right, let's go live to the supreme court where clive coleman can tell us court where clive coleman canhe land. doug paulley tried to get on a bus in wetherby in 2012. he is a wheelchair user and couldn't get into the dedicated wheelchair space because there was a mother with a buggy in that space. the driver of the bus, the bus was operated by first group, the bus was operated by first group, the bus was operated by first group, the bus driver asked the woman to move, and she declined. doug paulley had to get off the bus and he was delayed. initially doug paulley sued and gota delayed. initially doug paulley sued and got a ruling that the policy that first bus operates of requesting, but not requiring someone to move from the wheelchair space was unlawful disability discrimination. the court of appeal said there was no legal duty to make someone move. the court has come to the supreme court and doug paulley won a ruling that the policy of simply requesting is not sufficient to fulfil the duties of the bus company under the equality act. the reason we say it is a partial victory is that

our legal affairs correspondent clive coleman reports on what is being seen as a momentous case, that of the uk's departure from the eu. who has the legal power to switch on the process by which the uk leaves the eu? is it the government alone, or does it need an act of parliament? tomorrow, the 11 justices of the supreme court will give their ruling. the government was appealing a case brought by businesswoman gina miller. the result today is about all of us. she had won a judgment at the high court stoppbing ministers bypassing parliament and triggering article 50 using what are known as prerogative powers. they are derived from times when all—powerful kings and queens could do pretty much what they wanted. the press secretary by the press corps so after checking my twitter feed, i shot just corps so after checking my twitter feed, i shotjust an e—mail knowing he could rest easy that his title is secure. let me begin by saying the president has been monitoring the weather in the south—east and spoke with the governor of georgia and offered condolences and support. today president tr

we'll talk to our assistant political editor norman smith — but first our legal correspondent clive colemanan impact could this ruling have on brexit? well, as you heard, this is a ruling which removes power from well, as you heard, this is a ruling which removes powerfrom the government and gives power to parliament. the government didn't wa nt parliament. the government didn't want it this way, but they have got it this way. now they have to introduce a bill to parliament that could be subject to a number of amendments. the real significance of todayis amendments. the real significance of today is that this ruling has really defined the limits of executive power, the power of ministers and government. and it has underscored the foundation of our unwritten constitution. we don't have a written constitution in this country, but we have one founding principle to our constitution, which is that parliament is sovereign. parliament creates the law and only parliament creates the law and only parliament has the power to change the law. and it was that that came through in the ruling of the eight

our legal correspondent, clive coleman, is here. what more can you tell us?an, the rest of this 50—year—old man this morning in knightsbridge this morning on suspicion of racially aggravated malicious communication. the arrest is in connection with a complaint made on the 6th of november by gina miller. she's the woman who successfully challenged the government's plans to trigger article 50 of the lisbon treaty without an act of parliament. she won her case at the court yesterday. it relates to threats made online and a second unrelated comment believed to have been made by the same suspect in august 20 16. the arrested man is currently in custody ata arrested man is currently in custody at a central london police station. as pa rt of at a central london police station. as part of the same investigation, we are told that the police issued eight cease and desist notices to various individuals around the uk. they do what they say on the tin. those notices that they if you don't stop the behaviour you're involved with, that could lead to police action. speaking

let‘s get a view from our legal affairs correspondent, clive coleman.n legal terms, what is yourjudgment? itjumped it jumped scores the itjumped scores the core principle at the heart of our unwritten constitution that parliament is sovereign, parliament creates the law and only parliament can change that law. although this case was about where ministers and parliament, it points up the importance and the role of the independent judiciary. importance and the role of the independentjudiciary. through judicial review, they were able to stop government in its tracks because what ministers were proposing to do was unlawful. be you ever so proposing to do was unlawful. be you ever so mighty the law is above you. this case also demonstrates judges applying another vital principle, nobody, not even government, is above the law. now, some regard our judges as unelected and unaccountable, one newspaper even dubbed them as enemies of the people. for many others they remain a vital check and balance against the miss use of power by ministers and by the state. all

let's talk to clive coleman, our legal affairs correspondent, the 11 supreme court justices have been christmas and the new year, and we are going to hear theirjudgment at half past nine. let's not underplay this, this is quite simply the biggest case about where power lies in our constitution as between ministers on the one hand and parliament on the other, this is a case that will define the limits of executive power of the government, which wants to trigger article 50 using these ancient powers, these prerogative powers, they say they can do that because, effectively, they are working with an international treaty that is an area where the prerogative can legitimately be used. gina miller says, no, what is at stake here is rights enjoyed by you and i, citizens of the uk that are enshrined in an act of parliament, the 1972 european communities act, and you cannot reach in with the prerogative and rip those out. so this case is, as you say, constitutionally of enormous significance, we are going to hear the ruling, it will come through the president of the court, lord neuberger, who w

our legal affairs correspondent clive coleman reports on what is being seen as a momentous case, thatwho has the legal power to switch on the process by which the uk leaves the eu? is it the government alone, or does it need an act of parliament? tomorrow, the 11 justices of the supreme court will give their ruling. the government was appealing a case brought by businesswoman gina miller. the result today is about all of us. she had won a judgment at the high court stoppbing ministers bypassing parliament and triggering article 50 using what are known as prerogative powers. they are derived from times when all—powerful kings and queens could do pretty much what they wanted. it's accepted that they can legitimately use the prerogative to enter into and leave international treaties, like the one that took the uk into what is now the eu. but that treaty led to an act of parliament, which brought rights into our domestic law, and it's the removal of those rights that lies at the heart of the case. the government argue that we are dealing with an international treaty that our government ha

clive coleman, our legal affairs correspondent is here.igger article 50 but also the question of whether the devolved administrations should have a say and they said not. yes, they said that law is law and politics is politics. they were looking at this thing called the sewell convention. it doesn't have the force of law. it says that when westminster legislates on matters which affect the devolved parliaments, they will seek the consent of those devolved parliaments. in scotland's case, it is slightly stronger. the scotland act, gives the sewell convention, some legislative force. nonetheless, the supreme court said, actually, conventions are not something that we, thejudges conventions are not something that we, the judges can conventions are not something that we, thejudges can roll on. it is a force of law. we'll thought that if the case was proceeding, it was an interesting political complexion to the case but it didn't really plate, asa the case but it didn't really plate, as a legal issue. so, now the ball has been thrown back into

our legal affairs correspondent clive coleman reports on what is being seen as a momentous case, thateed an act of parliament? tomorrow, the 11 justices of the supreme court will give their ruling. the government was appealing a case brought by businesswoman gina miller. the result today is about all of us. she had won a judgment at the high court stoppbing ministers bypassing parliament and triggering article 50 using what are known as prerogative powers. they are derived from times when all—powerful kings and queens could do pretty much what they wanted. it‘s accepted that they can legitimately use the prerogative to enter into and leave international treaties, like the one that took the uk into what is now the eu. but that treaty led to an act of parliament, which brought rights into our domestic law, and it‘s the removal of those rights that lies at the heart of the case. the government argue that we are dealing with an international treaty that our government has signed with the other eu governments, so even though the eu treaty gives rights to british citizens, it is ultimately

our legal affairs correspondent clive coleman reports on what is being seen as a momentous case thathe process by which the uk leads the process by which the uk leads the eu? is it the government alone, or does it need an act of parliament? tomorrow, the 11 justices of the supreme court will give their ruling. the government was appealing a case brought by businesswoman gina miller. the result today is about all of us. she had won a judgment at the high court stubbing ministers bypassing parliament and triggering article 50 using what are known as prerogative powers. they are derived from times when all—powerful kings and queens could do pretty much what they wanted. it's accepted that they can legitimately use the prerogative to enter into and leave international treaties, like the one that took the uk into what is now the eu. but that treaty led to an act of parliament, which brought rights into our domestic law, and is the removal of those rights that lies at the heart of the case. the government argued that we are dealing with an international treaty that our government has signe

with me is our legal correspondent clive coleman.rom the met‘s anti—cyber crime unit, operation falcon, have today arrested a 50—year—old man in knightsbridge on suspicion of racially aggravated malicious communication. that arrest is in connection, we are told, with a complaint made to the police on november the sex. that was three days afterjean miller had won her original high court judicial days afterjean miller had won her original high courtjudicial review -- gina original high courtjudicial review —— gina miller. the complaint was made by a 51 your old woman. the bbc understands that indeed was gina miller relating to threats made online. the arrested man is currently in custody at a london police station. we are told that as part of the same investigation, the metropolitan police have released eight notices, cease and desist notices... if you continue with the conduct behaviour you are currently engaged in, then that could result in police action. i should just say that this is entirely separate to another arrest that was mad

we can speak now to our correspondent clive coleman, who's outside the supreme court in central londonhas been one today here at the body has been one today here at the supreme court by the wheelchair. at the heart of this case was the policy that the bus company was operating on the day doug paulley tried to board the bus and that was a policy of requesting but stopped requiring someone who was in the wheelchair, the dedicated wheelchair space to move on that occasion, a woman with a buddy who refused to move and said the body was not collapsible and doug paulley wasn't able to get on the bus. initially doug paulley brought a legal action and won it and the policy was declared to be unlawful disability discrimination. the case went to the court of appeal and they reversed that and today it has come to the supreme court. the supreme court has ruled that that policy simply doesn't go far enough. a driver simply requesting someone to move is not sufficient. the driver has to do he has to now make a judgment. as the person who refuses to move acting unreasonably and if they are he has to