this morning the supreme court has heard from the appellants for campaigner gina miller, who had lostafternoon it will be the appellants for the scottish case, where its highest court found mr johnson's actions unlawful. tomorrow, it's the turn of the respondents — the uk government in the gina miller case and advocate general. and on thursday there will be interventions from former prime minister sirjohn major, whose lawyers will makes his submission to the supreme court. let's go to ben brown who is at the supreme court. demonstrators from both sides of the brexit divide are here outside the supreme court, the highest court in the land. the decision made by the ii judges here could have profound implications legally, constitutionally and politically. this morning the court heard claims that borisjohnson sees parliament as an obstacle and potential threat, and he suspended it in order to silence it. richard lister reports. the suspension of parliament by a new government is usually a routine affair, but not last week. as conservatives filed out to shouts of shame on you, the oppositi

well, joining me in the studio now is gina miller.are you absolutely adamant however, that you go on? if i could correct that. it wasn't thrown out, it wasn't dismissed, the case wasn't dismissed. we didn't get a judgment in ourfavour, it dismissed. we didn't get a judgment in our favour, it wasn't a win or lose, what we did get was an acknowledgement that the case has serious merits and a referral up to the supreme court on the 17th of september. what we now have is a very important case, especially at this time when prorogation will be back on the table next week. in front and centre. when we believe this request for prorogation was a abuse of the prime minister's powers. we are seeing everyday things are changes in polymer should be sitting there. it is a crucial case and will be heard in the most important and highest court in the land. so, whilst it wasn't a win, it wasn't to lose either. we would argue it is being heard in the right place, to be heard in the supreme court. that is extraordinary. two things there. one, the suprem

tomorrow it's the turn of the respondents, the uk government in the gina miller case and the advocatealfor 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

gina miller supreme court guarding over it. even without... gina millerjust coming out, by the way.r gina miller, who once again is one of the key figures in this case. just as with the article 50 case at the supreme court. back to you... there is this grey area and it is a very difficult course for these 11 judges? uncharted territory in the scottish court sailed into uncharted territory last week when they give a lengthy decision without any detailed reason and i think those reasons are persuasive and lord pannick thinks they are persuasive andi pannick thinks they are persuasive and i would say i am reasonably confident they will follow the scottish court and the reason i am confident is if they don't, they will have said the british concert allows the prime minister of a minority government to suspend parliament to get it to stop getting in its way. that is dictatorship. if the 11 judges, if the decision is the 11 judges, if the decision is the way you want it and boris johnson has acted unlawfully, what then? was the suspension null and void? and what is a prime minister have t

the business woman gina miller believes it was not.ed was it right for the courts to intervene? it is their overarching power, yes. she is appealing a unanimous decision at the high court thatjudges should not get involved because the proroguing of parliament as a political decision. but in edinburgh the court of session ruled, also unanimously, this was an issue for the courts. it said borisjohnson had misled the queen by not telling her that his real reason for ending the session was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of government action. in other words, to stop mps blocking brexit. the court said the prime minister's advice to the queen and the prorogation which followed was unlawful. now the supreme court will have to decide which of these rulings was correct. it is important to emphasise that we are not concerned with the wider political issues which form the context for this legal issue. as will be apparent when we hear the legal arguments, the determination of this legal issue will not determine when and how the united kingdom le

the case was brought by the businesswoman gina miller.spondent clive coleman — is this the end of it? no, it isn't. because what has happened today 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

is that was that ruling about bret's it or something else because we heard from the campaigner gina miller say this was nothing to do with that. the head of the supreme court was very clear to to say it wasn't but it seems to be intact precedes. a party political party some bricks it ruling which one is it. so the outcome of the court case i don't think will fundamentally change breck's it but everything at the moment is in the context of breaks that gina miller through that she says that she will the case independently i think everyone's clear on where she stands on bret's if they were in fact 2 cases being held together the other one explicitly being headed up by people who've said that they want to stop for x. it their aim in reading the case when they 1st brought it was that there was a fear that boris johnson was going to close down parliament over the entire period until the end of the negotiating period following which the u.k. would come out of the e.u. without a deal automatically that's what they were keen to to stop the political landscape changed somewhat and that's why it won'

gina miller has failed.0 years at a time that gina miller says is of national political crisis, she has failed to get a declaration that that was unlawful. but this is far from get a declaration that that was unlawful. but this is farfrom over. what the court has done today and things are moving so quickly, it 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 reasoned judgment. that will follow but 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 timeframe is small enough to mean that their case can be leapfrogged, it can lea pfrog case can be leapfrogged, it can leapfrog the court of appeal here and go straight to the uk supreme court and as you heard gina miller say, a hearing is set down to take place at the uk supreme court on the 17th

gina miller's side are asking for an order effectively quashing the proroguing. quite what the mechanics are for parliament being recalled, whether mps just file in all the prime minister, the government has to formally recall parliament, interestingly, with the scottish ruling, the government did not apply for a suspension order to suspend the scottish ruling pending this, which technically meant mps could have filed back into parliament. the speakeroffice issued have filed back into parliament. the spea keroffice issued a have filed back into parliament. the speakeroffice issued a statement saying it was for the government to recall. quite how the recalling of parliament will take place is a little uncertain, but if they get better order quashing the proroguing then,in better order quashing the proroguing then, in one way or another, parliament be recalled. thank you, clive coleman, a legal correspondence who will be watching it all hesitant. the supreme court. —— who will be watching it all as it unfolds at the supreme court. let's go to westminster now to spe

gina miller is back.ess by which the uk leaves the eu, using their own prerogative powers she effectively forced a vote in parliament. once again, she is making a judicial review based on the fact that the executives —— the executive is curtailing parliamentary sovereignty. the basis for her challenge is that she argues that the advice given by boris johnson to the queen to prorogue parliament was an abuse of power, that it was unconstitutional. and what she is looking for is a declaration that that is declared unlawful. now, the government's position on this. i should say, by the way, events are moving so quickly at the moment that that legal challenge has been somewhat overta ken legal challenge has been somewhat ove rta ke n by legal challenge has been somewhat overtaken by events in the sense that what she was effectively saying was, the prime minister is trying to shut down the uk parliament at a time of national crisis and stop it from legislating in a way that would prevent the uk leaving the eu wi

the anti—brexit campaigner, gina miller, has lost herjudicial review at the high court in london. minister of the bahamas says he fears the number of people killed by hurricane dorian will be "staggering". sport now and for a full round—up, from the bbc sport centre, here's jane. good morning. england face a critical day with the bat on day three of the fourth ashes test at old trafford. yesterday a double hundred from steve smith put australia in control of the test and potentially the series. play was due to start at 11 o'clock in manchester, but the rain has prevented that and the covers remain on. it is brightening up however and play is expected this afternoon where england will need to bat well to keep the series alive. australia declared yesterday on a97 for eight. england are 23 for 1. there are three innings still to go, still three days of cricket left, three innings left to be played in the game. if we can go out and apply ourselves tomorrow, but for a long period of time like at headingley, then there is no reason why not. serena williams will have another chance to wi

a few months ago, gina miller, the businesswoman who was so gina miller, the businesswoman who was sobrought the article 50 case three years ago and has been a real thorn in the side of the government for a number of years of a brexit, she came out of the supreme court victorious to loud cheers for her supporters. good morning, everyone. todayis supporters. good morning, everyone. today is not a win for any individual because, it is a when parliamentary sovereignty, the separation of powers and the independence of our british courts. crucially, today's ruling confirms that we are a nation governed by the rule of law. laws that everyone, even the prime minister, is not above. do not let the government played down the seriousness of the judgment today. a unanimous judgment. they have spoken unequivocally. and what i say to the prime minister is to repeat lady hale's words, the order was a blank piece of paper. parliament was not prorogued. mps should turn up for work tomorrow and get up with scrutinising this government. i would like to express my sincere thanks to my legal team, lord p

right so that was gina miller the face in many ways although this campaign to challenge the action taken by the prime this is a hugely controversial action to parochial suspend parliament rory challenge outside and do the miller thanking her legal team but she didn't mention.

on in that case and there's also a new case being brought in belfast in northern ireland where gina miller says that she's still confident that when this case is expected goes to appeal at the supreme court here in london they will actually win and the politics becomes ever more chaotic we feel it is absolutely vital that parliament should be sitting. we're there for peace that the judge judges have given us permission to appeal to the supreme court which we will be doing and they felt that i case has the merits to be handed out so we're looking to stay on in the supreme court and penciled in the 17th of september for the appeal hearing so dean what is the opposition likely to do next and what can we expect from the prime minister himself. well boris johnson is in scotland right now he's been meeting people involved in the fishing industry and he's promising new money for farmers on thursday he was in the north of england talking about new police offices and all of this it basically a pre election mode for him and very the logic is this on friday we expect this delay bill which will force

that is lord pannick for gina miller.bing courtroom drama essentially in the supreme court. some up for us what it will means. it is such a grey area that thesejudges are now means. it is such a grey area that these judges are now venturing into as they consider theirjudgment. this case has stress tested to the very limit our unwritten constitution. if we had a written constitution. if we had a written constitution that said two weeks probing is fine but five weeks isn't, we wouldn't be here and it has shown the tectonic plates of the constitution grinding up against each other because really the government's argument is, you, the judges, cannot intervene. prorogue is the exclusive territory of the executive and parliament and there is no role, there are no manageable orjudicial standards against is no role, there are no manageable or judicial standards against which you canjudge or judicial standards against which you can judge the or judicial standards against which you canjudge the prorogue in parliament. on the one si

i was delighted when gina miller's qc adopted what the scottish court said in its entirety.i am cautiously optimistic the supreme court will follow the scottish court. if they do not they will be accepting it is possible under the british constitution for a prime minister of a minority government to shut down parliament if it is getting in his way and that cannot be right. anotherjudge said, whatever boris johnson did cannot be right. anotherjudge said, whatever borisjohnson did albeit disgraceful, it is not a matterfor the court, it is a political matter. i respect him but three scottish seniorjudges have said otherwise and had given detailed reasoning. one of the most senior qcs this morning has adopted the proceedings of the scottish court but i think what the scottish court has said will prove decisive and persuasive. if it is ruled that borisjohnson has not acted lawfully, what you think will happen? i think will start to sit immediately and mps like myself should be able to get back into the chamber and get back into committee and get on with the job of scrutinising pa

but most of them mentioning the goings—on in the supreme court today and featuring a picture of gina millerm. she is one of the people who has brought an appeal in the supreme court. as to whether the prime minister acted lawfully when he shut down parliament for five weeks. the telegraph says that the future is in the hands of the supreme court. they are basically adjudicating on whether boris johnson are basically adjudicating on whether borisjohnson acted lawfully to suspend parliament. 11 justice is a meeting for the second time to hear the case for and against boris johnson acting lovely when he wrote parliament. practically speaking is that he has only added a few days on at the end but many arguing that this is actually the crux moment when they would be negotiating brexit and potentially passing negotiation and that he was wilfully misleading at the queen. the decision has leg implication but also on our active the courts become in politics. is it the point that proroguing parliament is legal and therefore the cost could decide on. prime ministers have the power to do this but the b

it's being led by the campaigner gina miller and is being supported by the former prime minister, sirjohne coleman is at the high court. talk us through 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

the legal team for the business woman gina miller argued yesterday that boris johnson's gina miller argued yesterday that borisjohnson‘s suspension of parliament was unlawful, intended to deny mps a voice on brexit. today, it was the term of the government's lawyer. good morning, sirjames. non—just to see ability. put simply, an issue on which the courts have no right to intervene, including the prime minister's ability to suspend parliament. it is a prerogative power that has been expressly reserved by parliament. sirjames said borisjohnson reserved by parliament. sirjames said boris johnson had reserved by parliament. sirjames said borisjohnson had broken no laws in having parliament prorogued, but that raised questions from the court. would you argue that the prorogation has the effect to undermine the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional function of holding the executive to account? by definition, prorogation, asa account? by definition, prorogation, as a point i would come back too, has the effect that it has. sir james accepted its meant mps couldn't ask questions an

as to use the words of gina miller. absolutely look in the last 3 years we've seen unprecedented constitutional struggle in britain between the executive and parliament in which the executor sought override will bypass the will of parliament and the supremes court has now found that our constitution cannot function without a sovereignty and the primacy of parliament and if the government seeks to star you meet will shuts down parliament in order to prevent m.p.'s from doing their work they will be held accountable for that and now we just need to see what the count's bullets he will be because john was boris johnson cannot simply pretend that this hasn't happened i don't know that the other really i'm sorry to jump in there could add can i ask you to hold on because i think we can now go to brighton and listen to we can listen to jeremy colvin of course the leader of the main opposition labor party let's just listen to what he was saying a short time ago and i'll come back to you thank you very cold so that we. are. him

first up was the english case, brought by the campaigner gina miller.s, we say, a remarkable feature of these proceedings that the prime minister has not made a witness statement. for the executive to use a prerogative power to seek to evade control by parliament stands the basic principles of constitutional law on their head. the entire legal battle is playing out against the fact that the uk is due to leave the eu without a deal at the end of octrober and there is currently no deal between the uk and the eu on how that will work. that is of no consequence to those 11 judges on the supreme court. there's plenty of pressure and passion, as you can see from the the reception that gina miller received when she left court today. booing. we want brexit now! brexit now! the supreme court also considered from the scottish case, which was brought by a number of people, including the scottish national party mpjoanna cherry. the scottish court found borisjohnson had acted unlawfully in suspending parliament. the counterargument is being made by the advocate gene

if the court has the trial bundle in the gina miller case. number 51. .. do we have this electronic league? yes, it is page 373, i hope the court also has it electronically. well, we have no less than... i'm sorry about this but there is always trouble with the documents in these cases. we need to sort it out. we have got five different documents on a memory stick. is it the hearing bundle? yes, it is called the trial bundle for hearing on the 5th of september. i hope that is the same document as the president is referring to. it has 68 tabs, may be more? how many pages? 0h, has 68 tabs, may be more? how many pages? oh, yes. my volume goes up to pages? oh, yes. my volume goes up to page 518. well, mine goes up to 591. as does mike, i'm afraid. could i ask the court to ten to tab number 51, page number 373. we will see whether it works, yes. 373. that should be an interview on the today programme, an interview, john humphrys interviewing jacob rees—mogg. humphrys interviewing jacob rees-mogg. i'm afraid not. it isn't. then it is a different bu

all members have gina miller. they have. i wonder why.ecide on brexit. this is him laying out his plans on brexit in advance of the labour party conference. he has written that he wants to be a neutral referee if there were to be a second referendum this comes ahead of the labour party conference where it is expected that some members will try to force a conference voting at the party to take a clear remain stance if they were to be a another referendum. jeremy corbyn having watch how david cameron has put out in the news this week and a lot of the abuse front and does not wa nt lot of the abuse front and does not want to take a stance on the referendum but he has also laid out what a question might be in a referendum and it seems to be that it would be essentially a very soft brexit with a customs union and a close legal market relationship that kind of bespoke labour deal. 0r close legal market relationship that kind of bespoke labour deal. or it remain. 0rthere is no kind of bespoke labour deal. or it remain. 0r there is no deal option

lostve images -- we just gina miller speaking outside parliament. spectacular victory. francine: gina miller was the person who brought cases to the judiciary to make sure that article 50, after it was triggered, that parliament would have a say on whether they left the e.u. that was one of the first things. through the last three years and a half she had wins and losses, but today is a huge win for everyone who is pro-remain. it was an incredible hearing with justice brenda hale reading out the ruling, saying it is not up to the prime minister to decide what comes next, but the speaker of the house and parliament to decide what they want to do. joining us as sebastian salek. the question people want to know, and we saw some big pound reaction, is how quickly can parliament meet? sebastian: gina miller speaking outside court, saying mps can get back to work tomorrow and sort out the situation. wants it to happen as soon as possible, without delay. the will ofn saying parliament is immediately recalled. there is urgency to get right back in. we have

matt: gina miller -- nejra: gina miller, founding partner of scm direct, thank you so much for joinings. boris johnson cutting short history to new york to visit parliament he tried to suspend. we will bring you more on brexit and what it means for investors. this is bloomberg. ♪ ms. lagarde: i am at a loss as to what is going to happen, but clearly brexit uncertainty is questioning many economic decisions on both sides of the channel. nejra: christine lagarde has preparing to take the helm of the european central bank as the first woman in history to leave the institution. more highlights throughout the morning. breaking news the bloomberg in the last few minutes, estonia ex-desk as found the ceo in estonia found dead, so police are confirming that the anske ceo has been found dead. president trump is cutting short his trip to the yuan -- boris johnson is cutting ship his trip to the u.n after the supreme court ruled. a suspension of premiership was unlawful. still with us is panmure gordon's simon french. carsten, welcome to the show. guest: i do not think anything has changed. we ne

lord pannick was on his feet yesterday morning for gina miller, putting that case against the governmentn was unlawful and why it effectively stymied parliamentary solidarity. —— why prorogation. today i think they will start with the question of where can the court get involved and where does the court will draw the line and say, this is actually not a legal matter anymore, this is about politics and policy, and that will be the real ci’ux policy, and that will be the real crux of sirjames eadie plus max emissions this morning. is that how you see it, alison young? yes, i think he will look at the legal standard that lord pannick suggested and say that there is no legal standard present. we have heard about proper purpose and improper purpose. there was a discussion yesterday about when you have a powerful statute, you can look at that to work out what the purposes, but this is not a power that comes from statute, it is a common law power that comes from, what we talked about in the first miller case. a prerogative power. there is no way for the law to latch onto a proper and improper p

john major and gina miller believe they can legally challenge the advice the prime minister gives her, another attempt to try to stop the process that the government is following, and it is the prorogation of parliament in that particular aspect. joining me now is james johnson, former pollster to theresa may. that sets up a sensational prospect ofa that sets up a sensational prospect of a former tory prime minister taking on the current tory prime minister. give us your quick reaction to that. thisjust shows how we are in the battle of the heart of the conservative party, whether in court, in parliament or on the airwaves, the conservative party is fighting over its future. it certainly seems the only way that could end is a general election. and obviously, those on the different sides within the tory party believe they are representing what the tory party should be. you are a pollster. what is the internal messaging in that? the messaging that number 10 are gearing up for as this message about, get brexit done so we can get onto these other issues, public services. that message of g

remain campaigner gina miller's lawyer argued the outcome should be the immediate recall of mps.a declaration, that the prime minister will ensure that parliament resumes as soon as possible next week. we will now consider carefully all the arguments which are being presented to us. but we also know that this case must be resolved as quickly as possible, and we hope to be able to publish our decision early next week. if they follow past practice, the justices will come together in the next few days and each in turn will give their view, starting with the newest member of the supreme court and finishing with the president, lady hale. it is, as she said, a serious and difficult question of law. and for the world outside the courtroom, a question with profound implications for the great institutions of state, for our democracy and for citizens of a troubled kingdom. mark easton, bbc news, the supreme court. aside from a court battle, borisjohnson also has to deal with the eu. earlier, our political editor laura kuennsberg sent this update. aside from the court, which is just on the

the lawyer for gina miller. and he is one of the leading advocates. —— pannick.iscussions between them and they managed to get themselves to a majority, it can go that way and if it doesn't it could it is extremely difficult to call. alison, i know you studied these things carefully, the 11 justices, individually some have different views really on whether the courts should intervene in this case so in a way, is it crucial, the floating judges in the middle, who might be persuaded either way? in some senses, yes, it's not to say they have different political decisions, it's to recognise some of them look more closely at case law, some of them think it's legitimate for the courts to intervene more than others and so they will be drawing on past cases, past understanding of how far the logo and also within the supreme court you have those who are more expert in public law and those who are more expert in family law commercial lots of they will be sharing expertise and talking to each other and i think they will be drawing on those cases and working out which way to

gina miller launched a judicial review case at the high court.saying the suspension of parliament was "purely political" and therefore "not a matter for the courts". that's not the conclusion of the scottish judges today. so two courts with two very different opinions — and those decisions will now collide next week at the uk's supreme court in london. it will give a definitive ruling on whether the prime minister acted unlawfully. not sure what we'd do today without the bbc‘s legal correspondent, clive coleman. here he is. it's incredible, isn't it? you could scarcely have two more contradictoryjudgements. the scottish one finding that the prime minister acted unlawfully, because his purpose 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

gina miller joining us, scm private sounder.e: coming up, and exclusive interview from italy with the five president of turkey. this is bloomberg. ♪ vonnie: live from new york, i'm vonnie quinn. guy: from london, i'm guy johnson. this is "bloomberg markets." now time for an exclusive interview. "bloomberg surveillance" cohost francine lacqua is standing by in italy. francine: thank you so much. this is one of the interviews we've been most looking forward to today. this is slightly different to the economy and monetary focus on geopolitics. we are with fuat oktay, vice president of turkey. thank you for being with us. are we risking another migration crisis? vp oktay: unfortunately, yes. especially in syria and especially in idlib, the situation is not that good. for thebeen trying hard past couple of years to keep the peace intact in that part of the region. we have a process with russia and getting iran into the picture. we were able to get a secured area, and cleaning up that area from terrorist groups, providing a safe haven

afterwards, gina miller told the bbc the fight wasn't over. in the case was not dismissed and we did not get a judgement in our favour so it was not win or lose but what we did get was that the case had serious merit and a referral up to the supreme court on the 17th of september and what we have now is an important case especially at this time where it will be back on the table next week, front and centre where we believe this request was a abuse of the prime minister's powers and we are seeing everyday things are changing and parliament should be there and it will be heard in the highest court in the land. in fact we would argue that it is being heard in the right place to be heard in the supreme court. the chief constable of west yorkshire police says he's "disappointed" that his officers were used as a "backdrop" to a political speech by borisjohnson on brexit yesterday. john robins said it was the understanding of the force that any involvement of their officers was "solely" about the government's police recruitment drive and that they'd

afterwards, gina miller told the bbc the fight wasn't over.'t dismissed. we didn't get a judgment in our favour, it wasn't a win or lose, what we did get was an acknowledgement that the case has serious merit and a referral up to the supreme court on the 17th of september. what we now have is a very important case, especially at this time when prorogation will be back on the table next week. in front and centre. when we believe this request for prorogation was a abuse of the prime minister's powers. we are seeing everyday things are changes in polymer should be sitting there. it is a crucial case and will be heard in the most important and highest court in the land. so, whilst it wasn't a win, it wasn't to lose either. we would argue it is being heard in the right place, to be heard in the supreme court. and we'll find out how this story — and many others — are covered in tomorrow's front pages at 10:40 and 11:30 this evening in the papers — our guests joining me tonight are the evening standard's martin bentham and bonnie greer from the new e

they've grown exponentially from the early 1980s, and they allow a citizen, somebody like gina miller 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 const

outside court, there was jubilation among supporters of the businesswoman gina miller, one of those who a nation governed by the rule of law. laws that everyone, even the prime minister, is not above. across the atlantic in new york, the prime minister said that while he respected the court, he did not agree with its ruling. i have the highest respect of course for ourjudiciary and the independence of our courts but i must say, i strongly disagree with thisjudgement. in brighton, at the labour conference, jeremy corbyn said the prime minister wasn't fit to be in office. borisjohnson has boris johnson has been borisjohnson has been found to have misled the country. this unelected prime minister should now resign. following the collapse of thomas cook, thousands more british holidaymakers have been brought home today. and at 11:30, we'll be taking an in—depth look at the papers with our reviewers, the political commentator jo—anne nadler and stephen bush, the political editor of new statesman. good evening and welcome to bbc news. in a momentous ruling, the british supreme court has ruled

gina miller, talking to us from westminster.se. we heard jeremy corbyn earlier in brighton at the party conference referring to this, along with many other things in terms of policy, so let's pick up with the shadow chancellor, labour's john let's pick up with the shadow chancellor, labour'sjohn mcdonnell. thank you forjoining us from brighton. i am just thinking, first of all, let's be very clear. labour is calling today for borisjohnson to resign. very clear. labour is calling today for boris johnson to resign. yes. jeremy said earlier in parliamentary language should consider his position. having directly interpreted that, that means he should resign. ithink interpreted that, that means he should resign. i think the conservative party now itself has to consider this matter and take a decision and question the wisdom of them installing borisjohnson as leader of their party and prime minister. we've never been in this situation before, where there has been a prime minister basically brought against by the supreme court, a prime

no standards against which it can bejudged but on the other hand lawyers for the businesswoman gina millerpension 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. are legal affairs correspondent. 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 university of bristol. welcome to you both. perhaps it was just me but i thought it was an engrossing day today, starting with you, what was your take on the day‘s advanced? i was on the edge of my seat today. we saw some of the stron

, my understanding is that there is a hearing date that has been set aside for the 17th for the gina milleris on its way to the supreme court, which case would be heard first? indeed, the supreme court has the power to roll them up and hear them together, that is rather what happened with gina miller's first case, after she challenge the triggering of the article 50 process, so we could see that happening again in what would be frankly a huge... i that happening again in what would be franklya huge... i mean, gina miller's initial case was the biggest constitutional case we have seenin biggest constitutional case we have seen in decades and this would be every bit as big, if not bigger. 0k, clive, thank you very much for taking us through all of that, clive coleman, our legal affairs correspondent. we do have to speak tojoanna correspondent. we do have to speak to joanna cherry correspondent. we do have to speak tojoanna cherry of correspondent. we do have to speak to joanna cherry of the correspondent. we do have to speak tojoanna cherry of the snp very soon, but right now, let's take a lo

breaking news from the high court, it has rejected the challenge mounted by gina miller.judges have given us permission is to appeal to the supreme court, which we will be doing. and they felt that our case has the merit to be handed up. so we are looking to sit in the supreme court, they have pencilled in the 17th of september for the appeal hearing. today, we stand for everyone. we stand for the future generations and we stand for representative democracy. to give up now would be a dereliction of our responsibility. we need to protect our institutions. it is not right that they should be shut down or bullied. especially at this most mess “— bullied. especially at this most mess —— most momentous time in our history. my legal team and i will not give up the fight for democracy. thank you. business women gina miller mounted that challenge in the high court to the proroguing or suspension of parliament. other legal actions are underweight you may be aware of. similar hearings in scotland and also in northern ireland. and the case at the high court was joined by former tory

but on the other side, lord pannick who led for gina miller said you are looking at this through the this is about a junior partner, the prime minister. he is depriving the power of the senior partner, parliament. parliament is being denied the right to sit and ask questions of the executive. it is a critical moment and that is where the legal standard comes from, that the court can resort to to say that the parliament has been deprived of its rights. i think it is a very, very tense situation. if the judges to stray into what was described as forbidden territory and they do say boris johnson acted unlawfully, what follows ? johnson acted unlawfully, what follows? and that, i think the thrust of the debate says the justices have got over the idea on whether or not they can decide on the case. it looks like we are in the case. it looks like we are in the territory of how to decide the case. 0n the government side they are saying if the prime minister loses it should be for the prime minister alone to decide what to do next. the scottish side of the case, which was before the court of

campaigner gina miller originally brought that case and is appealing.which found mrjohnson had acted unlawfully. the government is appealing this ruling. here's the lawyer representing those who argue that the scottish ruling should be upheld. in the present case, it appears that the prime minister's actions in proroguing parliament has had the intent and effect of preventing parliament, impeding parliament, from holding the government politically to account, at a time when the government is taking decisions that will have constitutional and irreversible impacts. here are the thought of the bbc‘s legal correspondent clive coleman. much of the item and has been had, and lawyers from the government addressing 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 gi

well that was gina miller the u.k. businesswoman and outspoken breaks of the poet who helped launch the opposition to suspending parliament the case of course that was decided today by the u.k. supreme court it was quite a day for the court to discuss that i'm joined tonight by the doctors who will grow in the u.k. lecture of u.k. of all specialist dr grossman it's good to have you back on the show you have been a busy woman today and you're like many of us you've called this decision unprecedented team times today and before before let's talk about that let's get the essential the news essential is out of the way besides having the highest court in the land implying that he pulled one over the queen has anything changed for prime minister boris johnson has anything changed about rex. how almost everything has changed right now you're absolutely right we've had this priem court of the united kingdom and one of the most powerful judgments i think i've ever read in my life 11 supreme court justices this means a full cour

in the courts. like gina miller who says i don't agree and back in the courtsm like gina miller whoge would be successful. if it would be successful, then you better not do it. other work here, the prime minister advisers and the prime minister advisers and the prime minister advisers and the prime minister went over the top and went far beyond what was appropriate and the court has slapped it down and the court has slapped it down and said no. you cannot do this. so next time, i think the advice will bea next time, i think the advice will be a little bit more careful. thank you both forjoining us. maybe i need to pick up a copy of the gazette. i feel like an expert now. let's hear a little more of thatjudgement in the uk supreme court. this is the moment the court's president lady hale announced its dramatic ruling: this court has already concluded that the prime minister's advised to her majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. this means that the order in council to which it lead was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. this means that when the royal co

remain campaigner gina miller's lawyer argued the outcome should be the immediate recall of mps. do anything to ensure that parliament meet next week? it may be that the speaker of the house of commons and the lord's speaker in the house of lords will take action to ensure that parliament reopens as soon as possible next week, it is a matter for them, and then parliament can debate. if they follow past practice, the justices will come together in the next few days and each in turn will give their view, starting with the newest member of the supreme court and finishing with the president, lady hale, with a decision next week. it is, as she said, a serious and difficult question of law. cheering and booing and for the world outside the courtroom, a question with profound implications for the great institutions of state, for our democracy and for the citizens of a troubled kingdom. mark easton, bbc news, the supreme court. a 20—year—old man who had been accused of murdering a police officer last month has had the charges against him dropped. pc andrew harper, who was 28, was killed

accusations of lying and dirty tricks inside, aggressive barracking by brexit supporters outside, as gina miller the government, left the court. to the gallows! respect the referendum, miller! anger is in evidence. mark easton, bbc news, the supreme court. the prime minister of luxembourg, xavier bettel, has denied that he tried to humiliate borisjohnson after hosting a press conference without him on monday. mr bettel delivered his statement to journalists next to an empty podium and the union flag. speaking to the bbc today, mr bettel dismissed allegations that it was a deliberate snub and blamed logistical issues. he's been speaking to our europe editor katya adler. remember this? faced by a crowd of anti—brexit protesters on monday, borisjohnson pulled out of a planned open—air press conference in luxembourg. his host decided to go it alone, giving vent to obvious frustration with the brexit process next to an empty podium. accidental undiplomacy or intentional humiliation? we had a situation where i thought we should go and we should speak to the people and tell them to have respect to prim

representing the remain campaigner gina miller against the government, lord pannick told the justicesthe 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. today, lord pannick focused on the relationship between mps in parliament and the government, headed by the pm in downing street, describing ministers as the junior partner. he also argued the courts were entitled to rule on the legality of number 10'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 pannic

boris johnson's own party and this call for parliament to assemble immediately was mirrored by gina miller for example the business woman who brought forward and. they speak volumes this prime minister must have the doors of parliament tomorrow m.p.'s must get back and be brave and bold in hoping this good government to account thank you. so the government is being now held to account after the supreme court ruling but this whole mess if you can call it that we've seen was actually as a result of briggs said what does this decision mean now for brits of the dead done with the 31st of october. well the presiding judge said that she she make clear that this ruling is not about bracks it but of course it is all about bricks that at least on the political in a political matter so we might see parliament reconvene tomorrow and we really don't know how this directive saga will drag on then because parliament of course now had 3 years to debate this matter and it's not clear where they want to go one possibility is that we will see another extension to the bracks a deadline of beyond october 31st