one or two one ortwo did one or two did see the sunshine today, but for others, oh, boy, did the rain come down. how wet? the wettest spot was wiltshire where we saw a month of rainfall in the space of saw a month of rainfall in the s pa ce of less saw a month of rainfall in the space of less than saw a month of rain fall in the space of less than a day, 59 millimetres there, hence we've seen lots of flooding around and lots of surface water and let me show you the radar chart. still raining persistently across northern england and increasingly into southern scotland. away from that, thunderstorms across lincolnshire and east anglia going through, and that will move to southern counties of england and wales deny and more rain in those areas but this time the strengthening wind stop away from that, the rain will be persistent across eastern parts of scotland. the winds are lightjust gci’oss scotland. the winds are lightjust across parts of scotland, northern ireland and northern england so here are few midnight but there could be dense fog in the morning. the fog not as much of an issue in the south because we will have strengthening winds. tomorrow's rush hour could start with gusts in excess of 50 mph

in the southern counties again, another wet start. rain on the heavy side once more but slightly more short lived and today and mainly confined to southern counties and east anglia. a damp start across the north of england and eastern scotla nd north of england and eastern scotland and still patchy rain and drizzle continuing, but more so as you brighten up tomorrow in the afternoon largely dry with showers in the west and pleasant enough when you get the sunshine at 17 or 20 degrees. rain into northern ireland for tomorrow evening as more weather fronts across the country come in so through tomorrow night and into thursday, more wet and windy weather and the heaviest rain in northern scotland. wet weather for the thursday rush hour in scotland, eastern england which clears through and then it's a story of sunshine and then it's a story of sunshine and showers. showers on thursday more prevalent in the afternoon and some of those with heavy hail and thunder. temperatures holding up nicely in the breeze but as we finish the week with a random selection of cities across the country, sunshine and showers on friday and saturday and wet and windy weather on sunday. we will

keep you updated. let's return to our main story today, the supreme court ruling that the government acted unlawfully when it suspended parliament. let's get a final thought with out political editor laura kuenssberg. we know parliament resumes tomorrow, but then what? mps will be back here at 11:30am champing at the bit to get going again, but doing what is not a very easy question is not or answer. the rebel alliance of former tories kicked out of the party have the numbers to take control of events here. one cabinet minister said to me today that borisjohnson has completely lost control of the brexit policy, but the difficulty for them and frankly therefore for all of us and everybody who wants to see the process move on, somehow, is that they don't agree amongst themselves what to do next. so although the court made history today, we are actually still in pretty much the same situation. we have a prime minister who is determined above all else to deliver

what people voted for in the 2016 referendum, at the end of october, no matter what. a parliament that is determined that he should not be allowed to do that, if it means opening the pandora's box of leaving without a deal. and nobody still in enough numbers are really in the mood to come together around any sort of compromise, whatever it could be. and that may well make some people want to throw the remote at the tv, but while the court has made a big, bold decision today based on the law, our politics is still pretty much stuck in the same situation it was this morning. laura, at westminster, thank you. that's all from the bbc news at six. on bbc one we nowjoin the bbc‘s news teams where you are. goodbye.

hello. this is bbc news. ina in a momentous ruling, the supreme court has ruled that the government broke the law when it suspended parliament. in a strongly worded and unanimous verdict, the 11 most seniorjudges in the uk concluded that the decision prorogued parliament for five weeks was unlawful. the president of the supreme court, lady hale, said it had the effect of frustrating or preventing parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions, and that, because it happened in the run—up to the brexit deadline on october the 31st, it had an extreme effect on our democracy. the prime minister says, while he disagrees with the ruling, he will abide by it, but opposition leaders are calling on him to resign. our political editor, laura kuenssberg, has this report on the supreme

court's dramatic ruling and what it could mean for brexit. the storm burst, well and truly. campaigners and lawyers gathering at the highest court in the land... ready to pass judgment on the prime minister. when it came, the ruling was polite but devastating too. borisjohnson broke the law. the decision to advise her majesty to prorogue parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. jubilation outside in the rain. it restores some kind of hope, doesn't it? who needs hard booze when you have judgment like that.

those outrage that the prime minister had advised the queen to suspend parliament for five weeks, suspicious he had done it to close down debate on brexit, which he denied. the effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. no justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. the conclusion... it was illegal, so it never happened at all. the prime minister's advice to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect, parliament has not been prorogued. the government lawyers a few weeks ago did not expect this. the courts traditionally allergic to politics and stay well away, but the other side's legal dream came true. the ruling today speaks volumes. this prime minister must open the doors of parliament tomorrow. mps must get back and be brave and bold in holding this unscrupulous government to account.

thank you. so what next? immediate calls to new york, 3000 miles away, for the prime minister's audacious move condemned by the court to be a reason to resign. for some of his allies though, it is no emergency. there has been a court case in our country this morning which i think some of you may have picked up on. another chance to suggest the establishment is trying to stop him. i have the highest respect of course for ourjudiciary and the independence of our courts, but i must say i strongly disagree with this judgment, and we in the uk will not be deterred from getting on and delivering on the will of the people to come out of the eu on october the 31st.

a number ten source told me the supreme court has made a serious mistake extending its reach into political matters. attacking the judiciary, when downing street and him are under attack themselves. across the atlantic every politician is trying to peer into the future. the opposition sniff opportunity. the supreme court has just announced its decision. the labour leader's conference in brighton disrupted and delighted by the news. and it shows that the prime minister has acted wrongly in shutting down parliament. it demonstrates a contempt for democracy and an abuse of power by him, and i invite borisjohnson in the historic words to consider his position.

"johnson out", they chanted. one member of the government told the bbc the prime minister should quit, but that is far from widespread in tory circles at this stage. instead, mps replacing the tourists in the house of commons, taking their seats on the green benches themselves. there are still quite a few tourists in the chamber. i'm just talking to colleagues and trying to find out what we are doing, but we need to go back to holding the government to account. i am in a taxi going back to parliament, which should never have been suspended, it was not suspended so we should be back in there doing ourjobs. the official invitation on this crazy day was issued with customary formality. last—minute pomp in the rain. i have instructed the house authorities to prepare not for the recall.

the prorogation was unlawful and is void. to prepare for the resumption of the business of the house of commons. the house of commons sits tomorrow, and that it does so at 11:30am. once mps have raced back here tomorrow, what will they do? the alliance of former tories might try to take control again after the government's approach went so wrong. that advice was poor and i think some of his advisers will have to leave. they are still coordinating with the opposition parties. he does not want to be held to account, he doesn't want to have to answer questions about his disastrous brexit policy, and in doing so he was prepared to mislead the queen and indeed the whole country. if boris johnson won't do the decent thing, i think parliament has a duty to come together to force him out of office through a vote of confidence.

there is no sign of labour doing that quite yet, and look who is in borisjohnson‘s corner. he's not going anywhere. a place in power he might have dreamt of for years but after only two months it is proving harder than it looked. laura kuenssberg, bbc news. dramatic developments, as we've been telling you, and newsjust dramatic developments, as we've been telling you, and news just in from the attorney general‘s office, which iam going the attorney general‘s office, which i am going to read out to you, because it's the first response we've had from them. the government, it says, acted in good faith and in the belief that its approach was both lawful and constitutional. these are complex matters, on which senior and distinguished lawyers have disagreed. the divisional court, led by the lord chief justice, agreed unanimously with the government's legal position, as did the outer house in scotland. the attorney general‘s office concludes

by saying, we are disappointed that, in the end, the supreme court took a different view. we respect the judgment of the supreme court. so that news just into us from the attorney general‘s office. our legal correspondent, clive coleman, is at the supreme court. talk us through, if you want, how significant this ruling is, and why it matters. just a note on what you have just mentioned from the attorney general‘s office because, in fairness to the attorney general, i don't think anyone quite saw this coming. in terms of significance, it doesn't get bigger. this was a unanimous ruling from the highest court in the land that a prime minister of the united kingdom had unlawfully advised the monarch of the realm to suspend what is parliament, the sovereign body in oui’ parliament, the sovereign body in our constitution, with the effect that the government could not be

scrutinised. it just that the government could not be scrutinised. itjust doesn't get any bigger. this was what is known as a judicial review. we've had them for a long time. they've grown exponentially from the early 1980s, and they allow a citizen, somebody like gina miller, to go before a court and to ask independentjudges to review a decision or behaviour of a public authority, so it could be a minister, in this case it was the prime minister. it gives the power tojudges to determine prime minister. it gives the power to judges to determine whether those actions were lawful or not. it's been around for a long time, but we have never had a case of the constitutional, political and legal significance of the case and the ruling that we've had today. so it is simply huge, the consequences are enormous, the political damage is very considerable, and many people will say, look, this is a political decision byjudges. certainly, because ofjudicial review, judges

can be asked to rule on almost every area of government policy, and some people think, look, that's dragged the courts into the realm of political decision—making. other people say, no, this is a critical safeguard in our constitution for the judiciary safeguard in our constitution for thejudiciary to safeguard in our constitution for the judiciary to protect against the abuse of executive power by the government. so some people will be saying, look, judges are now too political, but what this certainly is isa political, but what this certainly is is a very firm reminder that, whoever you are, even the prime minister, you are not above the law. as you say, it was unanimous. what did you make up the fact that it was more strongly worded than many had anticipated? i don't think we saw that coming. this is an absolutely clinical judicial that coming. this is an absolutely clinicaljudicial dismantling of boris johnson's advice clinicaljudicial dismantling of borisjohnson's advice to the queen, unlawful advice to the queen, to prorogue parliament. every single argument that the government raised

was knocked down. they argued first of all that this was a political matter, not one for the courts. no, said lady hale, it is a proper matter we have been adjudicating in this sort of area for many years. this is about the limits of prerogative power and, guess what, you can't do it unless you have a reasonable justification and, on that, the court was absolutely withering, saying that such evidence that had been produced by the government meant the court couldn't discern a reason at all, let alone a good reason, for advising the queen to prorogue. so this was absolutely devastating, it was a judgment built firmly on the rock of the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty, with parliament the sovereignty, with parliament the sovereign body in our constitution, the legislature, and it is responsible for supervising the executive, the government. this judgment absolutely rammed those

principles home and, you know, it is a devastating judgment for the prime minister to read, and some of it is, he will find absolutely toe curling. devastating for the prime minister, as you will say, but i think it's worth clarifying. is there any way, any legal options open to the government to get around this ruling? it's nice to be able to give a short answer, so no is the answer to that, really. in legal terms, there is no appeal. this can't go to there is no appeal. this can't go to the european court of human rights, there are no human rights issues, it can't go to the european court of justice, there are no eu law issues. the government will have to come back to parliament, face the music, as it were, face the scrutiny of its brexit plans and negotiations. what it could do, and indeed will have to do in due course, is to prorogue again, this time lawfully, the ruling today made clear that a lawful prorogation to prepare for a

queen's speech would be in the region of four to six days. so there is no real comfort for the government here. the only figleaf, if you want to look at that way, is that report didn't go down the route of saying there was an improper motive exercised by the prime minister, but if you reach the judgment as a whole that is a crumb of because this judgment absolutely dismantles each of the government's arguments one by one. clive coleman, our legal correspondent. let's go to westminster now and our political correspondent jessica parker. borisjohnson has played down the significance of this, but how big a political blow is this? a huge blow. obviously, it's quite a bizarre situation today, when this ruling came in. he was at the un general assembly, attending a business

brea kfast, assembly, attending a business breakfast, but this is hugely damaging for this government. the highest court in the lead has said the decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful. —— in the land. and a lot of mps are pretty cross, so what you can count on tomorrow is that, when these mps return they will want to hold this government's feet to the fire, put borisjohnson under intense pressure, ask a lot of awkward, difficult questions, perhaps try and take control of the order paper again. another thing being talked about, but i don't think it's clear when this might happen, a possible vote of no confidence in boris johnson's government. we've heard calls from opposition leaders for him to resign, no indication he will do that, so when might mps from opposition parties make their move to try and force him out of office? we are slightly where we were a couple of weeks ago. nervousness among some people that, if they were to wina among some people that, if they were to win a vote of no confidence, you are into the 1a day period where maybe somebody else would try and

form a new government, but it's not clear who would lead to that end, if they don't manage to do that, boris johnson could call an election for the 1st of november and dissolve parliament over period of brexit day, the 31st of october, and that might hampermps' day, the 31st of october, and that might hamper mps' efforts to try and block a no—deal brexit, as they have made it clear they want to do. it will be interesting to see what the emphasis is when mps walk through the gates of westminster. where do you think it leaves the brexit timetable? we know that boris johnson has said he wants to stick by his 31st of october do or die departure date. we know there is a summit on the 17th of october, so if you weeks before that, where boris johnson has kind of suggested he is going to get the final deal done. the timetable is as it was a couple of weeks ago it hasn't particularly changed. i think what will be interesting is to see whether mps who are anxious to block a new deal

brexit really try and renew their