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

clive coleman, our legal correspondent. 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

clive coleman, bbc news. we will have more comment on that later in the programme. the polls for the second time in less than six months. the prime minister benjamin netanyahu is fighting for a fourth consecutive term after failing to form a coalition government during the summer. bibi, as he's known, has been pulling out all the stops to hang on to power, issuing a calculated stream of warnings, accusations and promises to rally his right wing base. barbara plett usher reports. campaigning, israeli style. it is a bareknuckle fight for political survival. with the parameters are facing possible corruption charges, he will do anything to win. the diehard supporters of benjamin netanyahu. diehard supporters of benjamin neta nyahu. they are diehard supporters of benjamin netanyahu. they are determined to get him every vote and he really needs them. he is definitely having their vote. the powerful cultural orthodox parties have been flexing their muscle under his watch, protecting their exemptions from the military draft and shutting things down on the sabbath. again th

clive coleman with his assessment of the legal process.ur scotland editor sarah smith at the court of session in edinburgh. some more detail about this highly significant ruling that was passed by thejudges significant ruling that was passed by the judges today. yes, fascinating if you look at exactly what the three judges at the court of session actually had to say in their ruling because while it does not explicitly say that boris johnson has either lied to the queen or try to mislead voters, if you drill down into the complex legal jargon, you will say that is pretty much exactly what they are saying. borisjohnson has always maintained it is perfectly normal for a new government to prorogue parliament and that it is nonsense to suggest he is trying to undermine democracy. today, the three judges he is trying to undermine democracy. today, the threejudges in he is trying to undermine democracy. today, the three judges in the court of session basically said that they did not believe him and that they think he is trying to avoid parliament

do it all again. 0k, clive coleman, thank you very much.rofessor richard ekins from oxford university. he heads thejudicial power project in the centre—right think tank, policy exchange. thank you for being here. your position is, this whole issue of the suspension, perrot king of parliament is not something for the courts to rule on? yes, a political question and the high court recognise that below. in our law, the prerogative to prorogue parliament is a question for the prime minister, for which he is accountable for the house of commons and eventually the electorate. there is no need forjudicial intervention and the law does not permit them to intervene. that is what has been debated over the last three days, i am sure you have been following it. but one of the justices has said, what if the prime minister wants to prorogue parliament for a year? what ifa prorogue parliament for a year? what if a prime minister wants to effectively disband the army by prorogue parliament. that kind of thing, those are hypothetical exa m ples thing, those

let's speak to clive coleman and our assistant political editor norman smith. clive...the permutations of what the judges could decide. they could rule that the government were right and this isa the government were right and this is a political matter, not one that the courts should get involved with. if they rule that, it is a straight out when for boris johnson. if they rule that, it is a straight out when for borisjohnson. i think 50% of people will think it is a victory for common sense, the other 50% will think that the courts have failed in their constitutional duty to hold the government to account and protect against the abuse of power by the executive. if they do not rule that, they could rule it is a question they can engage with but not unlawful because the breach of constitutional principle in law is not sufficient enough to make it unlawful. that is a victory for borisjohnson, the unlawful. that is a victory for boris johnson, the same unlawful. that is a victory for borisjohnson, the same sort of reaction. or they could rule it is a matter they can deal w

clive coleman, bbc news.hnson has not committed himself to recalling parliament if the supreme court rules the suspension unlawful. our political correspondent jessica parker is in westminster. what's the prime minister been saying? i know we've been talking quite a bit on this issue, but what has borisjohnson been bit on this issue, but what has boris johnson been saying? bit on this issue, but what has boris johnson been saying? he has previously insisted the suspension of parliament is about suspending it in the run—up to a queen's speech to allow him to set out a new legislative agenda. today, that will be going to the highest court in the country. what will the government do if the supreme court agrees with the scottish court? that question was put by laura kuenssberg.” scottish court? that question was put by laura kuenssberg. i have the greatest respect for the judiciary and the independence of the judiciary. it is admired around the world. and i think the best thing i can say, having said that, is to

clive coleman explaining everything we need to know about the supreme court there. 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 i

we have to speak to her at more length very soon, but clive coleman is still with me. the queen, then, there isa the issue of the queen, then, there is a question about the advice that borisjohnson as prime minister gave to the queen when he went along to the queen at balmoral to ask for permission, effectively, to suspend parliament. absolutely, that is what this really goes to the heart of, the advice given to the prime minister by the queen, and that advice has been ruled unlawful, because it was given for an improper purpose, it was given for the purpose, it was given for the purpose of steyn being parliament, reducing the amount of time that mps had to debate. —— stymying parliament. that is an extraordinary phrase, stymying parliament. yes, this was the basis of the legal challenge, really looking at the prime minister's intent on giving that advice to the queen, the government of course argue that it was done entirely lawfully, a lawful prorogation, but the argument from not only the scottish courts, but also in the gina miller case, which we understand is due t

clive coleman, bbc news.at happened yesterday. you were there in the room and it got a little confusing at one point. it was a bit confusing yesterday, but clearly what happened was those were pressing for an overt remains dance for the general election were defeated, but they we re election were defeated, but they were defeated with a show of hands. they said it didn't properly register the vote, not everything will delegate vote was counted. that led to some of them saying they may even challenge that again today. that will extend the row into another day. certainly those in jeremy corbyn's side of the argument, effectively putting off any argument, effectively putting off a ny leave argument, effectively putting off any leave or remain decision for any general election for there was a decisive victory. they felt it would have been better to conduct the vote ina have been better to conduct the vote in a different way so it wasn't as combative from the other side. there we re combative from the other side. t

that's clive coleman, our legal correspondent inside the supreme court.nal day of this hearing. to date the court will hear first from the scottish government, who argue that they should be allowed to intervene in the public interest. the court will also hear a statement from a northern ireland claimant raymond mccord, who argues that a no deal brexit would have a negative impact on the peace process. his son was murdered by the ulster volunteer force in 1997. just after midday the court will hear from lawyers for sirjohn major who asi from lawyers for sirjohn major who as i mentioned will argue that the suspension of parliament was unlawful because it stops parliament from scrutinising the whole brexit process. joining us now to talk about what we can expect today, we've got the barrister and legal commentatorjeremy bryant, doctor joelle grogan from middlesex university, thank you both. jeremy, this has been an incredible case anyway, landmark case for all sorts of reasons, constitutionally, politically. but now we've got a lawyer for sirjohn politically

that was clive coleman explaining the ins and outs of what is going on in the supreme court.er studio for us now. thanks forjoining us. when we look at the arguments today in what they centred on, what stood out for you? the sort of idea of the competing ideas of parliamentary sovereignty that we see on the one side from the challengers and on the other from the government. the government is saying in this case, what parliamentary sovereignty means is that parliament can enact any low that parliament can enact any low that it likes and nobody can set aside any load that parliament enacts, and the government says, well, the prime minister exercised his prerogative power to advise the queen and he did not break any act of parliament by doing that. what lord pannick qc, for gina miller, was setting out this morning was our broader, richer view of what parliamentary sovereignty means in the uk constitution, the idea that for parliament to be sovereign doesn't just for parliament to be sovereign doesn'tjust mean that parliament can make any law, it means it has to have the opportu

ok, clive coleman, thank you very much.a trail of destruction in the bahamas, where at least 20 people have died. one of the worst—hit regions, the abaco islands, have been devastated. homes, roads and businesses there have been torn apart, as david willis reports. along the eastern seaboard, they are battening down the hatches. dorian is on a collision course with the carolinas and people are being urged to leave. our message today is, if you are still in an evacuation zone, you still have time to get out. but time to get out is running out, because once the wind speeds get up to about 40 or 45 miles an hour, the emergency crews will not be able to come in and get you. oh, my god! in its wake, dorian left a tropical paradise in ruins. the abaco islands of the northern bahamas were torn apart — homes flattened, entire communities submerged by one of the most powerful atlantic storms on record. relief officials are gearing up for a major humanitarian disaster. as the floodwaters recede, the death toll is expected to grow. wi

clive coleman reports. it has arrived, at speed.tices at the supreme court will rule on whether boris johnson acted unlawfully in advising the queen to prorogue or suspend parliament for five weeks. is he anxious? let us see what the justices say. i'm going to wait and see what thejudgement justices say. i'm going to wait and see what the judgement is, and — justices say. i'm going to wait and see what thejudgement is, and — but i want to stress that this is a government that fully respects the law and fully respects the judiciary. the supreme court will resolve two dramatically contradictory rulings. scotland's highest civil court ruled the prime minister's advice to the queen to prorogue was motivated by the improper purpose of stymieing and frustrating parliament during critical weeks before brexit. but the high court in london, in a case brought by the businesswoman gina miller, ruled that proroguing is a political matter and there were no legal standards against which a court could judge it. at the supreme court last week, the

let's speak to our legal correspondent clive coleman — is this the end of it? no, it isn't.is three senior judges at the high court have dismissed gina miller's legal challenge and the advice given by the prime minister by borisjohnson to the queen to prorogue parliament for five weeks at a time of national crisis was unlawful, it breached parliamentary sovereignty. but what the court has done has said there is enough merit in the case to allow it to leapfrog on an appeal, leapfrog the court of appeal and go straight to the uk supreme court. so this morning a welcome victory for mr johnson in what's been a difficult week for him. but it is by no means over and outside court gina miller was defiant. we feel strongly that parliamentary sovereignty is fundamental to the stability and future of our country, and therefore, worth fighting to defend. as our politics becomes ever more chaotic, we feel it is absolutely vital that parliament should be sitting. so, if this challenge at the uk supreme court, and it could be joined by challengers going through the courts in scotland and

gordon, who's at the queen's balmoral residence, but first let's speak to our legal correspondent clive colemanhe supreme court. this unanimous decision was stronger than many expected. absolutely. let's pause and think of the enormity of what has happened here. a prime minister of the united kingdom has been found unanimously, by the highest court in the land, to have unlawfully advised the monarch of the realm to suspend the sovereign body in our constitution, that being parliament, with the effect that parliamentary business cannot take place. that points out the latest example of something called judicial review. a process whereby any of us can go in front of a court and ask independentjudges to review the decision of a public authority, it could be a minister, it could be the prime minister, and rule on whether or not that is lawful. and that points out arguably one of the great constitutional clashes of our times between a powerful government, an executive on the one hand used to getting its way, and on the other, independent judges who threw the mechanism of judicial review can halt the

demonstrators here outside the supreme court but let's get the latest from our legal correspondent clive colemand talking about the murky line between politics and the murky line between politics and the law. what did you make of the government's case this morning? sir james eadie's submission was absolutely shot through with this idea that this isn't a matter for the court. our occasion is essentially a political process, it is shot through with political considerations. you know, when you talk about prorogued parliament, how long should it be prorogued for? this is not an answer the court can answer, he said it was an u na nswera ble answer, he said it was an una nswerable question answer, he said it was an unanswerable question for answer, he said it was an una nswerable question for the unanswerable question for the court and he said it was right that a court should design a timetable for parliamentary sittings and parliamentary sessions. parliament can do that, it has done it in the past, so this really was strictly a matter not for the courts, but a couple of really interesting interventio

our legal correspondent clive coleman has been taking a look.sed 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 advised 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 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 are sitting as 11, so that no one can say, well, if there had been a different panel, it would h

our legal correspondent clive coleman is here. what does this mean, fundamentally?es this mean, fundamentally? what it means is that the suspension of parliament, the prorogation of parliament was unlawful and because it was obtained by way of an unlawful purpose, and improper purpose, the court in scotland called it, so the advice given by borisjohnson to the queen, which is at the center of now three legal challenges, that that, in the scottish court, which is a higher court than the court that heard it here in london, in england and wales, and this is an appeal court, that ruling remains. what is interesting is that the government did not seek to suspend that ruling, pending the appeal to the supreme court, so parliament is effectively prorogued. how it could reconstitute itself is an interesting question and we are in uncharted waters. the speakers office said it was a matter for the government. but parliament, effectively, is now not pirogue. we have had some of the reasoned judgments for the gina miller ruling, she lost a challenge last week and the court in l

our legal correspondent clive coleman has been in court.n extraordinarily the braille political times but even by those standards the site of a lawyer for the former tory prime minister condemning the current tory prime minister saying he has failed to tell the truth is astonishing. minister saying he has failed to tell the truth is astonishingm minister saying he has failed to tell the truth is astonishing. it is incredible, it feels like we are through the looking glass into a new reality. it feels at times more like a far—fetched tv drama but you are right, these two appeal cases... remember, the prime minister stands accused of misleading mnemonic of the realm and undermining the sovereign body in our constitution which is parliament. as you say, coming to assist the case against the current prime minister, the former tory prime minister, who in very bold and strong terms is accusing borisjohnson very bold and strong terms is accusing boris johnson of very bold and strong terms is accusing borisjohnson of having misled the queen and sug

miller and is being supported by the former prime minister, sirjohn major. 0ur legal correspondent clive colemangh it. this challenge centres on whether the advice given by borisjohnson to the queen to prorogue parliament for five weeks, the longest in a0 years, was lawful, forgina the longest in a0 years, was lawful, for gina miller, in court this morning, it was argued this was an unlawful breach of power, because it breached the lawful principle of parliamentary sovereignty because it had the effect of shutting down parliament for that critical five weeks in the lead up to the 31st of 0ctober, meaning that mps could not enact legislation, could not react to offers from the eu, and so forth. lord pannick said that it was critical for the rule of law that a prime minister did not have u nfettered prime minister did not have unfettered discretion, in other words, total freedom, to unfettered discretion, in other words, totalfreedom, to suspend parliament, otherwise an autocratic prime minister could do that for six months, for a year. he pointed to a handwritten memo from the prime minister whic

clive coleman is at the supreme court.ough the scottish courtjudgement is, it's all very confusing as it's the exact opposite of a judgement by the english courts. it is incredible. you could scarcely have two more contradictory judgments. the scottish one found the prime minister acted unlawfully because his improper purpose was to stymie parliament. the high court in london said advice given by the prime minister to the queen isn't a legal matter at all and you can't judge it in a court of law. those contraryjudgments are hurtling towards this place, the uk supreme court, the highest court in the land, and any hearing beginning next tuesday, the contradiction between the two of them will be resolved and we will have a definitive ruling as to whether the prime minister acted unlawfully or not and that will determine whether mps and parliament sit in the lead up to the uk leaving the eu. this really is the uk constitution in action. independent judges acting through judicial review can halt the might of a government in its

our legal correspondent clive coleman is here. in great detail, let's talk about the importance of the process that led to today's ruling. wanting to say, this is not about the merits of brexit, but let's stand back and recognise the enormity of what it is. this is a serving prime minister of the united kingdom who has been found unanimously by the highest court in the land to have unlawfully advised the monarch of the realm to suspend the sovereign body in our constitution, parliament, at a time of national crisis, with the effect that his government is not scrutinised during that period. the staff of far—fetched tv dramas perhaps, but it happened because of something called judicial review, a process whereby individuals, you or i. process whereby individuals, you or i, can go before a court and as independentjudges to rule on whether a decision of a public body, a minister, the prime minister, is lawful or not. and that points up a critical tension in our constitution between, on the one hand, a powerful executive, a government u

our legal correspondent clive coleman is at the high court in central london.belfast and edinburgh, an excellent how it is they can have a hearing on september the 17th of prorogation has already begun. well, the legal proceedings are really running separately. had gina miller won, or had the case in scotland proved successful, then that would have stopped propagation. that would have stopped propagation. that would have suspended, if you like, the suspension of parliament. so what we have had today is a decision by three seniorjudges. i cannot give you the reason for that decision, because things are happening at such breakneck speed. we had the hearing yesterday, we will have reasons to follow. but what has been activated isa follow. but what has been activated is a situation where the case can lea pfrog is a situation where the case can leapfrog the court of appeal and go straight to the uk supreme court. it could also happen to the scottish case and ended to in belfast. the scottish case, we are expecting a on monday. there has been a feeling throughout tha

but first, here's our legal eagle clive coleman, to explain what's happening.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 diffe

our legal correspondent, clive coleman has been at the high court. response to advice that he had been given from his senior legal adviser that there's a section for him to give notes. he talks about the september sitting of parliament and it as september sitting of parliament and itasa september sitting of parliament and it as a rigmarole, something to convince them that they are earning their trust. because perot game was over the conference season, the seats lost are actually very few. an indication perhaps that the prime minister did not see this suspending isa minister did not see this suspending is a bigger deal. this is outside source live from the bbc newsroom. our lead story is? pressure continues to mount on boris johnson as he insists he will not delay brexit. the prime minister says there's now only one option, an early election. but his opponents say not before a no—deal brexit is ruled out. there's been a series of riots in nigeria with many south african businesses targeted. today they delivered a diplomatic incident. south africa has

our legal correspondent clive coleman sent this update. that prorogating or suspending proudman isa prorogating or suspending proudman is a purely political matter and not won a court can or should adjudicate because there are no standards against which it can be judged because there are no standards against which it can bejudged but on the other hand lawyers for the businesswoman gina miller and a group of some of the parliamentarians argued that the pa role parliamentarians argued that the parole gain or suspension was unlawful because the purpose was to silence and shut down proudman, stein yet and frustrated and some of the political weeks leading up to the political weeks leading up to the uk reaping the eu. thejustices have sat and listened to this case will have to decide freshly whether it is an issue they can rule on, if they decide that it is, they will have to come to a definitive judgement as to whether a suspension of parliament was unlawful and that the behaviour of the prime minister and advising the queen was also illegal.

clive coleman is our legal correspondent and robert greg, from the university of bristol law school. imes for example they have been called by one tabloid enemies of the people. how difficult is it for them to stray into this great constitutional area where there is politics? we have a system in this country where we have something called judicial review, it is an incredibly democratic process whereby you, me, anyone, can go before a court and ask it to determine whether a decision of a public authority, could be a minister, prime minister is in this case, is unlawful or not. that process ofjudicial review has really grown exponentially from the early 1980s, and it has dragged judges into the area of political decision—making, in many people's point of view. eminentjudges like lord sumption, justice of this court, is very much of that view, thatjudges court, is very much of that view, that judges have been court, is very much of that view, thatjudges have been drawn more at a political decision—making than they should have done, because there is almost no area of government policy tha

we're joined now by our legal correspondent, clive coleman. t the prime minister had acted unlawfully in inviting the queen to prorogue for five weeks. and we will hear from lawyers who won the case at the high court in london. that case ruled that prorogation was a matter of high quality and politics, essentially political and not a matter that the court should get involved with. so, these are separate appeals but the issues are similar and today we will get the response to the people who have brought the appeals. so much of this is unprecedented, not least the interest in what is going on at the supreme court. something like 20,000 people watching each month, but there were a million people yesterday and many outside. what do you make of the intense interest here? it is phenomenal, but we must remember that this is an appeal case in which a prime minister of the united kingdom stands accused of misleading the monarch and undermining the sovereign body in our constitution, parliament, so they were very strong opinions on both sides, and many f

our legal correspondent clive coleman is at the high court. has emerged today is this handwritten note from the prime minister, written in august, in his own handwriting. yes, part of that note we had had read out in the scottish case, where mrjohnson, in response to advice he's been given from his senior legal adviser, there isa from his senior legal adviser, there is a section for him to give notes, he talks about the september sitting of parliament, and describes it as a rigmarole, something to convince the public that mps are earning their crust. but in a part of the note we had not previously seen, that was released today, mrjohnson wrote that after those comments i've quoted, he wrote that because proroguing was over the conference season, the sitting days lost are actually very few. that seems to be an indication perhaps that the prime minister didn't see the suspending of parliament as that big a deal, and that may say something about his politicaljudgment because the proroguing of parliament has proved to bea proroguing of parliament

here are the thought of the bbc‘s legal correspondent clive coleman. the court from these benches have focused on the point that proroguing or suspending parliament is a political matter, is not one which a court can or should adjudicate, because there simply are no legal standards against which it can be judged. on the other hand, lawyers for the business woman gina millerand a group lawyers for the business woman gina miller and a group of 70 parliamentarians have argued that the proroguing or suspension was unlawful because its purpose was to silence, shut down parliament, to stymie it, frustrated and some of the critical weeks of the uk leaving the critical weeks of the uk leaving the eu. well, all of the justices who have sat and listened to this case will have to decide firstly whether it is an issue that they can rule on, and if they decide that it is, they will have to come to a definitive judgment as to whether the suspension of parliament was unlawful and the behaviour of the prime minister in advising the queen was also illegal. while all of

not sure what we'd do today without the bbc‘s legal correspondent, clive coleman. here he is.urpose improper purpose was to stymie parliament. the judgement from the high court in london finding that, look, advice given by the prime minister to the queen isn't a legal matter at all. it's a political matter. you cannot judge it in a court of law. now those two contraryjudgements are now hurtling towards this place, the uk supreme court, the highest court in the land, and in a hearing beginning next tuesday, the contradiction between the two of them, will be resolved. and we will get a definitive ruling as to whether the prime minister was acting unlawfully, or not. and that will determine whether mps and parliament sit in the lead up to the uk leaving the eu. this really is the uk constitution in action. independentjudges acting through judicial review can halt the might of a government in its tracks, if what ministers have done is unlawful, because as lawyers like to say, be you ever so mighty, the law is above you. catherine barnard is a professor of european union law, unive

let me tell you this, this is from our legal affairs correspondent, clive coleman, he says, parliamentyes, well, that sounds right to me, but i am always very cautious in giving any legal opinion because i am of course not a legal adviser to the case, iam course not a legal adviser to the case, i am the first position, but that sounds right. since this decision came out, i have been flat out on the phone and doing media about it, not had time to think about it, not had time to think about the application. political implications are care, prorogation was unlawful, parliament should go back and get on with the job of representing constituents. there may be people watching the programme, i am sure there are, who voted leave, andi am sure there are, who voted leave, and i expect the fact they voted leave, my constituents voted remain, my country voted remain, but regardless of your position, it can only be a good thing for parliament to scrutinise these things. thank you very much, we appreciate your time. many viewers think it is the right decision, parliament should be sitting at this ti

our legal correspondent clive coleman is at the high court in central london — so where do we go fromiled to get a ruling that the advice given by the prime minister, borisjohnson, to the queen to provoke parliament for five weeks, that would have been the longest for 40 that would have been the longest for a0 yea rs that would have been the longest for a0 years at a time gina miller says of national political crisis, she failed to get a declaration that that was unlawful. but this is far from over. what the court has done today and things are moving so quickly that the court has given a ruling without giving reasons. the hearing only ended late yesterday and so the judges haven't had time to put together a recentjudgment. that will follow in due course but they have come to their decision, so they have come to their decision, so they have come to their decision, so they have dismissed her appeal but what they have done is something the courts are allowed to do in cases where they feel there is enough merit in the case and the time frame is small enough to mean that the case can be le

ealier our legal correspondent clive coleman sent this update.us ruling by the highest court in the land that the prime minister of the united kingdom had unlawfully advised the monarch of the realm to suspend what is 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 than that. this is what's known as a judicial review. we have had them for a long time and they have grown exponentially from the early 1980s, and they allow a citizen, someone like gina mellor, to go before a court and ask independentjudges to review a decision or behaviour of a public authority, so it could be a minister or in this case the prime minister. and it gives the power to judges to determine whether those actions were lawful or not. it has 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 have had today. so it is simply huge, the

let's speak to our legal correspondent clive coleman.the advice that borisjohnson gave to the queen to prorogue parliament. that is at the heart of what we have been hearing about this morning. the case brought by gina miller, whose representative this morning set out her case. he began by setting out that this five week prorogue of parliament, there is no precedent for a suspension of that length of time. the longest one was three weeks and more normally it has been a week. lord panic said that the case simply as the prime minister's advice is and unlawful abuse of power because it breaches the legal principle of parliamentary sovereignty. why is that, he asked, because the effect of that is to remove the ability of parliament to enact such legislation as it sees fit or issues a public policy relating to the arrangements to leave the eu and he said that it effectively shuts parliament down in a period when time is of the essence because of that deadline of leaving on october 31. lord panic went back to cases from 1611 to illustrate the

i can talk now to our legal correspondent, clive coleman, and also to professorjeff king, from universityith thejudgment borisjohnson. he does not agree with the judgment but he will abide by the law. what can the government do now? nothing, basically. they can't appeal this ruling, there is no eu law, so he can't go to the european of justice, there no eu law, so he can't go to the european ofjustice, there is no human rights law, they cannot go to the court of human right will stop basically what this ruling today means is that they will have to go back to parliament to face the music, face the scrutiny of their brexit plans, and it's a pretty humiliating day. professor, you have been watching these hearings, you are an expert in law. what did you make of the unanimity of the judges, which are not a lot of people were expecting, and also the strength, the power of their judgment expecting, and also the strength, the power of theirjudgment and their words? unanimity is quite unusual and is generally used when it is decided that it is very important to set a clear message that this is wha