what have the politicians been doing today? an excellent question because they are not here. we know that parliament is not sitting and some of them are in their constituencies and the summer elsewhere. i suspect and the summer elsewhere. i suspect a lot of them are keeping tabs on

what is going on in the supreme court because it has got huge significance not just for what happens in the next few weeks with brexit but for the next few years and decades with what happens in parliament and the relationship it has with the government. really interesting today i thought that the government lawyer speaking today was saying the government will take necessary steps to act on whatever the court decides in thatjudgement comes back later this week, probably early next week by the time they decide. politicians are being a bit more reluctant to give those firm guarantees. what they will do if they lose the case. we heard robert buckland eight minister ofjustice refusing to go into any detail and that prime minister borisjohnson himself refusing to say what he would do exactly if he loses in the supreme court. have a listen. obviously, i have the greatest

respect for the judiciary and the independence of the judiciary in the uk that is set up in our constitution and it's one of the things which is 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 again if the supreme court says that is what you ought to do? i think the best thing i can do is see what the judges say. put that down as dodging the answer slightly. the government want to see whatjudges say if they do lose the case but there'll be no doubt that borisjohnson case but there'll be no doubt that boris johnson and his case but there'll be no doubt that borisjohnson and his team want to win because if they do not come he will be humiliating and they would ta ke will be humiliating and they would take more power away from them potentially for the next few weeks if mps were to early and try and force the government hand and because it means borisjohnson'sjob of trying to force through breaks he wa nts of trying to force through breaks he wants against the will of parliament isa wants against the will of parliament is a lot harder. thank you so much. exit polls following israel poss

mexican general election is too close to call. —— israel poss mexican general election. let's go tojerusalem and speak to our correspondent barbara plett usher. these are projections with exit polls and of course the final results come later but it is interesting that polls are showing that there is a tie between benjamin netanyahu that there is a tie between benjamin neta nyahu and that there is a tie between benjamin netanyahu and his main opposition. some of the polls show he is even a bit behind so that is not very good news for him, that is for sure. and he is going to now wait and see whether he will be asked to form a coalition and if he is in this position of being behind another party, it may not fall to him. a big question now what his political fate will be. he has been campaigning in a frenzy over the past couple of weeks, trying to get his supporters to come out to the polls, aware that he was not able to form government

in the last election and hoping this time he will be able to is that we are all still waiting to see how this plays out. it is looking not very positive for benjamin netanyahu at this point. barbara in jerusalem, for now, many thanks. more in outside source. now the weather. many of us have seen some lovely september sunshine and it looks like it will stay for the next few days is about a week with a front in the far northwest. it means clear skies through the night allow temperatures to follow as it will be chilly to start wednesday and that is certainly worth bearing in mind. a good deal of dry weather in the forecast and some smells of sunshine across england and well than a bit more cloud into northern ireland and scotla nd more cloud into northern ireland and scotland and from that week with her front summit shall be outbreaks of rain into the far north. lighter winds generally and highs of around ten or 19 degrees. into wednesday

and then to thursday, the front moves away and a slice of sunshine across the country and if anything a bit warmer as well. into friday, the winds swing around to the southeasterly direction and that will drive more warmth and across the country and we keep that dry theme with plenty of sunshine and temperatures of 19 and scotland and 22 in the south.

hello, i'm ros atkins, this is outside source. the main exit polls from israel's election are in. israel's prime minister benjamin neta nyahu has failed to secure a majority. but whether he'll be forced from office still isn't clear. benny gantz fromt the blue and white appears to have won a similar number benny gantz from the blue and white appears to have won a similar number of seats to benjamin netanyahu. that means days of negotiations overform a governing coalition will begin. and this man, avigdor liberman, could be crucial in deciding who takes power. also on outside source — a historic court case in the british supreme court — that could determine what happens next over brexit